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?

[Melanie Sonnenberg, President, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for inviting the federation to appear today.

The Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation is the national advocacy voice for the over 12,000 independent harvesters who land most of Canada's seafood. Collectively we employ a crew of about 30,000.

We are the people who produce most of Canada’s lobster, crab, wild salmon, shrimp and groundfish. Our seafood landings put Canada among the top fishing nations in the world and make us the single largest private sector employer in the majority of our coastal communities across Canada.

Canada's fishery sector was hit particularly hard in January by COVID-19, which is earlier than other sectors. The seasonal nature of the fishery has left it exceptionally hard hit by the pandemic, with critical decisions centred around the ability of harvesters to survive the present market conditions and financial crisis that has impacted the industry. Canada's fish harvesters are facing very difficult times, and we hope that, by appearing today, we can identify some of the gaps and issues that have arisen as a result of the situation around COVID-19.

The federation has been closely following the various emergency support programs announced by the Government of Canada in response to the economic crisis caused by COVID-19. Of particular interest to our members has been the Canada emergency business account, the seafood stabilization fund, Farm Credit Canada, the Canadian emergency relief benefit, the Canada emergency wage subsidy, and just recently, the fish harvester benefit program.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of our industry as well as the various restrictions and the limitations on the programs, it is difficult, if not impossible, for some fish harvesters to access the programs as they are presently structured. More adjustments need to be made to assist harvesters, but there are, almost certainly, others who will fall between the cracks if we do not proactively take steps to prevent devastating losses to our independent harvester fleets across the country.

Considering the unique situation of our industry and our ability to provide a secure food source to Canadians, we wish to highlight the following concerns that exist for harvesters. The fish harvesters relief package that was announced May 14 was welcome news. Now harvesters urgently need details, eligibility requirements and when funds are going to be released.

We acknowledge there is considerable work to get the program going, but those in industry who are not eligible for other programs urgently require financial assistance. The new enterprise owner-operator who is just beginning a business in the fishery and has no financial history continues to be left out of most programs. Dedicated resources must be given to this important issue, and we need to collectively work together to find solutions for this segment of the industry.

The federation was formed over eight years ago as a need to protect the independent harvesters across Canada. Independent harvester fleets were highlighted in the legislation that was adopted last June by Parliament through Bill C-68. The bill identified the need to protect and promote this important part of our industry. Because of the financial crisis, large corporations, both inside the country and out, are in a position to acquire our enterprises. These acquisitions include the use of controlling agreements, which are under-the-table deals that give access to our public resources in a way that was never intended nor compliant with regulations and DFO policy. Most importantly, under COVID-19, we must not allow the erosion of this policy. The Canadian ownership in the fishery is important, and this erosion is happening now and will weaken our national food security.

Presently there is a regulatory package that is waiting to move from Canada Gazette part I to Canada Gazette part II. It is imperative that this is supported and completed, as it gives the department more strength to support the legislative piece on owner-operators that I previously mentioned. This is an urgent matter that is directly related to the pandemic in light of the financial vulnerability of the industry. We must not stand by and let owner-operators be further eroded in the face of the pandemic.

Innovative market solutions must be explored to support the industry both domestically and abroad. The situation in British Columbia is unique, given their vertically integrated, corporate-style fishery. As noted in FOPO's west coast benefits report last year, the need to protect B.C.'s independent harvesters is critical. COVID-19 has made the situation even worse, with last season's lease prices holding many harvesters hostage. Coastal communities will continue to decline if action is not taken to address the recommendations of the report.

With multiple fishery surveys cancelled, COVID-19 is directly in the way of collecting scientific information needed for the sustainable management of our fisheries. Independent harvesters stand willing to work with the department's scientists to ensure that critical data and information is collected. Additional resources are needed to support this important and necessary work. Presently, science is not deemed essential but it is supporting an industry that is essential. Therefore, we need science to be recognized as essential in support of the fishery as well. That would ensure that we have responsible management and continued industry access through strong science advice.

It is important to emphasize how urgently these issues and gaps need to be addressed on behalf of our industry. The seasonal nature of our fisheries makes recovery throughout the rest of the year extremely difficult. Without strong, comprehensive support, the future livelihood of many independent fish harvesters and, in turn, the economy of many of Canada's coastal communities are in doubt.

The challenge of this pandemic has demonstrated that now more than ever it's important to support domestic and international food supply chains, and that includes our seafood. We stand ready to assist your officials to ensure fish harvesters do not fall through the cracks. Please accept our offer of ongoing support and dialogue to protect the economic well-being of our vibrant coastal communities.

Thank you for your time and attention on this matter. By working together, we can ensure that our Atlantic and Pacific fisheries remain a viable renewable industry and that they support Canada's economic recovery.

In closing, I'd like to again thank the members of the committee for inviting us here today and for hosting the panel on the challenges facing the industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. We trust that through our work together we can ensure that our vital industry is not overlooked. I'm looking forward to your questions.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a huge honour to table e-petition 2512, which was signed by 1,198 petitioners, primarily from the province of Nova Scotia.

The Province of Nova Scotia invited multinational companies to scope out and develop expansive open-net salmon farming operations. The petitioners cite that the expansion would increase environmental degradation, as seen in similar aquaculture operations in British Columbia, Newfoundland, Norway, Vietnam and elsewhere in the world. It also, they cite, would pose risks to native fish stocks, pollute coastal ecosystems, impair at-risk wild Atlantic salmon, and threaten established fisheries and tourism operations. They also raise concerns that open-net fish farming would not create significant employment and would undermine existing lobster and other fisheries.

They are calling on the government to uphold Bill C-68 and species-at-risk legislation, protect our oceans, ban expansion of open-net finfish aquaculture in our oceans, work to phase out any existing open-net fish farming operations currently in place and, lastly, invest in land-based, closed-containment finfish aquaculture.

I want to thank these petitioners for fighting for clean oceans, for their local economy and for the well-being of Nova Scotia.

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

I don't really have, I think, a direct answer for that. The one thing I can add is that as a result of implementation of the new Bill C-68, major fish stock provisions, throughout the Atlantic zones—so within the four regions—science is undertaking work that is related to this, and herring is one of our case studies.

What we're trying to do with that is we're both increasing some of the targeted surveys throughout the zone—so that includes the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Newfoundland—and also looking at ways to augment some of the information we are collecting. This is relatively new and hot off the press, so we'll have to stay tuned and see if that bears fruit.

I'll come back to one of the questions I answered earlier. You know, we are confident in the science that we do provide. When we think about what we mean by the term “uncertain”, it's not that we don't know what's going on with the stock; it's that we haven't defined the reference point under our precautionary approach framework.

We do have surveys for, I think, all of those major stock units, and we have fishery information as well, so from a science perspective we can communicate what has happened and, using our population models and forecasts, we can provide some levels of prediction of what may happen in the future under various management regimes or climate regimes. However, at the moment we are not able to diagnose directly or to link either an environmental factor or something else directly to stock decline.

Opposition Motion—The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleague from Carleton. As a new father, I know that he considers this a very important debate. I know he takes this matter very seriously.

It is all about a better future for our children. The Minister of Environment has said that lots of times in this House, very loudly and very passionately. We all strive to leave our country better off for those who will come after us. This debate is about the future. It is about ensuring our children have a better future.

It has been interesting over the last three and a half years and indeed over the last couple weeks as we debate Bill C-48, Bill C-68, Bill C-69 and Bill C-88. Again, on the virtue-signalling motion that we had last night, Motion No. 29, everybody wants to know how everybody voted. I was travelling, I landed and all of a sudden the media wanted to know how we voted on it. Motion No. 29 does nothing. It declares that we all agree there is a climate emergency, but there is nothing behind it. There are no critical steps behind it to actually make things better. We have a carbon tax that the Liberal government implemented that does nothing but punish Canadians who live in rural communities.

I want to read something into the record.

“...to constrain the growth of...production by increasing the perception of financial risks by potential investors and by choking off the necessary infrastructure (inputs and outputs)...[the campaign’s original strategy states]. We will accomplish this by raising the visibility of the negatives associated with...[the production]; initiating legal challenges in order to force government and corporate decision-makers to take steps that raise the costs of production and block delivery infrastructure; and by generating support for federal and state legislation that pre-empts future demand for tar sands oil.

It also says this: How are we going to do that? Demarketing, raise the negatives, raise the costs, slow down and stop the infrastructure, enrol key decision-makers, goals, we want to influence debate, a moratorium, strategy, stop or limit pipelines, refineries, significantly reduce future demand for Canadian oil, leverage debate for policy victories in the U.S. and Canada, resources required, first nations and other legal challenges, public mobilization in Ontario and Quebec.

Members would be forgiven if they thought that was the mandate letter for the Minister of Environment. That is exactly what we are up against, the dogma that we hear, that is spread, the language that we hear time and again.

Bill C-68, Bill C-69, Bill C-48, Bill C-88, and Motion No. 29 are all aimed at our natural resources, and somehow Canada produces dirty products and our producers are going the way of just polluting our world.

It is interesting that the carbon tax targets soccer moms and small businesses, but does not go up against the very same polluters of the campaigns, Greenpeace, TIDES, the World Wildlife Fund and all these groups that now have executives or members who are former executives in the highest offices of the Liberal government. It does nothing. It gives those very same polluters a pass.

There is no denying that climate change is real. Humans contribute to the problem. We all must do our part to address the problem, but a carbon tax is not a climate plan. The Prime Minister does not have a climate plan, he has a tax plan.

Time and again it has been said that my province of British Columbia is seen as a success, yet we have had a carbon tax for over 10 years. When it was first introduced, it was supposed to be revenue-neutral, and now it is not. It goes in one hand and stays in the government coffers. It was supposed to lower emissions, and we know that that is not the case.

Over the last two summers, we have had some of the worst wildfires in our province's history. In my riding alone, we have had the worst fire season, the largest mass evacuation in our province's history.

I have stood in this House and asked how high the carbon tax has to be before we start to see those wildfires and natural disasters mitigated and lessened. I cannot seem to get an answer. As a matter of fact, I was laughed at when I asked that question.

The Liberals have pandered to the environmental lobbyists for the last four years. As a matter of fact, what we are seeing today with the legislation and all this virtue signalling they are doing with their hands on their hearts is payback for the 2015 election. Leading into this next election, they want to make sure that they are solidly behind them.

They have had four years to come out with a real plan, and the best they can do is a carbon tax. The Minister of Environment stands up here and shouts loudly so that we will all believe her, yet time and again, she has approved the dumping of millions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways.

A great Senate amendment came forward regarding third-party habitat banking, and I will go back to Bill C-68, where we talked about that. Where there is displacement of fish or fish habitat because of a project, it would allow the government to enlist people who are experts to create fish habitat. However, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his department turned that down, and we heard testimony that they were the only people around the table who did not seem interested in creating fish habitat.

The Liberals like to stand up there, with all their environmental credits and their peeps behind them, saying that what they are doing is for the good of the country. We know that all they are doing is making things less affordable for those of us who live in rural communities.

I do not know if there is a fuel available that can power a logging truck or a freight truck. Our forestry sector has taken a massive hit since the current government has been in power, because we do not have a softwood lumber agreement. I will not put all the forestry downturn on the current government. However, it could have taken some major steps forward in assisting our forestry industry by securing a softwood lumber agreement.

We live in rural areas. Many of our first nations live off-grid. They have to power their communities with diesel. What has the government done to lift any of those first nations off their dependency on diesel and fossil fuels?

What about rural communities? At one point, we were a resource-driven economy. However, we know from the Prime Minister's very first speech that, under his government, our country has become known more for our resourcefulness than our natural resources. I guess that was a promise he has kept, because we have seen the government attack our natural resources sector time and again.

As we speak, there are forestry families who are receiving more layoff notices in my riding and in my home province of British Columbia. They do not have other projects or other opportunities to go to. What will they do? What is it that our Minister of Environment said? There is $500 million worth of opportunity. Where is it? It is not in our rural communities. In some of our northern climates, we cannot plug any of our school buses in. We cannot plug logging trucks or freight trucks in. We need them to get our goods to market.

Everything this carbon tax does makes the way of life in rural communities more expensive. This is not an environmental plan. It is a revenue plan, and it is on the backs of rural communities and rural Canadians. That is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I think of our environment, virtually from day one, this government has had a developing climate action plan that is healthy for the environment and the economy at the same time. We often talk about Canada's middle class, those aspiring to be a part of it and helping them through different measures. We recognize that we can do both at the same time. We can continue to develop the economy and ensure we have a healthier planet for future generations.

I want to highlight a few thoughts and then provide a little more detail on some of the politics.

When we look at the budgets and legislative measures, it is fairly impressive. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars through budgetary measures over the last few years, such as over $2.3 billion in funding to support clean technology in one form or another; $21.9 billion in green infrastructure funding, which will support things like electricity infrastructure, renewable energy and so forth; and $2 billion for disaster mitigation and adaptation funding.

Along with these budgetary measures, we have legislative measures, such Bill C-48, the oil tanker ban; Bill C-69, the environmental assessment legislation; our fisheries in Bill C-68.

From day one, this government has been on track to bring forward positive legislation and budgetary measures. This demonstrates very clearly that we understand how important the environment is not only to Canadians but to the world. These types of actions put Canada in a good place with respect to strong international leadership on this very important file. I believe Canadians want us to do this as a government.

We can look at some of the initiatives that government can take, and we hear a great deal about the price on pollution. For years now, the Conservative Party has been a lone voice in the House of Commons. The New Democrats, the Greens and, to the best of my knowledge, the Bloc understand that a price on pollution is the best way to go. It is not only the parties in the chamber, but it is very well received in many provincial and territorial jurisdictions. In fact, the majority of them already had some form of a price on pollution in place.

When we are talking about the national price on pollution, we are talking about areas where there is no plan in place, where there is no price on pollution and the federal government is imposing one. The good new is that 80%-plus of constituents I represent as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North will be better off financially as a direct result of the price on pollution. However, the Conservatives in their spin and misinformation that they funnel out of their Conservative war room virtually on a daily basis are telling Canadians something that is vastly different from reality and truth. This is not a cash grab.

The Conservatives ask about the GST on fuel at the pumps. I remind them that they put the cascading tax on the pump price. I remind the Conservatives that their Party ignored the environment to the degree that it now demands the type of attention it has been given over the last few years. We just voted last night on the emergency facing our environment. Once again, the Liberals, the Greens, the Bloc and the CCF all voted yes that we did need to take the environment far more seriously. They recognized that it as an emergency. Only the Conservative Party voted against that motion.

The Conservatives say they have a plan. They have been saying that for a long time now. For the last 400-plus days, all they have been doing is criticizing the price on pollution, even though it is widely respected and acknowledged as the best way to deal the reduction of emissions.

However, now Doug Ford has apparently met with the federal Conservative leader and hammered out a plan. Tomorrow, Mr. Ford will share his plan with the rest of Canada. He took Ontario out of the old plan,. Now he will present a national plan, worked on with the federal Conservative Party. I look forward to seeing that plan. A little more transparency on the environment is long overdue when it comes to the Conservative Party of Canada.

It would be nice to compare our plan with the Conservative plan. Our plan talks about hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in clean energy and working with the different stakeholders. I will provide some tangible examples. In the last budget, there was an incentive for individuals to buy electric vehicles. Other provinces, like the beautiful province of Quebec, had a complementary program that would give the residents of Quebec a more substantial discount. Tesla reduced the price on a vehicle in order to get under the threshold. The biggest winner in this is the consumer, followed by the environment.

Governments can make a difference. To get a better appreciation of that, look at what happened in the taxi industry in the province of Manitoba with the Prius car. It was through government action. Government actions can make a difference. We came in with a plan after working with indigenous communities, provincial governments, municipalities, school boards and the private sector in developing ways to reduce emissions in every region of our country.

Through this debate, I have learned that the Conservative Party opposes supporting private sector initiatives with public dollars. That became very clear in the last number of weeks. I am anxious to see how the Conservatives might spin on that dime as they try to convince Canadians they care about the environment. In reality, there has been no indication that is the case.

Fisheries Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 28, 2019, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to Bill C-68.

The question is on the amendment.

The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, and of the amendment.

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely reject the premise of that question. This type of legislation, along with our larger approach for environmental protections and growing the economy, is designed to help bring the country together.

I am not surprised to get those kinds of comments from the Conservative opposition. It is the only party in the House that voted against the legislation in the first place. The opposition has opposed Bill C-55, Bill C-68 and changes that protect by increasing our MPAs.

The opposition has also failed with respect to the economy. The last two Conservative governments have accrued over 72% of the total debt of the entire history of the debt in Canada. We cannot afford to have those guys back in power again.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on what is likely the last sitting week of the 42nd Parliament, I appreciate the opportunity to outline both the necessity and benefits of Bill C-48, otherwise known as the oil tanker moratorium act. Let me begin by reminding members that Bill C-48 is the fulfillment of an election promise made in 2015. It was later included in both the minister's mandate letter and the Speech from the Throne.

Bill C-48 would provide an unprecedented level of environmental protection for the northern coast of British Columbia and the adjoining Great Bear Rainforest, one of the most pristine and unspoiled places left in Canada, and indeed the world. The Great Bear Rainforest represents approximately one-quarter of the world's remaining temperate rainforest. It is an extraordinarily rich and productive ecosystem that is often described as one of the lungs of the world because of its high oxygen production. The forest is largely intact due to special measures taken by both the federal and provincial governments over many years and by the relentless efforts of local people, including indigenous communities, to protect this extremely valuable ecosystem.

Bill C-48 would be complementary to these efforts, as well as the long-standing and well-respected voluntary tanker exclusion zone agreement between Canada and the United States that keeps Alaskan tankers like the Exxon Valdez far from our coast. Bill C-48 would effectively formalize into legislation a long-standing federal policy dating back to at least the 1970s not to allow large tanker traffic off of the northern coast of British Columbia. In fact, on my first trip to Haidi Gwaii, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries and oceans at the time, I procured three posters that were used as fundraisers to campaign for this initial tanker ban in the 1970s, one of which is hanging in my constituency office in Burnaby.

Speaking to local residents, they are concerned about their environment and their way of life. A 2012 study reviewing offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia estimates the total annual benefits of marine-dependent activities in the traditional territories of coastal first nations at more than $30 billion. Unlike other regions in Canada, this policy legacy ensures that there is no existing tanker traffic near this coast. This means that formalizing the moratorium will not disrupt any current jobs or economic activity in the region. In fact, it would help protect existing industries, including fisheries, aquaculture and ecotourism.

Bill C-48 would continue to allow for the shipment of non-persistent oils. What this means is that communities along the north coast of British Columbia would continue to be open to economic development opportunities, including the recently announced $40-billion infrastructure project in Kitimat, B.C. Bill C-48 would not affect the estimated 10,000 jobs that are attached to that particular project. Very importantly, Bill C-48 would help to preserve the cultural and spiritual way of life of coastal first nations. As such, it is part of the Government of Canada's larger commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. As we know, this is something that our government and our Prime Minister consider to be of the highest priority.

Members will recall that Bill C-48 was debated and studied in the House in 2017 and 2018. It was ultimately passed by the elected members of the House of Commons in May 2018, by a vote of 204 to 85. With the support of the Liberal Party of Canada, the NDP, the Green Party and the Groupe parlementaire du Parti québécois, only the Conservatives voted against it.

I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, whose riding largely overlaps with the proposed moratorium zone and who has been a long-time advocate of formalizing the tanker ban into legislation. Along with our colleague from Vancouver Quadra, he has introduced private member's bills in previous Parliaments proposing a tanker ban, albeit through a different mechanism. He has been working with our government to secure support for this important bill in the other place, and his co-operation is greatly appreciated.

This bill was referred to the other place on May 9, 2018, and has been studied and debated there until just last week, more than a year before it was passed with an amendment and sent back to this chamber. I am grateful for the work undertaken in the other chamber, particularly during report stage and third reading. If colleagues have not had an opportunity to read or listen to some of these debates, I would encourage them to do so. They will be impressed by the high level and seriousness of the debate. Those debates ultimately led to the amendment that is before us today.

The Senate is proposing to modify Bill C-48 in a number of ways, most substantively by requiring a two-stage review. First would be a regional assessment that would be led by the Minister of Environment under authorities that would be established once Bill C-69 came into force.

The Minister of Environment would be required to invite the provincial governments of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as indigenous communities in the moratorium area, to enter into an agreement or arrangement respecting the joint establishment of a committee to conduct the regional assessment and the manner in which the assessment is to be carried out. This body would then have up to four years after coming into force to complete the report.

This would then feed into the second stage, a parliamentary review, which would take place five years after coming into force, and which would consider evidence gathered by the regional assessment and conduct further study and hearings before presenting its report to Parliament.

Let me begin by first stating we acknowledge that this is a thoughtful, creative and substantive amendment. We also recognize that the Senate's amendment, including the regional assessment component, is a well-intentioned and honourable attempt to find a compromise between supporters and opponents of the moratorium, as well as an attempt to depoliticize what has turned into a very contentious debate on this bill by requiring a more technical, evidence-based study.

In terms of the government's response, we support the Senate's call for a parliamentary review of Bill C-48 after five years. During report stage debate in the other place, Senator Sinclair remarked:

I too have concerns about the bill because it does constitute what appears to be an absolute ban on tanker traffic in an area, for good reason that might be applicable today, but I’m not so sure it will be applicable in the future.

He went on to state:

When it comes to how we can improve the bill, one of the options I want to talk to the chamber about is whether we might consider allowing for communities to change their minds at some point in the future and if they all agree that the ban should be lifted, then we would allow the bill to say so.

A parliamentary review after five years would allow such a conversation to take place. Committees could look at scientific evidence and new developments, hold meetings outside of Ottawa and provide an opportunity for all interested indigenous communities, provinces and other stakeholders to express their views.

However, for a number of reasons, we respectfully disagree with the Senate's recommendation to undertake a regional assessment. First, we feel this is unnecessary, given the requirement for a parliamentary review, as I just discussed. Secondly, there is consultation fatigue, particularly among communities living in northern B.C. and with coastal first nations, after many years of reviews and studies.

A non-comprehensive list of these reviews include the Senate transport committee study of Bill C-48 in 2019, Transport Canada consultations with communities and stakeholders held in 2016 and 2017 prior to the introduction of Bill C-48, the Canadian environmental assessment and National Energy Board review panel of Enbridge's northern gateway pipeline proposal held between 2010 and 2012, the Natural Resources Canada “Public Review Panel on the Government of Canada Moratorium on Offshore Oil and Gas Activities in the Queen Charlotte Region British Columbia” in 2004, the B.C. scientific review of offshore oil and gas moratorium in 2002, the joint Canada-B.C. “West Coast Offshore Exploration Environmental Assessment Panel” in 1986, the federal West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry in 1977 and last, but not least, the House of Commons special committee on environmental pollution in 1970-1971. I was almost tired going through the whole list, never mind the actual reports themselves.

It is important to note that many of the reviews I mentioned were led by regulators and bureaucrats, not politicians. They looked in detail at scientific evidence in a more technical way than parliamentary committees typically do. However, none of them led to a resolution of the fundamental political disagreements over this issue. At the end of the day, many of the scientific questions about whether or not it is safe or advisable to move crude oil in tankers off this particular coast are endlessly debatable. There is no reason to believe that yet another lengthy and expensive study would bridge these differences of opinion, especially one starting so soon after the coming into force of Bill C-48.

To be clear, the amendment proposes to start yet another review only 180 days after Bill C-48 comes into force. At some point, a decision needs to be taken based on the best evidence available and using the best judgment of parliamentarians about what is fair and reasonable, taking into account the wider Government of Canada approach on energy and the environment and on reconciliation with first nations.

Furthermore, there is, in our view, a need for a cooling-off period and a break to allow passions to settle and to take a breath. Coastal first nations have been fighting for a bill like this for almost 50 years. They deserve a break and some peace of mind.

Finally, the proposed approach would result in a lack of clarity over whether the authority provided to the Minister of Environment in Bill C-48 would be inconsistent or in conflict with the authority provided to the Minister of Environment in Bill C-69.

For all of these reasons, the government is proposing to accept the Senate amendment but in a modified form. We accept the adding of a parliamentary review in five years would come into force, but respectfully disagree with the requirement to hold a regional assessment. We feel this is a fair compromise with our colleagues in the other place and will allow them to achieve much, if not all, of what they intended, namely an opportunity to re-evaluate the law after a number of years.

Turning back to the bill itself, much of the debate on Bill C-48 so far has revolved around the question of why legislation is being proposed that effectively bans oil tankers from operating off the coast of northern British Columbia and not elsewhere in the country. Critics of the bill contend that this is arbitrary and unjustified, but I would argue that nothing could be further from the truth.

As the Minister of Transport explained when he appeared before the Senate transport committee, there are a number of factors that, when combined together, account for the uniqueness of the situation in northern British Columbia and the need for special measures to protect it.

The most obvious unique attribute of British Columbia's pristine north coast is the ecological significance of the area. The coastline runs along one of the last temperate rainforests left in the world and, even more rare, one of the very few to remain largely intact. These kinds of forests are unusually productive and support an extraordinarily rich web of biodiversity. The interface between the marine, coastal and terrestrial environments in this part of B.C. is seamless.

The Senate transport committee heard from experts who testified both to the unusually pristine nature of this ecosystem and to its vulnerability to the effects of a major oil spill. Canada has a kind of jewel in the Great Bear Rainforest which needs to be treasured and preserved for future generations. This is a responsibility we owe not only to ourselves but to the world. The precautionary principle, a principle I debated often within my previous role in fisheries and oceans, is fully justified in this case.

A second distinguishing factor is the long-standing policy legacy, at both the federal and provincial levels, of extending special protections to this part of the country. In essence, Bill C-48 would simply formalize an already well-established policy of barring oil tankers from this coast. As such, it would not be disruptive to any existing industries or employment, very much unlike the case if we were to propose such a moratorium off the coast of Newfoundland or Nova Scotia, or for the St. Lawrence for example.

A third factor that differentiates the northern coast of British Columbia is its shear size and remoteness and the navigational hazards of operating in these waters.

Environment Canada classifies the Hecate Strait as the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world for shipping. Winds of 100 kilometres per hour and waves between eight and 10 metres are not uncommon in both the Hecate Strait and the Dixon Entrance. These combine to make spill response more challenging than in more populated, built-up areas like the south coast, the St. Lawrence or the east coast. Although our government is dramatically boosting our capacity to respond to accidents through our $1.5 billion oceans protection plan, resources cannot be unlimited. It will continue to be the case that northern B.C. will present special challenges, particularly during bad weather which is common on these seas.

Last, Bill C-48 is responding to a more than 40-year campaign by local people, and especially indigenous communities, who live along the coast to formalize the moratorium banning oil tankers. While it is true that opinion among indigenous communities is not universal, a clear majority of these communities that are situated in the proposed moratorium area want to pass this law. Most important, the communities that would be most vulnerable to the impacts of an oil spill, such as the Haida and the Heiltsuk, have campaigned persistently for this bill. As such, it is part of our government's larger commitment to reconciliation with the first nations.

While I am sympathetic to the voices of indigenous groups further inland, which might like to participate in the economic benefits of a future, yet highly notional, pipeline that would go to the northern coast of B.C., I cannot disregard what a major oil spill would mean economically, culturally and spiritually to those who would bear the brunt of its effects. They deserve the peace of mind that Bill C-48 would bring them.

I note as well that coastal first nations have been joined by their neighbours in communities such as the city of Prince Rupert, the village of Queen Charlotte, the district of Kitimat, the city of Terrace, the town of Smithers, and the Skeena-Queen Charlotte regional district, which have all passed resolutions or written letters in support of the moratorium. There is also support by the Province of British Columbia.

In the short time that I have been in the House, I have had the opportunity to work on the government's $1.5 billion oceans protection plan, revisions to the Oceans Act in Bill C-55, restoring protections and introducing modern safeguards to the Fisheries Act via Bill C-68 and working to restore our whale population with our $167 million action plan.

We have expanded our marine protected areas from less than 1% under the previous government to over 8%. At the same time, we have reduced unemployment to historic lows, lifted 825,000 Canadians from poverty and Canadians have created more than a million new jobs.

It is the responsibility of any government to work hard to protect and restore the environment while growing the economy and creating more opportunities for Canadians. To do this successfully, we must balance competing demands and constraints, and I believe Bill C-48 would help us accomplish this balance.

I would like to quote a colleague from the other place, Senator Harder, who recently remarked:

...I hope that, one day, the people of the coast will tell the story of when their grandparents came to Ottawa to pass Bill C-48. I hope [we]...tell the story of how Canadians worked together to save the environment at this testing time.

It is time this bill was passed. I hope our colleagues in the other place will join our government in at long last making this a reality.

Fisheries Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 13, 2019, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-68 now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

Shall I dispense?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the Senate amendments to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, a terribly flawed piece of legislation that erodes the rights of Canadians.

I wish to acknowledge and thank, on behalf of all Canadians, the research team of the Ontario Landowners Association for the work done by the group on Bill C-68, particularly Elizabeth Marshall and Tom Black. The report they prepared but were not able to present to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has been highly informative. Canadians will understand, after my remarks are finished, that when we are working with bad legislation, all the tinkering in the world will not fix the wrong assumptions that are at the heart of this bill.

The Liberal Party is attempting to violate the Constitution by artificially extending its jurisdiction in contradiction to its constitutional limits. It is also trying to do indirectly what it cannot do directly, which has been struck down in the Canadian courts. The federal government does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to expand environmental protection through the Fisheries Act, as this is in violation of provincial jurisdiction, as well as in violation of private rights established under common law, the Constitution Act, 1867, and the letters patent / Crown grant.

Though many laws regulate water and water use, the Fisheries Act remains the only legislation that directly addresses the protection and conservation of fish and fish habitat. Enacted in 1868, the act is one of Canada's oldest pieces of legislation. In 2012, the Fisheries Act was significantly amended.

I am now going to turn to the Senate testimony. We had the OPG, Ontario Power Generation, look at its generation portfolio on hydro power. It determined that it would take an up to 80% increase in instantaneous passage of flow as a principle for meeting the objectives of the new definition of “fish habitat”, and that it would no longer be peaking and holding back water or meeting grid demands, outside of the greenhouse gas emissions impact, which would bear out. That was very important.

The amendments of the Senate involved a move from protecting fish generally to focusing on only prohibiting serious harm to fish that were part of a commercial or aboriginal fishery. That is what the 2012 amendments did. These amendments were common sense in application and were done after listening and acting on the concerns of stakeholders.

The 2012 Conservative amendments respected the Canadian Constitution. It was my pleasure to recommend to the committee reviewing the Conservative amendments a witness to provide practical observations as to why the Fisheries Act needed to be amended.

Jack Maclaren is a multi-generational orchard farmer from my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Jack had the unfortunate experience of having a ditch, hand dug by his grandfather and great-grandfather to collect and direct water to their orchard, declared a navigable waterway after he started to clear a blocked culvert that was flooding the road to his farmhouse.

Needless to say, Jack and many other farmers just like him welcomed the Conservative common sense amendments passed by our government in 2012. The Liberal Party, under the guise of protection of so-called “fish habitat” in unlikely places like Jack's ditch, is actually looking to use the Fisheries Act as environmental legislation, when the federal government has already protections established under the Canada Shipping Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

What really caught my attention on Bill C-68 was the addition in committee of a new concept in Canadian law, the concept of water flow or, as it is referred to in other documents, environmental flow. It was added in subsection 2(2) to amend the act.

Water flow is a hot topic in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. The spring of 2019 now has the dubious distinction of being the worst in recent memory for flooding along the Ottawa River. My constituents are skeptical when the Prime Minister and the member from Ottawa blame every significant weather event on climate change.

They do not believe the Liberal Party leader when he claims a new tax on Canadians, the Liberal carbon tax, will stop the Ottawa River from flooding. The residents of the Ottawa Valley have a suspicion that recent flooding has been caused by either government policy or human error, or some combination of both. They want answers.

The question now being asked is whether the federal government caused the flooding. Were the dam operators instructed to hold back water when they should have been releasing water to meet the federal government's new definitions of fish habitat? These are questions my constituents feel can only be answered by an independent inquiry, an external review.

Expert testimony before the standing committee, which I referred to before, certainly seemed to confirm that the Government of Canada was planning to make flooding on the Ottawa River an annual occurrence, judging by the question asked by a senator to a representative of Ontario Power Generation, which operates the dams on the river. The expert said:

When OPG, Ontario Power Generation, looked at our generation portfolio on hydro power, we determined that we would take an 80 per cent instantaneous passage of flow as a principle for meeting the objectives of the new definition of “fish habitat.” We would no longer be peaking and holding back water or meeting grid demands, outside of the greenhouse gas emissions impact which would bear out.... Everyone can remember the spring of 2017 in Ontario and the Ottawa Valley. We had a once in a generation flood event. We had the capacity to hold water on the watershed with our water management plans. We have detailed some impacts. One of the outcomes was that the city of Montreal would have been under a metre more of water if we had not had the ability to store water on the watershed because of flooding in the Great Lakes.

The first thing that jumped out at me was the comment that Montreal would have been under an additional metre of water had Bill C-68, as it was voted on and passed in the House of Commons by the Liberal Party, been enacted.

The next thing that jumped out while listening to the expert testimony given to that Senate committee on the decision by the Liberal Party to bring forward legislation like Bill C-68 was the limitations that would be placed on one of the cleanest, most renewable and most reliable sources of electricity. It produces almost no greenhouse gases. Canadian hydroelectricity is the envy of the world. Why would Canadians want to throw away that advantage?

A representative from Quebec, who is the president of WaterPower Canada, an organization that represents more than 60% of all electricity produced in Canada, stated:

If Bill C-68 is passed in its current form, its impact on our industry’s ability to operate its current stations and build new ones will be catastrophic.

This led me to do some research on who was lobbying for proposed subsection 2 (2) in Bill C-68, and I then discovered that the controversial clause added during committee was proposed by the Green Party. It was then supported by the Liberal majority to be included in the legislation.

Why was the Liberal Party on the House of Commons committee voting in favour of an amendment put forward by the Green Party that would be so disastrous for Canada? Is the Liberal Party really that afraid of losing votes to the Green Party that it would shift that far left?

I was then introduced to the name of a lobbyist who was on the payroll of the controversial Tides foundation. These foundations are recognized as threats to Canadian democracy. The Tides foundation is a foreign-funded organization that has been identified, among other activities, as funding a campaign to block Canadian pipelines.

Canadians lost $20 billion last year by being held a captive seller to American big oil interests. Tides Canada's American parent foundation, the Tides foundation, from which it receives funding, has been funding dam busting in the western United States, so it is no surprise that the U.S. foundation would fund similar activities in Canada.

Registered as a lobbyist for Tides Canada, Tony Maas could count on some powerful friends in the Liberal Party, starting with the now disgraced former principal secretary to the Prime Minister, Gerald Butts. Tony Maas worked for Gerald Butts when Butts was at the World Wildlife Fund. With the puppet master on his side, Maas figured he could get anything he wanted.

Maas had moved from the World Wildlife Fund to run a project funded by Tides Canada on water. In that capacity, the decision was made to use the Liberal campaign promise to make amendments to the Fisheries Act to move forward with a radical agenda on water by introducing a totally new concept in Canadian law on water flow. This was done by avoiding fisheries departmental scrutiny when Bill C-68 was first introduced to the House of Commons and waiting until committee, after second reading, to inject proposed subsection 2(2) into the bill. By doing this, checks and balances that normally occur in a department before legislation is introduced could be avoided.

The concept of water flows, or environmental flows, comes from the 2007 globalist document the Brisbane declaration. Like many globalist documents, the words written do not match with reality. While it is next to impossible to build any new hydroelectric power dams, as identified by the president of WaterPower Canada, the declaration envisages the eventual removal of existing dams in favour of flood plain restoration and the return of free-flowing rivers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I that we all want to see healthy fish stocks, prosperous fisheries and a thriving economy, and I believe all those are possible at the same time. We can achieve that by using Canadian technology, Canadian ingenuity and Canadian investment. We can do all that and rebuild our declining fish stocks.

We have national conservation organizations, like Ducks Unlimited, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, local fishing game clubs and stream keeper organizations ready to create and improve fish habitat. Using Canadian technology, Canadian ingenuity and Canadian investment in proactive ways that would actually see fish habitat increased and improved in advance of projects would ensure prosperous fisheries and a thriving economy. This could all be made possible under the third-party habitat banking amendments being put forward by the Senate.

Before the Senate had even voted on sending these amendments to Bill C-68 back to this House of Parliament, the fisheries minister basically gave a directive to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, FOPO, to do a study on third-party habitat banking. Imagine that. I say it was a directive, because although the parliamentary committees are supposed to be free to set their own agenda, that committee has a majority of Liberal members who would dare not deny a request from their own minister.

Therefore, on June 10, as a directive from the fisheries minister, we began a study of third-party habitat banking. Also on June 10, we finished a study on third-party habitat banking. We started and finished in one day, in two hours. It was an abomination of a study, with no mention of a report back to the minister and no report to the House of Commons. It was of almost of no use at all other than perhaps being able to say “we consulted”, part of the fake consultation I have seen with the government time and again over the past three and a half years.

However, I say almost nothing out of that study, except what we heard from witnesses that day. They spoke about third-party habitat banking, saying that it would be a good thing to incorporate, that the difficult details around third-party habitat banking could be worked out through the regulations and orders in council. The regulations need not be fully ironed out in order for Bill C-68 to be amended and passed. We also heard testimony from multiple witnesses that third-party habitat banking could create net gains to habitat. Imagine, conservation organizations and local angling clubs being able to work proactively to create an enhanced fish habitat.

It should be the dream and goal of any fisheries minister to increase and improve fisheries habitat. However, as we have seen so many times over the past three and a half years, Liberal fisheries ministers fail to do what is right and instead give deals to their buddies and relatives, getting caught up in scandal. They fail to deliver and fund restoring fish stocks.

We also heard in testimony during that short “but we can say we consulted” meeting on June 10, that during the Senate study of Bill C-68, the only witnesses who spoke against third-party habitat banking were the minister and DFO staff, undoubtedly under the direction of the fisheries minister.

Why would every other witness support third-party habitat banking and the minister's department oppose it? Why would a minister not want to see net gains to fish habitat? Why would a minister ignore and cast aside testimony, ideas and proposals that would be good for fish, fisheries and the economy?

I can only surmise that it is because the fisheries minister, like his Liberal predecessors, are out of touch with Canadian fisheries and the Canadian way.

I also want to point out the fake and disingenuous consultations by the former fisheries minister from Beauséjour undertaken during his tenure. I do wish to send best wishes to the former fisheries minister regarding his health.

While he was minister, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, FOPO, undertook a study on changes to the Fisheries Act. While that study was on the book, three different news releases went out on the consultation process, three conflicting news releases under that minister's watch.

The first one, on October 16, 2016, stated that all briefs received during the consultations would be provided to the committee for its study. The next one, on November 16, 2016, again stated the feedback heard would be shared with the committee for its study. However, that feedback never reached the committee in time.

After multiple requests from indigenous groups and committee members to extend the timeline of the study, the Liberal members refused to extend that time so we could incorporate the briefs solicited and paid for with taxpayer dollars.

In the end, over $2 million was spent for indigenous groups to provide briefs to the committee for study. Over $1.2 million of those briefs for consultation and input for the review were not received before the Liberals closed off the study. Those taxpayer dollars were not received by the committee in time for the study. Imagine what $1.2 million could have done for fish habitat in the hands of conservation groups and organizations.

I can imagine that because my background is in conservation. My first interest in this was with fish and game clubs, putting boots on and getting in the streams creating spawning habitat. What our clubs could have done with $1.2 million, which the Liberal government wasted because it could not get that information to the committee on time.

Now here we are up against time. The government has called time allocation on debate on these Senate amendments after minimum time back in the House. It has taken the government three and a half years to get the bill this far and it is still not right.

Dozens of amendments came from the Senate on Bill C-68, most of them tossed aside by the Liberal government, amendments that really could make a difference in the streams, creating more fish habitat, creating more fish, creating more opportunities for fishermen and creating a strong and vibrant economy.

It is really disappointing to have debate cut short. Ten minutes for me to speak to this is really less than half the time I would have liked in a full speaking time of 20 minutes.

I have talked about how the FOPO study was denied extensions. We have talked about briefs being received after the report deadline. We have heard testimony many times that there was no proof of any harm to fish habitat from the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act.

One of the first things I did in this parliamentary session was to put in an Order Paper question asking for any proof of harm or loss of habitat as a result of the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act. More than three years later, not one piece of evidence has been provided. Therefore, the fisheries minister and the current government are being deceitful, if I can use that word, to the Canadian public and this Parliament. I have lost respect for them because of that.

I thank the House for the time to be able to discuss these amendments, and I will welcome questions.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to the message from the Senate regarding Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. Once enacted, this bill will repeal the changes that the former Conservative government implemented when it gutted the Fisheries Act in 2012, and restore lost protections.

I would like to thank the Senate for its work on this bill, as well as the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, who is continuing the great work of the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs, who first introduced this bill when he was at Fisheries. Of course, we hope for his quick recovery.

I will be splitting my time with the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

Since I was elected, I heard this message loud and clear. As a new MP, the challenge to find sustainable solutions was daunting. After much consultation, I zeroed in on what I felt should be the starting point, the Fisheries Act, which, as I had been told by the people I work with, had been gutted over the years so that fish and fish habitat no longer had the strong protections that were once there.

For two and a half years, I worked with groups such as the Alouette River Management Society, the Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society, the Katzie and Kwantlen first nations, streamkeepers, the cities of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, as well as people like Julie Porter, Ken Stewart, Jack Emberly, Greta, Cheryl, Lina, Sophie, Ross, Doug, and the list goes on.

These are not political or partisan people; they are folks who care deeply about their community. They all helped me to better understand the importance of these changes, and I thank them very much. Together, over the course of two years, we identified and discussed key pieces of legislation in the Fisheries Act that could be improved. I submitted my report to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, with recommendations on how we can further strengthen the Fisheries Act and restore some of the lost protections, and here we are today.

I would like to speak to the specific changes we are seeking through the motion. We will be accepting a majority of the amendments made by the Senate, including many that were moved by the government through Senator Harder, and we will be respectfully rejecting just three amendments.

The first amendment we are rejecting is an amendment that was made to the definition of fish habitat by Senator Poirier. In her amendment, the senator reduced the scope for the application of fish and fish habitat provisions by deleting “water frequented by fish” from the definition of fish habitat. By narrowing the scope of fish habitat, this amendment goes against the very objective of this bill to provide increased protections.

We are also amending an amendment by Senator Christmas so that the language used in relation to section 35 and aboriginal treaty rights is consistent with the rest of the bill. On this amendment, the minister has received support from Senator Christmas.

The other amendments we will be rejecting were made by Senator Wells, regarding habitat banking and collecting fees in lieu of offsets. These amendments were initially proposed by the Canadian Wildlife Federation, which has since written a letter to support the removal of the amendments, as significant consultations are required and it would be premature at this time to include the amendments.

This motion takes full consideration of the amendments made by the Senate, and I hope all members can join us in passing the bill.

Bill C-68 has many important components that Canadians across the country support. I would like to speak about the fish stocks provisions proposed in Bill C-68, which are aimed at strengthening Canada's fisheries management framework and rebuilding depleted stocks.

The fish stocks provisions would introduce legally binding commitments to implement measures to, first, manage our major fish stocks at or above levels necessary to promote their sustainability and, second, to develop and implement a rebuilding plan for a major fish stock if it becomes depleted. Maintaining stocks at healthy levels and rebuilding depleted stocks are essential to the long-term economic viability of our fishing communities and the health of our oceans.

That is why, in the fall economic statement, the Government of Canada announced an investment of $107.4 million over five years, starting this fiscal year, as well as $17.6 million per year ongoing to support the implementation of the fish stocks provisions.

This new funding will help accelerate the implementation of the fish stocks provisions for the major fish stocks in Canada. As many members are aware, a number of important fish stocks in Canadian waters have shown significant declines over the past couple of decades and some more recently. This new investment will enable the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to implement these strong legislative tools for all key stocks.

As robust science is the bedrock of our fishery management system, the largest share of the investment will go to science activities. We will make targeted investments to increase the number of at-sea science surveys, so we can better and more frequently assess the state of our fish stocks across a broad range of major fish stocks and marine areas.

As well, we will hire additional fisheries scientists to carry out these new survey activities, analyze the data from these at-sea surveys and prepare science advice for our fisheries managers through our world-class peer review process. As a result, we will be more effective at detecting changes in the health of fish stocks and provide more robust science advice to manage these stocks to achieve sustainability goals. We will also be able to develop a better understanding of the threats facing our depleted fish stocks, which will allow us to take a targeted approach in our rebuilding efforts.

This funding will enable external groups, including indigenous groups, academics, industry and non-government organizations, to participate in fisheries data collection and the scientific assessment of Canada's major fish stocks. Additional support will be provided to establish and enhance existing partnerships and help develop scientific and technical capacity within these external groups.

With this funding we will also make investments to increase the capacity in fisheries management to develop precautionary approach management measures and rebuilding plans to meet the fish stocks provisions in collaboration with indigenous groups and stakeholders. It will also enhance our capacity to carry out socio-economic analyses to better understand the potential impacts of proposed management measures and the costs and benefits of different management options that are aimed at rebuilding fish stocks.

Over the next five years, the government has committed to making the majority of the 181 major fish stocks subject to the fish stocks provisions. Canadians have told us that sustainable fisheries are a priority, and we agree. This investment is essential in order to prescribe the major stocks as quickly as possible to the protections offered by the fish stock provisions.

We are also developing a regulation to set out the required contents of rebuilding plans so that all the plans are comprehensive and consistent. Under the proposed regulation, a rebuilding plan must be developed and implemented within two years of the stock becoming depleted.

Our government believes it is our collective responsibility to exercise our stewardship of Canada's fisheries and their habitat in a practical, reasonable and sustainable manner. The proposed fish stocks provisions and other measures in the amended Fisheries Act restore protections for fish and fish habitat, and introduce modern safeguards while facilitating sustainable economic growth, job creation and resource development.

With these stronger legislative tools to help keep our fish stocks healthy, and the funding to support their implementation, Canada's seafood sector, which employs over 76,000 people and contributed a landed value of $3.4 billion in 2017, will have a brighter future.

It is no doubt that this bill will implement changes that Canadians have long been waiting for. These amendments will restore lost protections and ensure that our fisheries are sustainable for future generations. The Senate made a number of amendments, and while we cannot support all of them, I believe we have put forth a reasonable motion that I hope all members can support.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, and of the amendment.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. Today, we are debating the Senate amendments to the bill, as was just mentioned. I initially spoke to this bill at report stage almost exactly one year ago today. I will be covering some of the same ground as I did then, but today I want to spend a little more time speaking in general terms about fisheries conservation.

Although I grew up in the Okanagan Valley far from the coast, my family has a deep history in coastal fisheries. My mother's family, the Munns, once controlled the cod fishery of Labrador. My great-uncle William Azariah Munn was what one might call a cod liver oil baron. He was also an amateur fisheries biologist and historian. W.A. Munn not only researched the Viking sagas but was the first to suggest that Vineland was located on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland, which was subsequently vindicated by the findings at L'Anse aux Meadows. He wrote the first detailed account of the annual migration of codfish in the Newfoundland waters in 1922. I found that out when I was reading the assessment report on northern cod when it was declared endangered. It was cited in the report.

I will mention in passing that I am wearing my Memorial University tie this morning to honour that part of my heritage and history. I thank Bill Kavanagh for that.

Although I grew up in the interior, like most kids of that era, I grew up fishing, in my case, catching small rainbow trout in a small creek near our house. I knew the importance of cool waters and deep pools in a stream shaded from the summer sun, good fish habitat in my part of the country.

The Fisheries Act has long been the strongest piece of legislation that protected habitat, terrestrial or aquatic, in Canada. I used to be a biologist in my past life. I spent a lot of time working on ecosystem health, endangered species recovery and time and again my colleagues would point out that the only legislation, federal or provincial, that effectively protected habitat outside parks was the federal Fisheries Act. This habitat protection was at the core of earlier versions of the Fisheries Act. Conservatives took out that protection in 2012 with Bill C-38, one of their omnibus budget bills.

The action resulted in a public outcry. Four former fisheries ministers, including one of my constituents, Tom Siddon, wrote an open letter to the government urging it to keep habitat protections in the act. I saw Tom last weekend at an event in my riding and I am happy to say that he is still standing up for the environment.

This act still is deficient in a few ways regarding habitat. For instance, while it talks about water in the rivers and lakes as fish habitat, it does not discuss the amount of that water, the flow. That is clearly a problem as water is obviously the most important ingredient in fish habitat. Those deep, cool pools I fished in are becoming shallower and warmer. Bill C-68 would empower the fisheries and oceans minister to make management orders prohibiting or limiting fishing to address a threat to the conservation and protection of fish. I am fully in favour of that power, but I wonder how often it would be used despite the fact that it would likely be recommended on a regular basis by scientists.

Fish are consistently treated differently from terrestrial species in conservation actions. As an example, of all the fish species assessed as threatened or endangered in recent years by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, less than half have been placed on the Species at Risk Act schedules. A bird or mammal in trouble is generally added to those schedules as a matter of course, but fish are out of luck. This attitude must change.

I am happy to see the Senate amendment that includes shark-finning laws proposed by my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam over the years and Senator Mike MacDonald in the other place. I am very happy to see those private members' bills rolled into this new act in the Senate amendments.

I am also happy to see there is a provision in this act that would give the DFO more resources for enforcement. I hope that some of these resources can be used to rebuild the DFO staff that used to be found throughout the interior of B.C. to promote fish habitat restoration, rebuild fish stocks and watch what is happening on the ground. There are no DFO staff left at all in my riding in the Okanagan and Kootenay regions, despite the fact that there are numerous aquatic stewardship societies across the riding that used to have a great relationship with the DFO. Volunteer groups that are devoted to aquatic habitats in the Arrow Lakes, the Slocan Valley, Christina Lake, the Kettle River watershed, Osoyoos Lake and Vaseux Lake could all benefit through a renewal of those staffing levels.

I would like to close with a good news story that shows what can happen when Canadians take fish conservation into their own hands, identify problems and solutions and then work hard to make good things happen. That is the story of restoring salmon populations in the Okanagan. This story involves many players from both the United States and Canada but it is mainly a story of the Syilx people, the indigenous peoples of the Okanagan, who came together to bring salmon back to the valley.

Salmon, n’titxw, is one of the four food chiefs of the Syilx and central to their culture and trade traditions. In fact, that is true for many other first nations in the B.C. interior and Yukon, indigenous communities hundreds or thousands of kilometres from the ocean that rely on salmon, that have always relied on salmon and whose cultures are inextricably tied to salmon.

When I was a kid in the Okanagan, very few salmon came up the river from the Pacific. The Okanagan is part of the Columbia system, and those fish had to climb over 11 dams to get to the Okanagan River and back to their spawning grounds. Most of the Columbia salmon runs died out after huge dams like Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph were built and blocked its free flow. The Okanagan flows into the Columbia below Grand Coulee, so a handful of sockeye came back to the Okanagan every year.

However, after years of work by the Okanagan Nation Alliance and other groups, we often see runs of over 100,000 fish, occasionally 400,000 or more. The Okanagan River is once again red with sockeye in the autumn. In most years there is a successful sports fishery for sockeye in Osoyoos Lake.

The ONA has spearheaded significant restoration projects on the Okanagan River, restoring natural flows to small parts of the river and creating ideal spawning beds in others. They organize cultural ceremonies and salmon feasts that bring the broader communities together to celebrate the cycle of the salmon.

The ONA has grown to be one of the largest inland fisheries organizations in Canada with 45 full-time staff. Compare that to zero for the DFO in my area. It has its own state-of-the-art hatchery and fish virology lab.

To make a difference, to change our country and our communities for the better, we must have a vision for a better future. The Syilx vision includes healthy lakes and rivers filled with salmon, salmon that enrich the entire ecosystem and enrich the lives of everyone in the region. I share that vision. The vision includes restoring salmon not just to the entire Okanagan system, but to the upper Columbia River as well, reviving the salmon culture in the Kootenays.

That small creek I used to fish in as a kid now has more than rainbow trout. Every year a few chinook salmon, the big guys, make it into that creek after their epic trip up from the Pacific. That is beyond my wildest dreams.

If we take care of our lakes, our rivers and even the smallest creeks, we can keep this country healthy and beautiful. As the Syilx Okanagan song says, “We are beautiful because our land is beautiful.”

The bill before us could have been bolder and more effective, but it is a chance to take a small step towards that end, towards that vision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will forgive the member for falling off topic here. What we are debating today are the Senate amendments to Bill C-68, and he did not touch on those, not that I can pick out, at any point during his intervention. Therefore, I would like to bring him back to that. I forgive the member for it, because he has only been part-time on this committee over the past three and a half, four years.

Why would the Liberal government reject sensible amendments from a Senate committee that would actually see a net gain in fish habitat and fish habitat values, from the third party habitat banking? The Liberal government seems to refuse to do anything that would increase or improve fish habitat. That is the amendments that the government is kicking aside.

The member for Courtenay—Alberni seems to have ignored all of that in his intervention. Why?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-68, which would amend the Fisheries Act. I will be splitting my time with my good colleague and friend from South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

It has been a positive week for our oceans. Monday, Bill S-203 was passed, which would end cetaceans in captivity. There was also an announcement to ban single-use plastics, although we are waiting for the details. It has been a progressive week.

Now we have Bill C-68, an opportunity to fix the gutting of the Fisheries Act under the Conservatives. I am glad this place has an opportunity to do even more work to ensure that aquatic environments are safeguarded, which should be our priority as parliamentarians.

The bill would restore protections for all fish across Canada, protections that were previously removed by the Conservatives six years ago. This could have been changed sooner. We wish it had been done sooner, but we are glad it is being done now and we welcome changes to this bill.

Fish stocks are in decline in many parts of the country, as we know, especially on the west coast. It is due, in large part, to the negative impacts of human activity on fish habitat and the health of water bodies overall. Bill C-68 would put back into place legal protections needed to conserve fish habitat and the aquatic environment in a manner consistent with the minister's mandate to restore lost protections and introduce modern safeguards to the Fisheries Act.

With respect to the specifics, Bill C-68 would first and foremost compel the minister to consider any effects that decisions under the Fisheries Act might have on the rights of indigenous peoples of Canada and authorize agreements to be made with indigenous governing bodies. It is so important that the work we do embeds these protections and the rights of indigenous communities.

Pacific salmon are a primary food source for culture and the economy of indigenous peoples and people in coastal communities. The government has taken steps to help incorporate the rights and traditions of indigenous peoples to support their economic and cultural sustainability. I am very proud of the determined and continued stewardship of the indigenous communities in our country, especially on the west coast and in my riding. We really need their input and local knowledge to do this work; it is absolutely essential.

I want to share with the House a couple of comments.

Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council president, Dr. Judith Sayers, said that while Bill C-68 may not be everything Nuu-chah-nulth would like to see, it was a fulfillment of the Liberal promise to undo the damage the previous government did to the act. She said that habitat restoration was critical for their fisheries to remain sustainable so they may continue to exercise our rights and that the inclusion of indigenous wisdom was a start to recognizing their laws and knowledge systems. She did highlight, though, the need for co-management and the need to work toward that.

Eric Angel, the fisheries program manager for Uu-a-thluk, which is a Nuu-Chah-Nulth fisheries program, said:

The changes to the Fisheries Act under Bill C-68 are the most important amendments to federal fisheries legislation in a hundred years. Nuu-chah-nulth are very concerned that these proposed changes become law. The restoration of habitat protection that was stripped out of the Fisheries Act under the Harper government is absolutely critical. We are facing a crisis on the west coast with the destruction of salmon habitat and we desperately need this legislation to be able to force government to do a better job of looking after fish habitat. The proposed act also contains some small but important steps towards recognizing the laws and traditional knowledge systems of First Nations.

It is important to move forward with this. We know water is sacred. We, as parliamentarians, are coming to better understand that. We have a commitment to improve the ecology, especially the habitats that surround indigenous communities in coastal communities, as well as their important rights, ensuring their local knowledge and leadership in their traditional territories are respected. They have taken the lead on water issues. In my riding and many indigenous communities, the bill would directly and positively affect them.

Bill C-68 would also modernize measures to protect fish and fish habitat in ecologically significant areas and establish standards and codes of practice, a public registry and create fish habitat banks initially by different projects. This bill would also allow the minister to establish advisory panels and to set fees, including for the provision of regulatory processes, and allow the minister to make regulations for the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity.

We are happy to see clauses that build greater oversight over what companies do to fish habitats. It would allow the minister to stop companies from putting down anti-salmon breeding mats and protect the stock of coastal salmon.

The New Democrats are pleased to see that after so many years of trying, the bill would prohibit the import and exportation of shark fins. We have been working incredibly hard to ensure this practice is a thing of the past.

I want to thank my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, for his tireless efforts to make this happen, both in Bill C-68 and through Bill S-238. I also want to thank the members of the fisheries and oceans committee, who have taken the time to look at the issue closely.

The fact remains that shark populations, both in Canada and abroad, are at significant risk. My office has heard from many ordinary citizens, as well as conservation experts, who feel strongly about the effort to protect shark populations from needless slaughter. We have spent enough time over several parliaments looking at the issue and this is a critical juncture for us to act.

Along the same vein, this bill would further enshrine the ban on the capture and captivity of cetaceans, which I mentioned earlier. I am so grateful to the House for its support of Bill S-203 on Monday. It shows that the House is an active participant in changing the dialogue on marine conservation, and also on animal rights. I am pleased this bill gives us an opportunity to reaffirm that participation.

Bill C-68 would strengthen the enforcement powers and establish an alternative measures agreements regime, which includes $284 million over five years to enforce the protection of habitat wherever fish are present. This bill would allow the minister to stop or limit fishing for a period of 45 days to address the threat to the proper management and control of fisheries so the conservation and protection of fish is maintained.

Bill C-68 goes beyond just restoring the protection and habitat that were removed in the changes to the Fisheries Act in 2012. It goes as far as to include all fish in the definition of “fisheries”, and would include the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks in the Fisheries Act.

All that said, the latest suite of amendments proposed by the Senate presents some setback to the work that the House has been doing. The biggest thing that comes to mind are the changes that touch heavily on third-party habitat banking.

The creation of habitat banks has been poorly executed in the past, where first nations, municipalities and conservation organizations saw damage accumulated in their territory or watershed and the habitat bank in a neighbouring first nations territory or watershed. Therefore, it was disappointing to see these amendments, calling for the proposal of third-party banking. There was no consultation with indigenous groups, which mostly oppose it.

While I am happy to see the Liberal government is listening to some of these concerns and has proposed to remove these amendments, I am disappointed in the Liberal government for not taking the opportunity to really make a difference in protecting water flows, both upstream and downstream.

Back in the spring of 2018, when Bill C-68 was before the fisheries and oceans committee, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam proposed several amendments to strengthen the bill. These amendments included proposals that explicitly recognized that the quantity, timing and quality of water flows were vital to ensuring the free passage and the protection of fish and fish habitat. These important amendments were passed by a majority vote during the clause-by-clause review.

The Senate has not taken the issue of water flows seriously. It proposed that the addition of upstream protection was unimportant and that companies that obstructed the flow of water should do the bare minimum required to conserve populations. This was something the industry wanted. We worked with conservation groups to find a solution to water-flow issues, but the Senate only listened to the lobbyists, who cannot be bothered to be proactive partners in conservation.

What is more, the Liberals are on board with this amendment, despite the expert advice of the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, which pointed to the absence of legal protections for environmental flows, resulting in a situation where fisheries resources, fish habitat and the supporting freshwater ecosystems may not be consistently protected across Canada.

I am sure I could speak for a lot longer on this, but this is a great step. I have to commend the government for working together with us to repair so much of the damage left by the previous government. However, if we are to walk the path to restoration, it will take many more steps.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am able to answer a question from my hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.

Yes, Bill C-38, in the spring of 2012, gutted the Fisheries Act. Yes, it was an appalling decision to take away protections for habitat. On the ground, the effect was that habitat officers for DFO were laid off. I got calls all the time. My hon. colleague knows I tell the truth on these things. People would call me to say they called DFO about a beach where a clam licence was allowed that was being over-harvested, and DFO would tell them that officials could not get there and there was nothing they could do. There were times when habitat was being destroyed and people working on stream restoration who lost funding would call DFO to say that habitat was being lost for cutthroat trout and for getting salmon back, and the answer would be that DFO could not help, because there was no law and DFO did not have any manpower.

We need Bill C-68 to be passed. I lament that it was a bit weakened when my amendment that was accepted at committee was removed, but this bill needs to pass. Every single fisheries organization, the economic backbone of my community, wants this legislation passed before we leave this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for his speech on this topic, the Senate amendments to Bill C-68. We have sat together on the fisheries committee for years now. We have seen a government that has totally ignored the restoration of fish stocks across the country. Time and again, recommendations from our committee have called on the current government to take action. It failed to do so.

I also want to speak briefly on comments I got from a fisheries officer, who said that the changes we made in 2012 made it much easier for fisheries officers to do their job. Rather than having to gather incredible amounts of evidence, convince Crown prosecutors and then take cases to court, which would take years to prosecute, with the changes made in 2012 fisheries officers are able to immediately demand restoration where damage has been done. There has been no indication that habitat has been lost or damaged in any of the evidence ever produced by the government or in testimony at committee.

I would like the member to comment further on why the government fails to do anything to restore fish stocks, whether Atlantic salmon or salmon on the west coast, and why it continues to push this ill-conceived bill through the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to once again be here to talk about the Senate amendments to Bill C-68.

I would be remiss if I did not talk about what we have witnessed over the last three and a half years, this week and last night, with the egregious affront to our democracy. It is pertinent to this discussion, because what we have seen with Bill C-68, Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and Bill C-88 is the government's attempt to subvert democracy to pass legislation that is really payback for the assistance the Liberals received in the 2015 election.

Last night, we had the debate, or the lack of debate, on Bill C-69. There were hundreds of amendments from the Senate, and the government forced closure on that debate without any debate whatsoever. Even the Green Party, in its entirety, stood in solidarity with the official opposition to vote against the government on this. That says something.

Bill C-68 is the government's attempt, in its members' words, to right the wrongs of the former Conservative government in amending the Fisheries Act in 2012. The Liberals said that the Conservatives gutted the Fisheries Act. The bill would replace the wording for HADD, the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. However, we studied this. We consulted on this, and not one example was given. When pressured yesterday, throughout the last week and throughout the last year, not the minister nor anyone from the government was able to provide one example of where the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act by the previous Conservative government led to the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. As a matter of fact, despite the government's assertions that changes to the Fisheries Act are necessary to restore the lost protections for fish and fish habitat, the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 626 showed that the government had no record of harm or proof of harm to fish or fish habitat resulting from the 2012 changes.

On November 2, 2016, the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appeared before the fisheries committee and stated that “Indigenous people have expressed serious concerns with the amendments made to the [Fisheries Act]” and that his department was “holding face-to-face meetings with various indigenous groups and providing funding so that they can attend these meetings and share their views on the matter”. However, according to the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 943, DFO did not undertake any face-to-face consultation sessions in relation to the review of the changes to the Fisheries Act in the 2016-17 fiscal year.

The Liberals have stood before Canadians in the House and have been disingenuous. They continue to use the same eco-warrior talking points we see from Tides, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, which is essentially an attack on our natural resource sector, whether that be forestry, fisheries, oil and gas, mining or agriculture. That is what Bill C-68, Bill C-88, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 are attempting to do. They want to shut down anything to do with natural resources.

In the Senate right now, Bill C-48 is being debated. It deals with the tanker moratorium on the west coast, yet we have double and triple the number of tankers on the east coast, but it does not matter. We do not see groups like Greenpeace, Tides and the WWF protesting those ships and oil tankers from foreign nations that have far more egregious human rights issues than what we have here in our country.

Dirty oil is flowing through our eastern seaport, but there has not been one mention of that by the government. Instead, it wants to shut down anything to do with western Canada's economic opportunities, and that is egregious and shameful, and that is why we are here today.

The Senate amendments with respect to Bill C-68 were decent amendments. They folded into Bill S-203, the cetaceans in captivity bill, and Bill S-238, the shark finning bill.

For those who are not aware of the shark finning bill, it would ban the importation of shark fins, with the exception that they must be attached to the carcass. Shark fin is a delicacy in some Asian cultures and is used in soup and medicinal products. We asked officials at committee if shark fin in any form could be imported into our country, and they replied that it could be imported in soup. That was their testimony. When pressed further on this, they said, “soup is soup”.

The whole intent of Bill S-238 is to stop the importation of shark fins so that shark fin soup may be stopped or that at least the fins would be imported into the country with the entire carcass used. That is a fairly reasonable thing to ask.

The other Senate amendments to Bill C-68 that are important are with respect to the inshore fishery. We heard time and again that the inshore fishery is important to Atlantic fishermen. Adjacency and the inshore fishery are the same thing, but the language is different on either coast. It is important to our coastal communities and fishermen who depend on fishing for their livelihood.

Another important Senate amendment is with respect to third-party habitat banking. I went into great detail about what third-party habitat banking means in terms of fish habitat. That was a reasonable amendment put forward by a Conservative, and all senators agreed with it.

Interestingly enough, before the Senate finished studying the bill, the minister directed our fisheries committee to study third-party habitat banking. Prior to the fisheries committee getting a chance to study it, the Liberals scrapped any of the third-party habitat banking amendments brought forth by the Conservative Party and agreed to by independent senators. It was an exercise in futility.

Senator Wells, who appeared before committee just the other day, said that by all accounts, it appeared that the only people who were interested in protecting fish and fish habitat were those around the table, and the only people who were against protecting fish and fish habitat with respect to third-party habitat banking were the officials. That is odd.

I want to talk again about why we are here. I spoke at length about the influence of third-party groups at the highest levels of our offices. I will remind the House that the former chief adviser to the Prime Minister, Gerald Butts, was the president and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund. The Prime Minister's new director of policy is a former top executive at Tides Canada.

Why is this important? It is important because these are the very organizations whose mandate is to shut down Canada's resources every step of the way and to tarnish Canada's natural resource sector on the world stage.

It says right on their own websites that they were going to use celebrities, their media and their influence to tarnish Canada's oil and gas and forestry to attack and landlock our resources. They have now permeated every office in this government.

In 2015, 114 third parties poured $6 million into influencing the election outcome, and many of those parties were funded by the U.S.-based Tides foundation. The World Wildlife Fund is deciding fisheries policy on the east coast.

As the shadow minister for Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, I went to meetings with the former fisheries minister, and there were no fisheries stakeholders there. The table was surrounded by environmental groups. We are placing a higher priority on these environmental groups than we are on the stakeholders who make their living and depend on our natural resources for their economic well-being.

Late last night, I took another phone call about another mill closure in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. I know that colleagues understand our economic plight in western Canada. We have seen a lot of emotion over the last weeks and months about the plight of the west. The reality is that we are losing our jobs, and we do not have other opportunities. It is not that we are against the environment, unlike what a parliamentary secretary said yesterday, in response to Bill C-88, which is that the Conservatives blame the Liberals for putting such a high priority on the environment. That is not true. We blame the Liberals for putting such a high priority on environmental groups, not on the stakeholders, indigenous peoples and our local communities that depend on our natural resources for well-paying jobs to provide for their families.

There are hundreds of workers in my riding and adjacent ridings, and thousands of workers across the province of British Columbia, who are waking up today to more work curtailment and job closures. That is shameful.

When the House hears our emotion and concern when we raise the issues, it is not that we are against the environment, as much as the Minister of Environment would like people to believe that. It is that these policies the government has put forth have shaken the confidence of industry. They have a real impact. They may not impact those members of Parliament from downtown Toronto or in major urban centres, but they impact rural Canadians, and that is the truth.

I am going to close by reminding the House that this House does not belong to any of us who are in here. We are merely vehicles to be the voices of the electors. There are 338 members of Parliament in this House. Last night, we saw one courageous Liberal who stood against what her government was doing. We have been placed here to be the voices of those who elected us.

Despite saying in 2015 that they would let debate reign, the Liberals have time and again forced closure and time allocation on pieces of legislation. In doing so, they have silenced the voices of the electors who have put us here.

I would like to move the following motion, seconded by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be now read a second time and concurred in.”

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and acknowledge the opposition House leader's new-found respect and regard for the environment. It probably means the Conservatives will be coming out with a plan soon. We have been waiting for it for well over a year now.

In answer to her question, this afternoon we will begin debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Access to Information Act. This evening we will resume debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-69, the environmental assessment legislation. We will then return to Bill C-88, the Mackenzie Valley bill.

Tomorrow we will resume debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act. We expect to receive some bills from the Senate, so if we have time, I would like one of those debates to start.

Next week, priority will be given to bills coming back to us from the Senate, or we may have an opportunity to continue to debate the motion referred to by the House Leader of the Official Opposition.

Personally, I am reassured to hear that the Conservatives want to talk about the environment. Perhaps they will also share their plan with Canadians.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

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

Madam Speaker, what is sad is that the term “reconciliation” has become a buzzword under the government. I take this to heart.

Many members know I have stood in the House, time and again, and have said that my wife and children are first nations. It is troubling for me when some members stand in the House, put their hands on their hearts and say that it is in the best interests of reconciliation, not just with respect to Bill C-88 but also Bills C-69, C-48, C-68 as well as the surf clam scam that took place earlier in this session.

The only part I will agree with in the hon. parliamentary secretary's intervention was when at she said there was enough blame to go around. Nobody should be pointing fingers, saying one group is better than another group. Reconciliation is about creating a path forward. It is not about pitting a first nation against a first nation or a first nation against a non-first nation. It is about how we walk together moving forward.

What I am about to say is not related to all members on both sides of the House. Some members truly understand this. However, time and again some Liberals will stand in the House and say that they support reconciliation or that this is all about reconciliation. Then a heavy-handed policy comes down or words are said, which we call “bozo eruptions”, and there is regret afterward.

I will go back to how we started the spring session. The first female indigenous Attorney General in our country spoke truth to power, and we saw what happened to her.

Bill C-88 is interesting, because it looks to reverse the incredible work our previous government did in putting together Bill C-15.

I will read a quote from our hon. colleague across the way when she voted for Bill C-15. She stated:

As Liberals, we want to see the Northwest Territories have the kind of independence it has sought. We want it to have the ability to make decisions regarding the environment, resource development, business management, growth, and opportunity, which arise within their own lands.

The parliamentary secretary has offered a lot of excuses today as to why she voted for it, such as she was tricked or voted for it for a specific reason. It is easy for members to stand after the fact and say, “I could have, would have, should have” or “This is the reason; my arm was twisted.” However, if we do not stand for something, we will fall for anything. That is what we have seen with the government taking up the eco-warrior agenda to pay back for the 2015 election. That is why we have Bills C-68, C-69, C-48 and C-88.

The parliamentary secretary wants to talk about how Bill C-88 would empower our first nations. Let me offer the House a few quotes.

Mr. Merven Gruben, the mayor of the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk, stated:

Tuk has long been an oil and gas town. Since the first oil boom, or the whalers hunting whales in the late 1800 and early 1900s, we have grown up side by side with industry. We have not had any bad environmental effects from the oil and gas work in our region, and we have benefited from the jobs, training and business opportunities that have been available when the industry has worked in Tuk and throughout the north, the entire region.

Never in 100-plus years has the economy of our region, and the whole north, looked so bleak for the oil and gas industry, and for economic development, generally. All the tree huggers and green people are happy, but come and take a look. Come and see what you're doing to our people. The government has turned our region into a social assistance state. We are Inuvialuit who are proud people and who like to work and look after ourselves, not depend on welfare.

I thank God we worked very closely with the Harper government and had the all-weather highway built into Tuk. It opened in November 2017, if some of you haven't heard, and now we are learning to work with tourism. We all know that's not the money and work that we were used to in the oil and gas days that we liked.

He further states:

Nobody's going to be going up and doing any exploration or work up there.

We were really looking forward to this. There was a $1.2-billion deal here that Imperial Oil and BP did not that far out of Tuk, and we were looking forward to them exploring that and possibly drilling, because we have the all-weather highway there. What better place to be located?

The Hon. Bob McLeod, the premier from the Northwest Territories, said that the moratorium was “result of eco-colonialism”.

I speak of the moratorium. The Liberals want to talk about all the work they are doing in standing up for the north and the indigenous peoples in the north. It was just before Christmas when Prime Minister travelled to Washington, D.C. to make the announcement with the then United State President, Barack Obama. There had been zero consultation with northerners, despite consistent rhetoric about consulting with Canada's indigenous peoples. Prior to decision making, the resolution was made unilaterally from the Prime Minister's Office.

The indigenous peoples and the people from the Northwest Territories had about an hour's notice with that. Wally Schumann, the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Minister of Infrastructure for the Northwest Territories, stated:

I guess we can be very frank because we're in front of the committee. When it first came out, we never got very much notice on the whole issue of the moratorium and the potential that was in the Beaufort Sea. There were millions and millions, if not billions, of dollars in bid deposits and land leases up there. That took away any hope we had of developing the Beaufort Sea.

Merven Gruben said:

I agree the Liberals should be helping us. They shut down our offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across the whole freaking Arctic without even consulting us. They never said a word...

Our hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, in response and to pre-empt my speech, called us the government on the other side. We are the government in waiting. We will be government in October. She said that the guys across the way would criticize the Liberals for caring too much about the environment. That is incorrect. We criticize them because they put the priorities of the environmental groups like Tides, World Wildlife Fund and like Greenpeace ahead of the local stakeholder, the indigenous peoples who are saying that they are tired of being poster boys for these eco-groups.

If my colleagues do not believe me, I will read some quotes.

Calvin Helin, chair of Eagle Spirit Chiefs Council, said “What the chiefs are starting to see a lot now is that there is a lot of underhanded tactics and where certain people are paid in communities and they are used as spokespersons.” He also said, “Essentially (they are) puppets and props for environmental groups to kill resource development” and “It’s outrageous and people should be upset about that…the chiefs are....”

Also, Stephen Buffalo, president and CO of the Indian Resource Council said, “Since his government was elected in 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has repeatedly—

Bill C-68—Time Allocation Motion

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating right now is the procedure being used today to limit debate on Bill C-68, not the substance of the matter.

My colleague repeatedly said that there have been 39 days of debate. He feels that is enough, but his assessment strikes me as subjective because we spend much less time, 10 to 12 days, studying 500-page omnibus bills.

At what point would my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, say there has been enough debate? Is five days enough? Ten days? Thirty-nine days? Fifty days? I would like an answer to that question because the minister's assessment seems very subjective to me.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the owner-operator provisions of the bill are of great significance to harvesters in eastern Canada. They have made it very clear to us that they believe this is an incredibly important part of strong, robust and prosperous coastal communities. We agree.

It is very important that independent fish harvesters have the protections they need and that we do what we need to do to ensure we enforce those. By putting them into Bill C-68, we are strengthening that. If the hon. members opposite went to Atlantic Canada and had conversations with fish harvesters, they would find there is virtually unanimous support for these provisions.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in support of Bill C-68. As the representative for New Brunswick Southwest, I heard throughout the campaign and over the last four years from the Grand Manan Fishermen's Association and the Fundy North Fishermen's Association of the hurt that has happened in our coastal communities without owner-operator legislation.

Could the minister speak to what he has heard and how this will help our coastal communities be more secure and comfortable?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the discussion today is to talk about Bill C-68, which would restore protections that were lost when the previous government gutted the bill. If the hon. member went outside of the chamber and had conversations with people out in the communities, he would find that restoring lost protections is very important to Canadians. It is something we certainly intend to do.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, enhancing compliance and enforcement is an important part of the changes in Bill C-68. We are ensuring that we are protecting fish and fish habitat through legislative protection. We are also ensuring that we are providing resources to the department to do effective compliance and monitoring on an ongoing basis. We have made enormous investments in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in compliance and enforcement, but also in science.

The previous government cut over $100 million from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have rebuilt that department. It will be far more effective going forward and it will now have the tools to do the job.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are trying to use the Fisheries Act as environmental legislation, when the federal government already has protections established under the Canada Shipping Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This is the federal government creating legislation with Bill C-68 to interfere with provincial legislation as well as the constitutionally protected private property rights.

Liberals slipped in a section after third reading, so we were unable to debate it in the House. At the Senate committee, testimony from OPG said, “One of the outcomes was that the city of Montreal would have been under a metre more of water if we had not had the ability to store water on the watershed because of flooding in the Great Lakes.”

Furthermore, we would like to know whether the government will try to do through regulation what it cannot do through legislation.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are very much committed to the owner-operator model, and that is why there are provisions that enshrine the fleet separation and the owner-operator model in Bill C-68. It is something that has enormous support among fish harvesters in Atlantic Canada, and I think the Conservatives are going to have to explain to the fish harvesters in Atlantic Canada why they are opposed to Bill C-68.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sat in on all of the debates in the House and at committee on the House side. Time and time again, there were requests from first nations and from our side for extended consultations and study time, yet the government members at committee shut them down. It is just like the fake consultation they are doing here.

I hope the minister will set aside his talking points and actually speak about what we heard, especially yesterday at committee when we studied the Senate amendments to Bill C-68. We heard that the only people opposed to third party habitat banking were DFO staff, as directed by the fisheries minister.

Why is it that the fisheries minister and his staff are the only ones opposed to the third party habitat banking amendments? Why can the minister not accept that we could create net habitat gains through third party habitat banking? Here he is, trying to shut down debate on it.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly Canadians expect that the government will deliver on the campaign commitments it made in 2015. It is important that the Senate debate and discuss bills, but it is also important that the Senate remember that we are the elected chamber. As we move legislation forward, we are, of course, open to amendments from the other House. However, at the end of the day, Canadians are expecting us to deliver on our campaign commitments.

I would also say that it is not simply the Senate that has been trying to delay legislation. With respect to Bill C-68, in the debate that occurred on Tuesday, my hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George simply talked out the clock, discussing things that had zero to do with Bill C-68. It is the Conservatives here who are trying to ensure that we do not pass the legislation that Canadians expect.

We are planning to get these things done.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the Senate there are a number of bills that are so important, just like this exact bill here, Bill C-68. There are also Bill C-88, Bill C-91, Bill C-92, Bill C-93, Bill C-391, Bill C-374, Bill C-369 and Bill CC-262. All these bills are being delayed by the Senate because they are taking far too long.

I was wondering if the hon. minister could tell us why the Conservative senators are delaying all these bills, delaying us from doing the job that Canadians have sent us here to do. They gave us a mandate in 2015, after a decade of darkness with the Conservatives, to repair the damage they had done to the environment and to indigenous communities and to make sure we get this job done.

Can the hon. minister talk a little bit about that, please?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the subject of the debate today is Bill C-68, and I would tell my hon. colleague that the department conducted extensive consultations. Over 2,000 Canadians registered online, and over 5,000 filled out questionnaires. There were 170 meetings with indigenous groups, 200 submissions from indigenous people, 208 letters to the minister and many meetings in person. It was virtually unanimous that we needed to restore protections for fish and fish habitat that were taken from the Fisheries Act by the previous government, which gutted the protections for fish and fish habitat.

We are very proud to be delivering on a campaign commitment that is so important to Canadians. We are doing that now.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is being very disingenuous here. I sat in on the hearings of Bill C-68. Not a single opponent of what we did in 2012 could prove, in any way, shape or form, that those changes had any effect on fish populations or fish communities. Colleagues can look at the record.

Under our former Conservative government, in 2010, for example, the Pacific salmon run in the Fraser River was a record. In 2014, that run was even higher. Under the Liberal government's watch, Pacific salmon stocks are collapsing and the Chinook salmon stock is the poster boy for that.

Our committee produced a unanimous report on Atlantic salmon, with a number of recommendations. We saw the minister's response. Not a single part of that letter dealt with the 17 unanimous recommendations, such as smallmouth bass in Miramichi Lake, overfishing by Greenland and excessive predation by seals and striped bass. The response did not deal with any of that.

Why is this department so inept and uncaring for fisheries communities and fish stocks?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of the Senate amendments stage of the said bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration of the said stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment

[Daniel Gibson, Senior Environment Specialist and Chair of Fisheries Working Group, Renewable Generation and Environment, Waterpower Canada, Ontario Power Generation Inc.]

Thank you, and greetings to the chair and to the members of the committee.

Ontario Power Generation appreciates the opportunity to make a delegation to the standing committee today. I'm also here today in my capacity as chair of the fisheries working group for WaterPower Canada.

OPG, Ontario's largest green energy generator, is focused on safe, reliable and sustainable electricity generation. The company's electricity generation portfolio has an in-service capacity of over 17,000 megawatts and operates two nuclear generating stations, one biomass-fuelled thermal generating station, one oil/gas-fuelled thermal station, a solar facility and 66 hydroelectric generating stations. As Ontario's largest clean energy provider, we maintain a critical role in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

OPG has been actively involved in all aspects of the federal government's review of the Fisheries Act and in Bill C-68 since 2016. We welcome this opportunity to present today on the feasibility of implementing a third party habitat banking framework for Canada.

Similarly, WaterPower Canada, formerly known as the Canadian Hydropower Association, represents both the producers of hydroelectricity as well as the service and supply businesses that support the industry. As you've heard in past delegations, and it's important to restate it, hydro power supplies over 60% of Canada's electricity and is our largest generation source by far. The result is an electricity system that is one of the cleanest, most renewable and most reliable in the world. The generation of hydroelectricity produces virtually no greenhouse gas emissions. It can and must play a central role in achieving Canada's climate change targets.

From the outset, OPG wishes to acknowledge our support for the submissions from WaterPower Canada, as well as the Canadian Electricity Association, the Canadian Nuclear Association, and the Ontario Waterpower Association.

OPG continues to support this government's efforts to implement modern safeguards into the act. Today we are here to talk specifically about that under habitat banking.

In our previous submissions to this committee and through discussions with DFO, OPG has advocated including provisions in Bill C-68 for a habitat banking system that advances the effective and efficient management of Canadian fisheries. We have advocated added flexibility for the creation and use of credits by project proponents and third party groups in a manner that advances both fish habitat conservation objectives and economic objectives. We are encouraged to see the interest expressed by this committee to study this issue of third party banking in greater detail and the inclusion of enabling amendments to Bill C-68 during the Senate review of the bill.

We understand that the proposed provisions of Bill C-68 would allow for some capacity for the Governor in Council to regulate not only the creation, allocation and management of credits and offsets but also their potential exchange and trade. These enabling provisions represent a significant opportunity towards making another tool available for achieving net benefits for fish and fish habitat conservation in Canada.

A well-designed habitat banking system could allow for the ability to aggregate projects for the greatest benefit, large proponent-led initiatives, third party-led initiatives that proponents could support and buy into, and opportunities with well-defined cumulative benefits for multiple species, including species at risk, as Mr. Norris has alluded to. Allowing broader participation in habitat banking can support business and create economic and knowledge-building opportunities as well.

The implementation costs for habitat banking may be reduced for proponents who may not see this as their core business, while the expectation of financial incentives can expand economic and business opportunities for qualified third parties to properly manage and monitor habitat offsets. These third parties may be better equipped to aggregate regional offsetting actions on a larger scale than might be otherwise done for individual proponents.

Because they are longer-term, habitat banks can also encourage broader partnership and knowledge-building opportunities. OPG's example in this regard is the habitat bank developed through a partnership with Quinte Conservation, consultants and a local contractor to design and build the Big Island wetland near Belleville, Ontario. The investment in this habitat bank was carried out as an offset requirement under the environmental assessment for OPG's Darlington new nuclear project, well in advance of the project's being approved.

The Big Island project is a perfect example of an offsetting project that went beyond the standard like-for-like offsetting model and sought first to consider the fisheries management objectives for the water body where we were working. What was determined was that a limiting factor for fisheries productivity in Lake Ontario was not necessarily the loss of alewife, which is the species most commonly interacting with our nuclear power facilities, but rather the loss of coastal wetlands along Lake Ontario's north shore.

Equipped with this knowledge, OPG and the project partners were able to develop a project based on perpetual habitat credits to offset the potential annual loss of fish as a measure of productivity for the future Darlington nuclear facility.

When the Darlington new build was temporarily suspended, OPG was fortunate enough to utilize portions of our Big Island wetland bank to offset measures for our existing Darlington and Pickering nuclear generating stations as part of our Fisheries Act authorizations. That said, if we had not had that opportunity to reinvest those credits into our Fisheries Act authorizations, the prior investments in the Big Island wetland may have been in jeopardy.

While creating the expanded wetland would have been a good outcome from a sustainability point of view and for its habitat offset, there are few organizations that can afford to spend money up front on an offset project when there remains overall uncertainty as to whether or not the project would be approved. From this perspective, enabling a formalized third party banking regime presents an opportunity to bring practitioners together as part of a community to report on and share experiences, research efforts and knowledge of what works. OPG and other industry partners have investigated and commissioned research on habitat banking prior to embarking on the Big Island wetland project. We'd be happy to share that as written submissions to the committee if the committee so chooses.

Overall, OPG believes that enabling third party banking would not only bring increased collaboration and opportunity for aligning biodiversity offsets for fisheries, but would also enhance broader ecosystem function and restoration goals, such as wetland creation, species at risk and land conservation. I'm not the first person to mention that in our testimonies.

In closing, I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to provide our views on habitat banking under the Fisheries Act. OPG, as well as WaterPower Canada, would welcome the opportunity to work with DFO to help build a habitat banking system that works in the Canadian context, where resource management is a shared responsibility.

OPG looks forward to continued participation through our industry associations to assist the committee's efforts. We would also be more than happy to meet with you to review our comments and happy to take any of your questions now.

Thank you.

[Paul Norris, President, Ontario Waterpower Association]

Thank you, and thanks to the committee members for the opportunity to provide our insight and perspective on your consideration of the enablement of an optional third party habitat banking system as a component of Bill C-68.

My name is Paul Norris. I'm President of the Ontario Waterpower Association. I'd like to state at the outset that our organization is in strong support of the inclusion in legislation of third party habitat banking. Not only can such a tool contribute to our collective desired outcome of sustainable fisheries, but in so doing it can foster positive and productive partnerships and innovation on the landscape.

By way of introduction, the OWA represents the common and collective interests of the owners and operators of Ontario's 224 waterpower facilities. They are located from Cornwall to Kenora, with installed capacities ranging from less than 20 kilowatts to more than 2,000 megawatts, and built as early as 1898 and as recently as 2018.

Our membership of more than 140 includes environmental, engineering, legal, financial and construction firms; equipment manufacturers and suppliers; municipalities; and indigenous communities. Waterpower is the electricity engine upon which the initial economic prosperity of the province of Ontario was built, and it remains the backbone of an affordable, reliable, sustainable energy system.

It is of specific relevance to the matter under consideration by the committee that our association has the regulatory responsibility for the environmental assessment process for virtually all waterpower development in Ontario through the provisions of the Class Environmental Assessment for Waterpower Projects, of which the OWA is the proponent. Approved by the minister of the environment in 2008, the objective of the Class Environmental Assessment is to help ensure that projects are planned in an environmentally responsible manner. An additional objective of the Class EA is to coordinate and integrate the multiplicity of environmental approvals and public involvement processes that are relevant to planning a waterpower project.

With respect to DFO's mandate, the Class EA states:

...a waterpower project will almost always involve review and possible Authorization under the federal Fisheries Act and studies conducted under the class EA should involve collection of appropriate information on fish and fish habitat. The completion of an undertaking under the Class EA does not remove Fisheries and Oceans Canada's decision-making authority under the Fisheries Act but it is expected that a proponent using this Class EA will satisfy the substantive planning requirements related to completing a Fisheries Act authorization.

It is precisely this “one project, one process” approach of the Class EA that enables the consideration and the application of an array of tools, such as habitat banking, to achieve the objectives of the myriad legislative requirements to which a waterpower project is subject.

Embedded in the Class Environmental Assessment as well is the mitigation sequence within which the concept of third party habitat banking would be utilized. In short, the Class EA adopts a conceptual hierarchy of avoidance, prevention and mitigation.

Where impacts cannot be avoided or prevented, mitigation measures, including compensation, are considered. Habitat banking in general and third party habitat banking specifically are proactive mitigation measures that can be applied on a landscape level to achieve desired outcomes, including the sustainability of fisheries.

I believe it's also important to recognize that the enabling of the innovation of third party banking under the Fisheries Act could help deliver what are generally referred to as “stackable benefits”. One could easily envision a fish habitat banking project that creates ecological goods and services for wetlands, for species at risk, and for carbon offsets—in short, a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

This then brings me to the practical application of third party banking.

In support of the OWA Class EA, we have published more than 40 environmental best management practices for the construction of waterpower facilities. Three of these BMPs are specific to fisheries species at risk and were developed with the input and advice of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I'd like to focus, however, on the partnership between our association and Ducks Unlimited Canada in their preparation and publication of the BMP for wetlands and waterpower facility construction. The document advises that:

The restoration or creation of wetland habitat requires input from a multidisciplinary team...to develop an adaptive strategy based on a critical analysis of the abiotic features of the landscape. Engagement and/or retention of agencies experienced in wetland restoration/creation and management such as Ducks Unlimited Canada will inform and enrich the design of wetland creation projects.

In short, while in some instances a proponent may have the capacity to apply mitigation strategies, including habitat banking, in others there is a clear and recognized role for subject matter experts, particularly those in the business of on-the-ground stewardship, such as Ducks Unlimited Canada, the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Trout Unlimited and others.

For waterpower projects, which in Ontario take up to eight years to complete from environmental assessment to commissioning, regardless of size, the opportunity to proactively bank habitat as a potential mitigation measure, either by the proponent or in partnership with a third party organization, is particularly relevant, especially on a landscape scale. Enabling this measure through the Fisheries Act will undoubtedly unlock the art and the science of the possible.

The OWA fully recognizes and appreciates the significant regulatory and policy work that is required to implement third party habitat banking. In our view, it is well worth the effort. Based on my experience as a member of the Ontario species at risk program advisory committee as well as the Wetland Conservation Strategy Advisory Panel, I can assure committee members that there has been significant collaborative thought devoted to the concept and application of third party banking, which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can leverage. I can also assure you that our organization is prepared to contribute to these efforts.

Thanks again for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to the entertainment of questions.

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

The reason I bring it up is that in my riding we have seen international organizations buy up huge swaths of agriculture land, plow it under, and plant trees for carbon credits to be applied overseas. I'm wondering if this could be an issue that could be addressed by Bill C-68, including third party habitat banking, in the language that was used by the Senate.

[Senator David Mark Wells, Senator, Newfoundland and Labrador, C]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

I want to start off by thanking the chair and the members of this committee for inviting me to speak here today about implementing third party habitat banking in the Canadian context.

This wasn't part of my speaking notes, but I think it's important that I am here not just as a senator who proposed amendments on third party habitat banking and had them accepted in the Senate. I have also appeared at the House fisheries committee before as a subject matter expert, and I have 35 years of experience in the fishery, managing fish processing plants. I was chief of staff at DFO, director of policy at DFO and author of more than 100 technical reports on the fishery. I have direct experience in habitat banking, and I am also a member of Canada's team in the delegation to NAFO.

As I'm sure you are aware, Bill C-68 recently passed in the Senate, with amendments to expand habitat banking to third parties, to introduce an offset payment system and to ensure habitat banking benefits remain local in comparison to a work, undertaking or activity.

I would like to use this opportunity today to urge your committee to recommend the passage of these amendments into law.

While I'm aware that your committee is simply exploring the possibility of implementing third party habitat banking sometime in the future, I want to make it very clear that Bill C-68 may be the only opportunity to get this done right and done within a reasonable period of time.

The Fisheries Act is one of Canada's oldest pieces of legislation, brought into force right after Confederation. When this act is changed, the process is quite lengthy, as we are seeing now with Bill C-68 and as we've seen with all other attempts to pass legislation regarding the Fisheries Act.

I think we all recognize and appreciate the complexities involved in establishing an effective third party habitat banking regime in Canada. Those complexities, though, colleagues, are not legislative; they are regulatory. The amendments to Bill C-68 only come into force upon proclamation of cabinet, and not with royal assent as they typically do. This would provide DFO and the relevant federal agencies the time to get it right so that nothing would be forced onto the Canadian public without it being ready, and I think that's an important point to make.

What the Senate is recommending with the habitat banking amendments is the early work involved in setting the stage for DFO to consult widely and bring in the proper regulations. This could take over a year, two years or five years—however long it takes to bring in a system that's based on international best practices and generates the best possible ecological and economic outcomes.

Third party habitat banking is not new. Other countries, including the United States, already have third party habitat banking systems in place. These systems work, and they work well.

The international debate on this topic is not about whether third party habitat banking should be permitted within a jurisdiction; it's about how regulations should be designed and administered.

The benefits of including third party groups in a habitat banking regime are substantial, and so are the costs of excluding these groups.

Expanding the habitat banking system would create an entirely new habitat banking economy that creates jobs, incentivizes innovation and encourages more and better environmental protection.

Not all proponents—and currently it's in the legislation that it would be just proponents—have the resources or knowledge to build a physical offset. Under a third party habitat banking system, as you have heard from the other witnesses, the proponents would be able to purchase a habitat credit instead of designing and building their own physical offset. The offset must still be created, but under third party habitat banking it could be created by a group with specific conservation expertise. The proponent would essentially be, in these cases, funding the construction of an improved physical offset. This would not replace the mitigation aspects required under the environmental protection aspect of any development.

Third party habitat banking is a win for industry and a win for the environment. Companies won't have to divert attention from the core aspects of their business and the jobs that come with it. All they have to do is buy the credit for the habitat bank established by a third party group and, of course, the mitigation required.

With a new market for the credits, there is an incentive for third parties to join the habitat banking program, thus leading to additional ecological protection.

Who are these third party groups? These third parties include, but aren't limited to, indigenous groups, conservation specialist groups like Ducks Unlimited, wetlands advocates, private sector firms and municipalities. All of those, colleagues, currently do not have the right to be part of the proponent protection. When we say that only a proponent can create a habitat bank, as Bill C-68 did before we amended it in the Senate, we are deliberately excluding groups that have direct experience protecting our environment.

These stakeholders all want to be on the front lines of habitat restoration and enhancement, and they should be. That's why the amendments I proposed at committee to expand habitat banking to third parties, which had broad support across all groups and caucuses in the Senate, also had broad and diverse stakeholder support. Environmental NGOs and industry groups like the Ontario Waterpower Association and the Canadian Ferry Association, for example, as well as first nations, municipalities, conservation authorities and provincial government agencies want to see the expansion of habitat banking to third parties become law. The Senate amendments in Bill C-68 regarding third party habitat banking are cross-partisan amendments, and they're reasonable amendments in terms of implementation, given DFO will have more than enough time to consult widely and bring the system into effect.

I also want to clarify something for the record. As I imagine many of you are aware, I voted against Bill C-68 at third reading in the Senate. I voted this way because there are other aspects of the bill entirely unrelated to habitat banking that I could not support. Bill C-68 is an omnibus fisheries bill, and as I said in my third-reading speech in the Senate, it should have been split into different bills dealing with substantially different elements of the Fisheries Act.

Colleagues, I'm pleased that we have the opportunity here today to discuss the positive changes now in the bill and how they can be implemented in Canada. Third party habitat banking is a perfect example of a private sector solution to environmental challenges. The system is funded by the private sector and executed by specialist groups in the field of environmental and ecological preservation.

I hope your committee, and indeed the entire House of Commons, will use this opportunity to enable the regulatory work to bring third party habitat banking into effect sooner rather than later.

Thank you.

[David Poulton, Principal, Poulton Environmental Strategies Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is David Poulton. I am the principal of Poulton Environmental Strategies Inc., a small consulting firm here in Calgary. I am also the director of the Alberta Land Institute, which is a land use policy research institute at the University of Alberta, and I am the executive director of the Alberta Association for Conservation Offsets, a multi-stakeholder forum for advancing offset thinking here in Alberta. I wish to make clear, though, that all my comments are my own individually, and not necessarily representative of the members of the groups that I am affiliated with or of the groups themselves.

Bill C-68, as originally presented, included provisions for banking arrangements whereby a development proponent could arrange to undertake conservation actions to produce habitat credits and then bank those credits for application against future offset obligations from future development plans. This is dealt with in proposed section 42.01, as I am sure the committee members are well aware.

This is known as first party banking, because the party that creates and banks the credits is the same as the party that ultimately uses them. It's also known as self-banking or, in some of the documents, as proponent banking.

First party banking has occurred selectively for several years under the existing Fisheries Act. It has been largely restricted to a few proponents with repetitive or ongoing projects that require a flow of offset measures. I expect that committee members are familiar with the report from SENES Consultants from a few years ago that reviewed those arrangements.

I have comments on banking generally and then third party banking, and some suggestions about how we might ease into this business. In my comments, I should make clear that I completely agree with everything that Dr. Weber has said with respect to the administration of banking, and I wouldn't want my comments to be seen to be detracting from what she said at all.

With respect to banking generally, it's generally acknowledged that it has three advantages over proponent-led offsets and also over in-lieu fees.

First, and what really distinguishes it, is that it allows for the development and maturation of offset measures prior to the corresponding development.

A common problem in offset arrangements is that there is a time lag between the negative impact of the development and the positive impact of the offsets. With banking, the offsets precede the development, and therefore the negative aspects can be minimized or even reversed. It also allows an opportunity, because it is done in advance, to ensure that the conservation measures are actually successful in achieving their goals, thereby mitigating the risk that there would be some failure in the offset measure when it is too late for any accounting for it in the development process.

Finally, because banking of banked offsets credits is pursued in a proactive way, it allows for an opportunity to match those actions with land use planning and species planning in order to pursue strategic priorities, something that may not happen if offset measures are pursued on an ad hoc basis, with developers each designing their own specific measures.

Let me turn now to third party banking.

The amendments that are currently under consideration would expand habitat banking to include third party bankers, those who do not intend to use the credits for development projects of their own. This opens the prospect of a community of professional fish habitat bank sponsors whose business model is based on the creation of fish habitat for the purposes of generating habitat credits for commercial sale. This could lend a community with both expertise and efficiency to the activity of habitat restoration, enhancement and creation.

Further, I believe it is the intention that there would potentially be several banks of credits available at any one time in a region, which would bring competition and market pressure on those habitat bankers to be cost-efficient and produce quality work.

In case you can't tell, I am certainly in favour of the amendments for creating the third party banking. I do understand, however, that the department is concerned with the extent of the policy and administrative infrastructure that third party banking may require. I'd like to offer a couple of suggestions in that regard.

Again, I endorse Dr. Weber's suggestion that there be an agency responsible for this, with standard metrics and so on, and I believe there may be some interim measures that we can take in the short term while we are developing that infrastructure.

However, even if full implementation is delayed, I think the passage of the amendments would be an important signal to the department and to the Government of Canada as a whole that habitat banking is a path worth following and that resources should be dedicated to developing it.

My first suggestion is that we look to the U.S. for guidance as to how a system might be developed. The United States has had a system of wetland banking in place for over 30 years, but it is important to note that during a lot of that time it was developed on an ad hoc and relatively informal basis. Indeed it was only formalized into a set of federal regulations in 2008. Prior to that, it developed largely on the basis of practices that were accepted informally in regional offices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and as those practices proliferated and greater dependence upon banking arrangements grew, the federal authorities thought it was important to provide uniform guidance in order to assure consistency across the system.

That example does indicate that this sort of activity can occur on a small scale and a relatively informal basis, providing that there is an acceptance of the notion that a habitat credit is a transferable asset and not something that is bound to a particular proponent or a particular project.

Second, I would suggest that we could start putting our toe into these waters—no pun intended—by allowing the first party bankers that currently exist or that are contemplated under the new legislation to transfer their credits to third parties. Those would be other developers in the region in which the first party bankers are operating, and those third parties would have a need for credits to mitigate and offset their own impact.

Why do I suggest this? The first party bankers that we either have or are contemplating are presumably established, sophisticated entities that are well known in their regions and that have an ongoing relationship with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As such, they are likely to be a source of information for those others in the region that may be looking to solve their fisheries challenges. We already have a process to certify their first party credits as being valid and bankable. That process exists, and may undergo further development. All we need then is to allow them to transfer credits, and conversely to accept transferred credits as valid when submitted for use by the third party recipients of the credits.

This relatively informal process would allow us to gain some initial knowledge as to where demand for credits may come from, how buyers and sellers can effectively connect, how transfers can be effected and what issues might arise with transferring credits. As those issues arise, we can indeed deal with them through a regulatory framework.

My understanding is that Port Metro Vancouver is currently the only first party bank that is allowed to transfer its credits. I don't know if that has ever actually been done, but it does indicate that there has been some contemplation of this model and that perhaps there may be some experience with it of which I'm not personally aware.

I just want to make a couple of remaining points here. One is that in creating third party banking, the legislation would effectively create transferable habitat credits as a new form of tradable asset, one whose value lies in its satisfaction of a regulatory offset requirement.

As Dr. Weber indicated, this carries with it certain expectations that the credit must be backed by some system that assures its performance environmentally and establishes some liability for ensuring that the performance is actually seen through.

Further, we need some clear system in order to establish when a credit actually comes into existence and when it is used and extinguished so that there is no fuzziness around what is and is not a valid credit.

Perhaps the best way to achieve this is through the use of a registry, an approach that is often used for intangible forms of property. Indeed, the legislation does provide for a registry of projects under the Fisheries Act. It does not specify that it would carry information with respect to banking and credits, but I think if it did, it would be a very valuable tool for validating the process.

With that, I think I will close my comments. I look forward to hearing from the committee in due course.

[Dr. Marian Weber, Adjunct Professor, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of Alberta, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to testify on the feasibility of third party habitat banking in Canada. I am a researcher at Alberta Innovates and an adjunct professor at the University of Alberta, and I am speaking independently.

Today I would like to outline key components of a framework for third party banking, first by providing a high-level summary of the history and benefits of third party banking; second, by illustrating desirable elements of a framework through two case studies, and finally, by summarizing lessons from these and implications for third party banking under Bill C-68.

First, here is a brief history of banking, which arose 40 years ago out of the U.S. Endangered Species Act and the U.S. Clean Water Act.

Wetland banking under the Clean Water Act identifies three mechanisms for offsets: permittee-responsible mitigation, third party banking and in-lieu fee mitigation. Since 2008, these options have been prioritized, with third party banks being the most preferred option, followed by in-lieu fee mitigation. Third party mitigation is preferred because of improved oversight and ecological outcomes.

Both in-lieu fee and banks are third party mechanisms. The difference is that for in-lieu fees, developers pay a fee to an agent and the development takes place prior to restoration. Banking is associated with up-front restoration, and credits are sold to companies prior to development. In-lieu fees can be preferred when there are few potential buyers, but they have also been criticized because of lack of accountability.

Alberta's wetland compensation program, prior to 2013, was an example of a poorly administered in-lieu fee program whereby charges for wetlands compensation were directed to Ducks Unlimited, with limited accountability in linking the payments to wetland losses and gains. The program was criticized by the Alberta auditor general and has since evolved to become more transparent.

The first case study I wish to highlight is the New South Wales Biodiversity Offsets Scheme. Under this scheme, biodiversity impacts from development are offset through permanent private land agreements. Prior to 2016, the offset scheme was known as BioBanking. BioBanking was a voluntary program that ran in parallel with regulated offsets. The Biodiversity Offsets Scheme combined both regulated and voluntary programs to leverage dollars and provide standardization and accountability.

The critical elements of the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme are the Biodiversity Conservation Trust and the biodiversity offset management system. The conservation trust is a statutory not-for-profit body that administers the in-lieu fee program. Its role is to deliver offsets through landowner agreements. The biodiversity offset management system sets standardized roles for registering and exchanging credits and includes a science-based online assessment tool that is used by both landowners and developers to assess credit obligations prior to entering agreements.

A unique aspect of the fisheries offsets is that many of the activities that cause harm to fish take place on public lands and are temporary in nature. Third party offsets would require some sort of disposition on public lands and in waterways.

These issues are considered in the second example, the U.S. lesser prairie chicken offset program, which is a multi-state program to improve habitat through a combination of permanent and temporary offset agreements. These range from five to 10 years in length.

The emphasis on mobile sites explicitly recognizes the temporary nature of many development projects in habitat enhancement activities. Credits are established under an umbrella of the range-wide conservation plan, which explicitly accounts for the dynamics of temporary and permanent activities over the next 50 years.

I would like to summarize by highlighting two lessons from these case studies.

The first is the need to establish an agency with appropriate oversight and accountability for administering the offset system. This agency should be accountable to regulators, but be at arm's length to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

Second, both programs illustrate the importance of standardized systems and metrics applicable to all offsets, whether they are proponent-led, third party banks or in-lieu fees.

In conclusion, third party frameworks have been implemented in other jurisdictions and are feasible in Canada.

One concern I have under Bill C-68 offsets is that they are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with proponents using different methods. I would urge the committee to consider the need for standardized administrative systems and assessment protocols within an umbrella of a fisheries conservation plan.

Enabling third party offsets is a critical element of a successful offset program. Leaving this off Bill C-68 could hamper the development of the necessary administrative infrastructure for a credible and efficient offset program for several years.

Thank you.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

With respect to the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

Bill C-68—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to consideration of certain amendments to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Bill C-88—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, I have to stand today and say that never has a government spent so much and achieved so little. That is why we end up with this logjam of legislation that the Liberals have not been able to get through in the three and a half years that they have been stumbling along on this.

Talking about consultation, the minister says that the Liberals have done adequate consultation on this. I have to reflect back to the consultation that the government supposedly did on Bill C-68, which we are also debating today, with the Fisheries Act. The Liberals spent over a million dollars providing first nations with the ability to provide briefs to the committee on the review of the Fisheries Act. Those briefs were never provided to the committee for its study on the act.

How can the minister stand there and say that the Liberals have done adequate consultation, when that is an example of how they have not done so?

Fisheries Act

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's intervention.

That brings me back to a word that you used in your intervention, Madam Speaker, and that is “trust” . That is what has brought us all down this path. When Bill C-68 went to the Senate, we had trust that the Senate was going to do its job. Bill C-68 came back, and we had trust that the government was going to take a reasoned look at it, but n it has gutted the amendments from the Senate.

I was going down a path with this in terms of trust. Canadians have lost trust and are weary of hearing the Liberals stand there and say they have our best interests at heart. It truly is relevant to Bill C-68 and to the Senate amendments, because members of the Senate heard from Canadians that they represent in their respective areas. They came at it, as I mentioned, in a collaborative spirit, as we do at the fisheries committee, and tried to enhance the bill.

I will offer this explanation as to why we are going down this path. When the minister stood and gave his presentation and intervention here, colleagues will remember that he talked at length about Bill C-68 and the Senate amendments and why the government felt it was necessary to go down the path that led to Bill C-68. Therefore, I believe I have the ability to talk about Bill C-68 and the background to it, and part of that background is Canadians' trust in the government, or their lack of it.

The hon. colleague can stand on a point of order as much as he likes. It is his privilege to do that, but it is also my privilege to be able to stand in this House and represent the electors of Cariboo—Prince George.

In time allocation, time and again the government chooses to ignore that there are 338 members of Parliament in this House, and that all members are here to represent the electors who elected them to this House. This House does not belong to the Prime Minister. It does not belong to you, Madam Speaker, and it does not belong to me. It belongs to the electors and those who elected us. It is our job to be here and bring our voices here.

When I am talking about priority and trust, I am trying to bring forth the voices of indigenous groups who have not been consulted on Bill C-68. I am bringing forth the voices of coastal communities who have not been consulted or who feel that they have not been heard in terms of Bill C-68. I am bringing forth the voices of my electors in Cariboo—Prince George, who feel that the government is not listening to them.

I will go back to Bill C-68 again and talk about protecting the livelihood of fishers in coastal communities, which is what the minister said was his intent in tabling this bill. If the minister was truly interested in protecting the livelihood of fishers in coastal communities, then probably both the former minister who made the statement and the current minister should have travelled to Grand Bank. They should have come to the Lax Kw'alaams first nation, which has major issues in terms of Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. They should talk to fisheries organizations, which have some serious concerns. They should talk to the farmers and municipalities that all have concerns with Bill C-68.

The minister received a letter from the Fisheries Council of Canada with respect to Bill C-68, and I should make it clear that it was the former fisheries minister who first tabled Bill C-68. He received a letter from the Fisheries Council of Canada that outlined some of their grave concerns over the way he had managed that file to that point.

I will provide a bit of background. The Fisheries Council was established in 1915. It has been the national voice for Canada's commercial fisheries for decades. Its members include small, medium and large companies along with indigenous groups that harvest fish in Canada's three oceans and inland waters. Member companies are also processors. They process the majority of Canada's fish and seafood products. The members take pride in being key employers in their communities. They are also stewards of the resource and work diligently to protect the waters, because sustainability of the fisheries is in the best interest of all involved, and they know that without the proper care and conservation, the resource will disappear.

Members of the Fisheries Council of Canada provide jobs for people like my friend, Edgar, who I met in Grand Bank, where the minister's corrupt surf clam decision shook their foundation and people's livelihoods. Members of the Fisheries Council create an economic base that helps sustain the whole economy of these small towns and villages, these coastal communities, many of which have no other source of economic income. What the minister's actions did in taking away the lucrative surf clam quota, Bill C-68 at that point, was shake those communities to the core.

In its letter to the minister, the Fisheries Council wrote that recent actions and announcements from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had undermined the fishing sector and therefore undermined the economic growth of Canada's coasts. It said, “Taking away the long-standing licences and quotas does not respect past investments and has put a chill on the future investments by Canadian fish processors. Many coastal communities and fish harvesters rely on their local fish processor to purchase their goods in order to bring their products to market. Without continued investment, the industry will stall.”

This is astounding. The Fisheries Council has worked with governments of all colours and stripes and it had to write this letter to the former minister. The fact that it had to do this speaks volumes. In fact, what we heard from people all across Canada and in Grand Bank is that the current government has done nothing to ensure a stable, reliable, sustainable fishery.

It would seem to me, after witnessing what the government has done in regard to the Arctic surf clam, Bill C-68, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that unless one holds a Liberal Party membership or was once a Liberal member of Parliament or has made successful financial contributions to the Liberal cause, one is plain out of luck.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing. I know that all my colleagues look forward to hearing the rest of my remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to get back to where I was. I was on a roll too.

Instead of listening to experts, the Liberals thought they knew best. Bill C-68 proposed to restore the lost protections by returning to the previous definition of harmful alteration disruption and destruction of fish habitat, or HADD, as I mentioned in my earlier comments.

The act would also require the minister to take into account indigenous knowledge and expertise when provided, and all decisions would have to take into account the possible impacts on indigenous rights. The bill would allow for the establishment of an advisory panel and for members to be remunerated, and provides no guidance on or limitation to its use.

Bill C-68, under the part with respect to the prevention of the escape of fish, would prohibit the fishing of cetaceans with the intent to take them into captivity. This was captured under Bill S-203.

The Liberals believe that the bill will restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards. They think it will provide certainty for industry. They say it will provide strong and meaningful protection of fish and fish habitat. However, we know they are wrong.

When we introduced changes to the act in 2012, we did so because the former Fisheries Act was not working. The legislation was way past its best before date, a line, by the way, which the former fisheries minister used when he was describing the changes to it. The legislation was past its best before date and no one was happy with the way things were working. We acknowledged that so we made some changes.

Our common sense approach improved fisheries conservation, prioritized fish productivity, protected significant fisheries and reduced the regulatory burden on industry and communities. Again, it did not lessen any of the regulations. They were still there. They were still in place. I will go back to the Mining Association of Canada's comment that it actually increased some of the areas where under section 35 they could be found in contravention.

In 2012, the Conservative government undertook a rigorous review of and revisions to the Fisheries Act. This review was commenced for a number of reasons, and primarily that the broad scope of the definition of “fish habitat” included entire watersheds and extended the reach of the federal government into watersheds and land use planning, in which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not have expertise.

As a matter of fact, I believe a witness said that by the definition under the former Fisheries Act, a puddle in one's backyard could be deemed a fish habitat. Even a septic pipe that burst and led to a large pool of water in one's backyard could be deemed a fish habitat.

There was a lack of discretion for what was important fish habitat as it relates to fish productivity and what was less important. The House will not get any argument on this side that all fish are important. We must do whatever we can to ensure that we are growing fish for today and for the future.

We do incredible work on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans by putting our partisan stripes aside. All members of that committee are able to work together to try to find common ground.

I know that might be foreign to some people in this House. I know that some members who are not on that committee from the government side are laughing and heckling at me right now. However, I can say with all honesty that our colleagues from all sides of the House are committed to finding whatever solution we can, whether it is the northern cod study, the Atlantic salmon study, the aquatic invasive study that we just completed, or our steelhead study that we have done.

We did a study on abandoned and derelict vessels that was proposed by one of our NDP colleagues. In the last sitting, it was proposed by a Conservative colleague for us to review and revise, to look at how Canada deals with its derelict vessels. In the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that authority was not happening. Many times, communities, and in some instances individual Canadians, were left to try to deal with rusting and derelict vessels that were left in their waterways.

We do great work, and we all are focused on one thing: the protection of our coastal communities. It is not just our coastal communities, but those families who depend on our fisheries for their livelihoods and for sustenance. We are committed to trying to find a way, working through our committee, to having a full understanding of how certain pieces of legislation come through and how the government continues with its mandate.

All members, if they were polled, would say it is absolutely shameful when we have bureaucrats and officials come before us and they promise to be better. At one of my very first meetings, I walked into the committee like a bull in a china shop. It had a bit of a reputation as one of those committees that spun its wheels and never got anything done. That is what I heard, but little did I know. I met my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa and learned of the great work he had done previously and the history that he has. I met some of my Liberal colleagues and heard from them first-hand about what goes on in their communities, and some of the concerns coming from the Rock or the east coast and from Vancouver.

I take offence on this, and some of my colleagues from the Rock know where I am going with this one. When the surf clam issue took place, the seven MPs from the Rock for the most part were silent. I am looking at my friend across the way and I know he was not. However, for the most part, the members from the Rock were silent during the whole surf clam issue. The issue was that the former fisheries minister awarded a lucrative surf clam quota to a sitting Liberal MP's brother, a former Liberal colleague. As well, we found out down the way, it was a company that was being led by the former minister's wife's first cousin. We managed to get a stop to that.

I bring that up to point out that we do great work in these committees. They are supposed to be at arm's length and masters of their own destiny in terms of the work that they do. However, on Bill C-68 on the Fisheries Act, we saw a letter that came from the minister, not asking but ordering the committee to immediately undertake a study on the changes to the Fisheries Act.

Going back to my speech, as I mentioned, there was a lack of discretion in terms of important fish habitat as it relates to fish productivity and what is less important. I got off track, but I want to reiterate that all fish are important. The inconsistencies led to difficulties in assessing an appropriate level of regulatory effort that was proportional to actual importance.

I met with front-line officers, who said that previously the act was harder to enforce. It was challenging. They needed to have some consistency. The Conservative changes made it, not easier for the proponent to get away with what they were doing, but it did make it easier because it was black and white as to what was wrong and what was right. It made it easier for the front-line officers to enforce the Fisheries Act.

Further, the lack of knowledge regarding fish populations allowed for all water bodies to be considered as fish habitat until proven otherwise, and as I mentioned, even puddles. One of the witnesses said that technically, under the former definition, a puddle could have been considered a fish habitat.

Before we introduced changes, all fish and consequently all fish habitat, regardless of economic or social value, received protection under the Fisheries Act. This created a system that was impossible to manage and impediments for most minor work. Farmers looking to improve their land or deal with flooding or other issues, or municipalities looking to install a drain, had to go through a bureaucratic process that made doing one's taxes look easy.

To top it off, there were the inconsistencies between departments. Depending on which DFO office someone went to, it could make someone want to give up on the whole process entirely.

With the restoration of “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat”, HADD provisions, the government is putting it back in place. It means that Canadians will once again need to deal with a set of unenforceable guidelines that will hinder the development and truly do nothing to increase fish stocks or protect valuable habitat.

We heard numerous members, over the course of our previous discussions on Bill C-68, as well as this one, talk about the restoration of lost protections. Again, they used terms such as “gutted”. To me, that is fairly offensive. I think all members of Parliament in this House sign up to do the best that we can, given the portfolios and the files we have. Some of the language that we get from across the way is quite offensive.

It is interesting. Liberals are always the ones who stand up and say that Conservatives are the most divisive bunch. They are fearmongering and they are pitting Canadians against Canadians. Do not even get me started on Liberals using reconciliation on things such as the surf clam project. Liberals stood in the House and said that it was all under the guise of reconciliation, when we knew it pitted first nation against first nation and non-first nation against first nation.

I will go back to this issue as well. The government was trying to deal with the southern mountain caribou issue that we have in British Columbia, and some of the consultations, or lack of consultation, that the Liberals have done. They basically mandated the provincial government to immediately do something, or the Liberal government was going to do a section 80, I believe it is, under the Species at Risk Act. That essentially sent fear throughout our whole province. I urge Canadians, if they get a chance, to Google the southern mountain caribou issue in the province of British Columbia. If Canadians want to see a bungled PR mess, that is it right there. The Liberals have now walked back on it.

However, this all goes back to what we were saying, that the Liberals were not listening to local stakeholders who are on the ground. Liberals believe that they know best and so this is what they are going to do. Again, I will go back to this. If we looked at the letters and requests to the minister to take action, they all came from groups that receive money from foreign-funded groups.

There is no one here who would want to see a species die off. I stood and very clearly stated my message during this whole process that the promise and trust have been broken. At one point, our federal representatives did not want to chime in, although they were the ones who were directing it. They wanted the provincial government to be front and centre, taking all the heat at all the town hall meetings.

Trust has been broken by the Liberal government time and time again. It uses terms like “reconciliation”. Just last week, a member of a first nation called me and said that “reconciliation” is not a buzzword. Unfortunately, the government and the Prime Minister have used it time and time again, and it is shameful. They do things like the surf clam and the southern mountain caribou, and do it under guise of reconciliation. If they want to do something under the guise of reconciliation, how about ending all of the boil water advisories or the suicide epidemic in first nations communities from coast to coast to coast?

Last week, the missing and murdered indigenous women's commission came out with some recommendations. The government knew that this report was coming, but did it budget anything to act on any of the findings? There was nothing.

When we talk about Bill C-68, we are talking about trust. Time and again, the government has broken the trust of Canadians. It promised to have only small deficits and that it would balance the budget by 2019. We are in 2019. Liberals always like to blame those who came before them. It is quite shameful. They have been in government now for four years. It is about time that they take some leadership and ownership of the problems they have created themselves.

We have heard a number of members opposite talk about the restoration of lost protections. We know from the recounting of testimony from witness after witness that there were no lost protections from the previous government's changes.

The former minister of fisheries and oceans said, “Canada is uniquely blessed with an abundance of freshwater and marine coastal areas that are both ecologically significant and linked to the economic prosperity of Canadians.” I could not agree more on this. Canada has the longest coastline in the world. What I do not agree with is the assertion that protections were lost.

The Liberal changes to the Fisheries Act would lengthen the regulatory process, provide unclear and weaker rules to establish and manage ecologically significant areas, and simply put, return us to a destabilization that will prove to be cumbersome and unmanageable. The former minister noted that he wanted to re-establish public confidence, and yet the amendments he proposed to the bill would do nothing. The bill we got back from the Senate had some good amendments that strengthened the bill to a certain extent, and yet the Liberals gutted them again.

Bill C-68 would make it harder for proponents wishing to develop property and will weaken transparency through the creation of more bureaucratic red tape. Farmers looking to improve their land, and municipalities looking to install drains, are going to be faced with a lengthy bureaucratic process that is going to make it harder to respond to critical incidents. There have been flooding incidents in our communities. In 2017, there were massive wildfires, as everyone knows, and it would make it harder and harder for farmers to recover from natural disasters.

The minister hoped his bill would help to protect middle-class jobs in coastal communities. He actually said that. However, just after introducing the bill, the surf clam process took place. I have spent a lot of time in Grand Bank and several coastal communities meeting with fishing organizations and indigenous communities from all across our country, and they are fed up. They are fed up with the government's virtue signalling and while doing whatever it can to make it harder for them to prosper.

A chief of a first nation called me last week. He told me, “I just want the government to get out of the way so that I can lead my community to prosperity. I want the government to get out of the way. When I need their help, I want them to be able to act and act quickly, but I need them to get out of the way, because if there are poverty or social issues in my community, that is on me.” He said, “I am a forward-leaning leader within my community and I want to lead my community to prosperity.”

Unfortunately, the government's pandering to third party groups is making it harder. He said, “I for one, and our community for one, are tired of being the poster child for some of these third party groups.” Some of them I named earlier in this speech.

That brings me back to Edgar, a good friend I met during the surf clam project. I remember his words. He said that the minister's decision to arbitrarily take that surf clam quota away shook his life, shook his foundation, shook his community, the Grand Bank community. It is a community that has had a fishing history for over 400 years. I remember the mayor telling me that the scars of the industry run right straight through the middle of this community.

That is an example of how the government has lost the trust of Canadians. I bring this up because Bill C-68 is another example, and Canadians are weary. They are distrustful that in the eleventh hour of the final session for this government, it is bringing this measure forward, just as we saw with other pieces of legislation.

We are sitting to midnight now. Why are we sitting to midnight? The government House leader says we are sitting to midnight now. Canadians expect us to work. I do not have a problem sitting to midnight, but why are we sitting to midnight? It is because of the Liberals' failure to make progress with legislation. There has been no real priority.

Let us speak about priorities. Two weeks ago we heard from the government's independent leader in the Senate as to why softwood was not negotiated in the new NAFTA, but was there a priority? Today a Liberal member from the Lower Mainland in Vancouver stood up and touted his government's great record on job creation and low unemployment numbers in our province, all while layoff notices and job losses are mounting. That is shameful.

Just last night Canfor, the largest employer in my province and Canada's largest forestry producer, announced sweeping job curtailments throughout the province of British Columbia. Hundreds if not thousands of Canadians are out of work, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard is clapping. That is shameful. I urge the parliamentary secretary to come to my riding. A tone-deaf, muted response was all I got last week to my comments about softwood not being a priority.

There was another response from the Liberals last week in response to my comments about softwood not being a priority. It was that Canadians should be reassured because the job numbers are up and the Liberals stand with the forestry workers. When are they standing with them? Are they standing with them when they are looking for work? Are they standing with them when they are worried about how they are going to make ends meet because they lost their livelihoods? Are they standing with them when they have to go to the bank because the bank is foreclosing on their house?

That is shameful. That goes to—

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House and speak to the Senate amendments to Bill C-68.

I listened intently as the minister did whatever he could, every step of the way, to disparage the previous government while trying to prop himself and his department up along the way. This comes from a minister who took credit for a Coast Guard vessel just last week on social media. He said that the Liberal government did this, but it was our former Conservative government that did it. It is very disingenuous for a minister to use his time to continue to slander and disparage the previous government.

I have said time and again, very publicly in this House and at committee, that consecutive governments, including Liberal governments, should take blame for where our fisheries stocks are. When questioned as to why our fisheries stocks are at critical levels, there are bureaucrats who have been in their positions for 20-plus years who have consistently told every government that they promise to do better. It is quite shameful that this minister would stand up here and trumpet that the Liberals are moving the ball. I will provide proof in my speech that they are not.

Today we are here to talk about the Senate amendments to Bill C-68, which is essentially a flawed piece of legislation. We saw that it was flawed when it was first introduced. Unfortunately, again the government put time allocation on the bill. I believe at that time it was the 40th time that the Liberal government did that, the same government that is led by the member for Papineau, who, during the 2015 campaign, said that his government would let the debate reign and would not resort to parliamentary tricks, such as invoking time allocation.

Here we are today, and I think it is now over 70 times that time allocation has been used. We have not seen time allocation on this bill up to this point, but the day is still early.

I will return to the Senate amendments. Early last week, the Senate sent back 15 amendments to Bill C-68 on about four different topics. As mentioned earlier, they cover inshore fisheries and habitat banking. Bill S-203, which is the bill that would end keeping whales in captivity, was rolled into Bill C-68, as well as Bill S-238, which is the shark finning bill put forward by a Conservative senator. I will get back to this shortly.

It was interesting when the department was before our committee recently regarding Bill S-238. The officials mentioned that while we would be banning shark fins unless the fin is attached to the shark carcass itself, the importation of shark fin soup was still going to be permitted. The department has committed to getting back to us and double-checking that, but the comment we received from the official when he was asked and pressed on it was that “soup is soup.”

Here we are now, talking about the Senate amendments to Bill C-68. Bill C-68 was introduced early last year and, as mentioned, is a piece of flawed legislation. During the 2015 campaign, the Liberals promised to restore the definition of “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction” of fish habitat. From this point, I will refer to that as “HADD”. I mention that for the Canadians watching from coast to coast to coast, as well as for those in the gallery, which is full once again today.

As the Liberals put it, they wanted to restore the lost protections implemented by our previous Conservative government. As a matter of fact, I will use the term that our minister just used, that the Conservatives “gutted the Fisheries Act”. That is what he was saying, and that is shameful. That is the same eco-warrior language, shamefully, that the government used in 2015 to tarnish any of the great work that our previous Conservative government did. As well, cabinet ministers and members of the current government have used this language to disparage some of our natural resource companies, such as mining and oil and gas, and, again, our former Conservative government.

The fisheries committee did an extensive study on the so-called “lost protections” in the changes that were made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act under our previous Conservative government. Not one group and not one witness could provide any evidence that there were lost protections that resulted from the changes in 2012—not an academic, not an environmental group, not a scientist. I will get into that more throughout my speech.

Not surprisingly, the government has capitalized politically with these environmental groups and the public at large with this proposed legislation. The Liberals have positioned themselves as the defenders of the environment, and restoring the imaginary lost protections has garnered positive support through various media outlets. This is the same government that continues to approve the dumping of millions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways, yet here they are defending their actions, standing up and disparaging those who are opposing what they are saying. They continue to this day to approve the dumping of millions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways. Canadians should be paying attention.

We oppose Bill C-68 because of the HADD provisions, but there are some positive aspects of the bill. It potentially has some good points. We have always said that Bill C-68 is a bill that we will repeal and replace, and that we will bring stakeholders around the table and build a piece of legislation that truly represents the intent of Bill C-68.

On the 15 reasoned, responsible amendments that the Senate sent back, the Senate did its job. It attempted to fix an omnibus piece of legislation that should have probably been split into two or three different bills, and there is another broken promise.

I believe it was in the Liberal 2015 campaign, and probably it was the same day when the member for Papineau said that he was not going to resort to such parliamentary tricks as omnibus bills. Well, here we are, and Bill C-68 is one of those. He has not let the debate reign. Time allocation has been seen time and time again.

The amendments focused on changes to the Fisheries Act, such as the owner-operator fleet separation, which, as my hon. colleague across the way mentioned, the fisheries committee has heard about time and again. The bill also talks about habitat protection and habitat banking, and it rolls in Bill S-203 on cetaceans in captivity and Bill S-238 on shark finning.

Bill C-68 introduced habitat banking as a means by which companies could restore waterways affected by development. As an example, when I was in aviation, we built one of Canada's largest runways. To be good neighbours, we noticed during our environmental assessment that there was a potential area for waterfowl or the western spadefoot toad.

Therefore, we had a toad rodeo. We looked to find how many toads were in that certain area that was designated or that could be environmentally sensitive. We also looked for the water fowl that could be present in those wetlands. To be good neighbours, we worked with Ducks Unlimited Canada, the conservation group. We are not the experts in this. We needed somebody to tell us what would be more appropriate, and we wanted to make sure that if there was going to be displacement, it would be within our region. We worked with Ducks Unlimited and other local groups. We found an area that was suitable, and we committed and purchased that area. That is an example of what habitat banking is.

There are concerns with moving down the way in terms of habitat banking, as well as, let us say, carbon credits. It is very similar to carbon credits.

As I was running for election in 2015, I was interested to find that we have offshore companies, European companies, that were buying up huge swaths of agricultural land in my riding. They were literally showing up to a farm and offering suitcases full of money. Many of our farmers are long-time generational farmers and do not have that next generation coming in. Who can blame them, if they have this opportunity present itself? The companies told a good story. Very quickly after purchasing the land, they mowed under all that agriculture potential. They were buying it for carbon credits to be applied in other countries. We cannot create more land; we are not able to do that. We put a stop to that.

Therefore, the habitat banking provisions that the Senate tried to fix with its amendments dealt with third party offset payments and they would keep the restored habitat closed. Habitat banking is a market-oriented approach to environmental conservation. As a matter of fact, we are starting to see this more and more. When I was in aviation, “carbon credits” was the buzzword. It was carbon credits this and carbon credits that. Every passenger who was flying on an airline had an opportunity to buy carbon offsets as part of his or her ticket. A habitat bank is now the next generation of a very similar type of market-oriented approach to environmental conservation. A habitat bank is defined in the bill as “an area of a fish habitat that has been created, restored or enhanced by the carrying on of one or more conservation projects within a service area and in respect of which area the Minister has certified any habitat credit”.

A habitat credit, before being amended at committee, was defined in the bill as “a unit of measure that is agreed to between any proponent and the Minister under section 42.02 that quantifies the benefits of a conservation project.” In plainer language, the old version of the bill stipulated that the proponents, and only the proponents, can offset the adverse effects on fish or fish habitat as a result of conservation work being done by the proponent. That leaves out important third party conservation groups and indigenous groups.

I do not know of too many mining or forestry companies that are experts in conservation projects. If a mining operation leads to deleterious effects on fish habitat, for example, that mining company may offset the impacts of those effects through a conservation project, like moving affected fish to another pond. Other examples include the construction of a salmon ladder, preservation of a wetland, as I described with our airport, or any other measure that creates, restores or enhances a fish habitat. Ensuring that proponents offset their impacts on fish habitat is necessary for environmental conservation. We all agree with that.

There is not a single compelling reason to restrict habitat banking solely to proponents. When we say that only a proponent can create a habitat bank, we are excluding first nations groups and conservation specialist groups like Ducks Unlimited or wetlands advocates. We are also excluding municipalities, among other prospective participants. These stakeholders all want to be on the front lines of habitat restoration and enhancement, and they should be. Not all proponents have the expertise, resources or knowledge to build a physical offset.

We all know that the balance of power in the Senate rests on the independent side, which we know is the government side. Under the amendment passed by our senators, proponents would now be able to purchase the credit rather than designing and building their own physical offset. The offset must still be created, but now it could be created by a group with a specific conservation expertise. In these cases, the proponents would essentially be funding the construction of an approved physical offset. The proponents would say, “We understand that our project has displaced fish, wildlife or aquatic species, and we will work to make amends. However, we are not the experts on this, so let us partner with an approved group to get this done.”

It is a win-win for industry and the environment. Companies do not have to divert their attention from the core aspects of their business and creating the jobs that come with it; all they have to do is buy the credit for the habitat bank established by a third party group. With a new market for the credits, there is an incentive for third parties to get into the habitat banking game, thus leading to additional biological protections.

The second amendment the Senate sent back on this issue relates to the offset payments. This amendment would allow the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to collect and offset payment in lieu of establishing and offsetting a habitat bank. The purpose of introducing this tool, as argued by the Canadian Wildlife Federation and others, was to provide the flexibility in areas where an appropriate offset project is not available or cost-effective. That makes sense.

As an alternative to purchasing credits, proponents could pay into a habitat protection fund, for example the environmental damages fund, to offset any impacts their project may have. Under this amendment, funds would need to be spent as close as practicable to where the work, undertaking or activity is located, or at least within the same province where such work occurred. If the displacement or impact is taking place in a region such as Cariboo—Prince George, I would like to see that habitat banking take place right in my riding. I would have to say that it has to be done there. We do not want to see these other companies coming in and doing something similar to what we mentioned earlier with the carbon credit program. If that displacement is taking place in an area such as Cariboo—Prince George, then an appropriate project should be found in the same region. I would suspect there are a lot of conservation projects that could benefit from this type of program.

Adding these parameters to the system was imperative to ensure equal treatment among all provinces, territories and, hopefully, if administered accurately by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, among watersheds as well.

This amendment does not mandate how the government should collect or spend the money. It simply establishes a structure by which private sector funds, determined and accepted at the discretion of the minister—again, it is all about this minister having all the power—can be used to support restoration projects in Canada. It makes sense to me.

The third amendment on habitat banking shares the spirit of the second, but it is entirely distinct among the three, and here is how. Bill C-68, in both its current and former iterations, specifies that certified habitat credits must be used within a service area. A service area is defined in Bill C-68 as “the geographical area that encompasses a fish habitat bank and one or more conservation projects and within which area a proponent carries on a work, undertaking or activity.”

The broadness of that definition was concerning. As currently written, a service area could technically be considered the whole country. For discussion purposes, let us say that SNC-Lavalin, working on a project in Quebec, is deemed to have done some damage to fish or fish habitat or is looking to buy some habitat banking credits, but it also does work in Vancouver, Toronto or other areas. It could apply those habitat banking credits to those areas, not necessarily the area in which it is making the displacement.

That is incorrect, and the third amendment sought to fix that. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that the benefits of an offsetting habitat bank remain local in comparison to the work, undertaking or activity. “Local” would be either as close as practicable to the area, or within the same province. The general idea is that the closer to the affected area it is, the better. A mining project in St. John's should not be offset by a habitat bank in northern Ontario or Vancouver Island, or vice versa.

This amendment maintains that it needs ministerial flexibility while protecting the local fish populations and providing certainty to industry about where credits can be used. Habitat banking benefits should remain as local as possible, as a guiding principle. If that is not practical, then the benefits should at least remain in the province where the work was carried out.

Late last night, the government set forth and gave notice of its amendments to the Senate amendments. Unfortunately, late last night the government responded by removing the new habitat banking provisions. The government said that it “respectfully disagrees with amendment 11 because the amendment seeks to legislate in respect of third-party, or market-based, fish habitat banking, which is beyond the policy intent of the Bill that is to provide only for proponent-led fish habitat banking.”

Is the government kidding? What a bunch of hogwash. The government put the habitat banking provisions into the bill. To say that the amendments to the habitat banking are beyond the policy intent is absolutely absurd, unless, of course, this bill is nothing more than just a cover and a piece and is not really intended to actually do anything but is just another thing for Liberals to stand up and say, “We did it”, getting all the support from the third party groups that supported them in 2015. I will say more on that later.

Let us go back and look at the absurdities of the bill from the beginning. On restoring lost protections, the minister stood and said that the former Conservative government gutted the Fisheries Act. Bill C-68 started with the Liberal campaign promise in 2015 to restore lost protections. After forming the government, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to investigate the so-called lost protections.

After an extensive study, an 86-page report to Parliament was issued. To my colleagues who are in the House, and the packed gallery, how many lost protections were found? There were none. Zero. Not one witness came before the committee and said that the 2012 amendments to the Fisheries Act by the former Conservative government resulted in lost protections. As a matter of fact, what we heard was that they gave some assurances or some consistency to the application process. We also had some proponents who said that it actually made things tougher, but at least they knew the steps in the process they had to go through.

It is shocking that these guys, time and time again, stand in the House and use the same old talking points. Canadians are not going to be fooled. I think I just saw a poll that ranked the Prime Minister and the Liberal government at 15% in terms of environmental protection. Our hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands scored the highest, and I think our leader was next. Way down the list was the member for Papineau, our Prime Minister.

After that extensive study and an 86-page report, not one lost protection was found. The dissenting report we issued said the following:

Contrary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard's correspondence to the committee dated June 29, 2016 whereby the minister directed the committee to undertake a study investigating the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act and any resulting lost protections,

I thought committees were supposed to be at arm's-length and masters of their own destination. How many times has a minister or parliamentary secretary stood in the House and said, “Madam Speaker, committees are on their own to do whatever they want”? Probably they even had their hands on their hearts. It is crazy. It just adds to the hypocrisy of those across the way.

The report continues,

witnesses who appeared before the committee were unable to provide any scientific or legal proof of harm resulting from asserted lost protections under the Act as a result of the 2012 changes. This fact was noted on page 33 of the committee report, which states, “The preceding paragraphs in this section indicate the differing testimony heard with no scientific or legal evidence provided to show whether the 2012 changes broadened or reduced the circumstances under which section 35 applies.”

In some cases, witnesses like the Mining Association of Canada expressed that the 2012 changes to the Act actually increased habitat protections. They said, “...the 2012 changes have in practice broadened the circumstances in which the section 35 prohibitions apply and increased the circumstances in which an authorization and offsets are required.”

The CFA also added that, “...it is the CFA's position that a complete revert to reinstate all provisions of the Fisheries Act as they were would be unproductive [and] reestablish the same problems for farmers, and...provide little improvement [in conservation]”

I have just gone through the Senate amendments as they apply to habitat banking. I could go on at length about inshore fisheries, and I will do that later in my speech.

I will talk about Bill S-203, which is ending whales in captivity, which was rolled into this bill, and some of the concerns Conservatives have. Previously, when a southern resident killer whale was in jeopardy and in need of rescuing, there had to be an order in council from the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia. The Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia and the province do not have the mechanisms in place to respond quickly to that request. When every minute counts when trying to save the life of a resident killer whale or a cetacean, we need to have a tool in our tool box to act quickly. In that regard, Bill S-203 was flawed at that point. That was a serious concern the Conservatives had. The Senate amendments took that away, and that power now rests with the minister in this House, which I think is the right way of moving forward.

While there are still concerns about Bill S-203, we believe that the amendments from the Senate give us some assurances that some of the main concerns we had were addressed. However, in Bill S-203, there were some differences in the translation from French to English. In legal terms, one could argue that the intent may not be the same. That was brought up at committee, and the legal team and officials could not answer questions as to whether those discrepancies in the translation from French to English could have serious consequences down the road.

Bill S-238 is the shark finning bill. As I mentioned, a Conservative senator put forward Bill S-238. It is similar to the bill my hon. colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam put forward earlier in this session, which was voted down, but I am glad to see that Bill S-238 has been rolled into Bill C-68. Again, there are concerns as to how Bill S-238 could be prescribed down the road, but I believe in my hon. colleague's intent and in the spirit of the bill.

As was mentioned earlier, when the officials were before committee during the study of BillS-238 talking about the practice of shark finning and the importation of shark fins, shark fin soup is apparently still allowed to be imported. Shark fin soup can come in, because “soup is soup”, which is a quote from one of the officials. They committed to get back to the committee as to whether that was true. I have yet to hear if they got back to the committee.

My hon. colleague talked about the intent of Bill C-68. It is important for Conservatives to state our concerns about the bill once again. They were mentioned previously, and I have expressed some of them. Bill C-68, from a policy perspective, is a piece of legislation that makes Canadians feel good.

It is interesting that after the Senate amendments beefed the bill up, the minister and the Liberal government watered it back down, just as senators were trying to beef things up and do their job. The Senate does great work. It sent the bill back to us with some good amendments, yet the minister and the government are scrapping a good portion of them.

As I said, Bill C-68 was payback for all the third-party groups that supported our Liberal colleagues across the way. Well, they supported anyone but the Conservatives. This leads me to my next point, which is relevant, because it goes to the crux of Bill C-68.

Bill C-68 can be grouped with Bill C-69, the Liberals no pipeline bill, and Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act. Recently, six premiers from across the country wrote the Prime Minister to say that the bills represent one of the largest threats to national unity we have seen, that the threat to our national economy is real and that the damage these bills would do to our economy, jobs and investments is profound.

Why do I bring this up? As I mentioned, Bill C-68 is payback for all the support the Liberals got in the 2015 election. What support am I referring to? In 2015, 114 third parties poured $6 million into influencing the election outcome. Many of those parties were funded by the U.S.-based Tides Foundation. The new director of policy was a top executive there. The Prime Minister's former chief adviser, Gerald Butts, was previously the president of the World Wildlife Fund, another Tides-sponsored organization.

Another Tides-sponsored organization is Leadnow. As noted in an article, it is a “non-profit society that was created in 2010 with the goal of bringing to Canada a model of on-line, political campaigning and movement organizing that began in the U.S. behind President Barack Obama.”

The article states:

During Canada’s 2015 federal election, Leadnow ran a strategic voting initiative called Vote Together. Leadnow claims to have defeated 25 Conservative incumbents.

Leadnow targeted me, but it did not win. However, it was successful in 25 Conservative-held ridings.

The article continues:

From Leadnow's 2010 Business Plan, it is clear that as far back as 2010, Leadnow has been focused on defeating the Conservative government. Leadnow's “Investor Package” states that Leadnow intended to "offer tangible support to parties that adopt their policies, and use tools like strategic voting to “swing elections” to reflect Canada's progressive majority.”

Why am I bringing this up? What is the relevance? This goes back to 2008, when a group of radical American anti-fossil-fuel NGOs created a tar sands campaign. It was geared, as quoted in a column in the Financial Post, to landlocking “the Canadian oil sands by delaying or blocking the expansion or development of key pipelines” by “educating and organizing First Nations to challenge construction of pipelines across their traditional territories” and bringing “multiple actions in Canadian federal and provincial courts.” These NGOs wanted to raise the negatives, including by recruiting celebrity spokespeople, such as Leonardo DiCaprio, to “lend their brand to opponents of tar sands and generat[e] a high negative media profile for tar sands oil.”

The column states:

[T]he Rockefeller Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation... along with environmentalist charities, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the U.S.-based Tides Foundation

Why did the they do that? It was to do whatever they could to target our natural resources.

I say this because fish is a natural resource, and Bill C-68 is another bill, along with Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, and Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium, that targets our resource sector.

I will bring members back to the earliest days of this sitting where the Prime Minister stood and said that Canada would become known more for our resourcefulness than our resources.

Make no bones about it; these groups have infiltrated our government at the highest levels. Gerald Butts, president and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund, was a chief adviser to the Prime Minister. He brought with him former campaigners. Marlo Raynolds, chief of staff to the environment minister, was a past executive director for the Tides-backed Pembina Institute. Zoë Caron, chief of staff to the Minister of Natural Resources, was a former WWF Canada official. Sarah Goodman, on the Prime Minister's staff, was a former vice-president of Tides and now holds potentially one of the most powerful positions as director of policy in the PMO. It is concerning at every step of the way.

I will bring members back to question period when the Minister of Democratic Institutions said that one side of the House likes to cheat and the others are doing everything to protect our democracy. We have seen time and again, going back to 2015, where we have all of these groups that were funded to take on our former prime minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives to defeat them and they propped up this Prime Minister, then the member for Papineau, and he made all of these promises. What do we see? We see now that he is following through on those promises to the environmental groups, the NGOs.

I have had fisheries groups and first nations say to me that when they want to get in to see the minister, they have to go through environmental groups. I do not think there is a government that has had more lawsuits against it from first nations than any other than the current government. On marine protected areas, the government is doing what it calls consultation. I will get into the consultation on Bill C-68. The Liberals like to say it is consultation. They will stand in the House and they are disingenuous to Canadians who are listening in. We have the proof. I talked a little about how the foreign funding has influenced our highest offices of the government, and that is what we are seeing in our pieces of legislation. Bill C-68 is no different.

As part of the economic action plan in 2012, and in support of a responsible resource development plan, our former Conservative government put forward changes to the Fisheries Act. They were geared at strengthening the act and removing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. They were geared at making that process manageable so that proponents knew the steps that had to be taken. It was not letting them off the hook. We heard testimony from the Mining Association of Canada that it actually increased areas to which its members could be found negligible and fined. Our changes supported a shift from managing impacts to all fish habitats to focusing the act's regulatory regime and managing threats to the sustainability and ongoing productivity of Canada's commercial, recreational and indigenous fisheries.

Now, instead of listening to experts, the people who actually use our waterways and fish our rivers, lakes and oceans, the government turned a deaf ear to practicality and pushed forward, through the use of time allocation, legislation that will affect lives and do little to enhance the deterioration of fisheries in Canada. I said that in a previous speech. At that time, I believe it was 23 out of 25 of our core fisheries that were at very serious levels. Why was that? The fisheries management plans were not done. We do not manage fisheries to grow more fish. We manage fisheries to extinction.

I would put our team up against that team any time. Our member of Parliament for North Okanagan—Shuswap, our member of Parliament for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa and our member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe all had previous careers in this. We hunt. We fish. We live off the land. We are farmers. We are conservationists at heart. Bill C-68 actually made things harder with some of the changes that we did.

One of the Liberal members who was on the committee at the time, who himself is a farmer, said that if he had a flood on his property, the changes that the former Conservative government had done would actually make it easier for him to respond. If a community or a municipality had a road that was washed out, it actually allowed workers to go in, without skirting any of the rules or regulations, work within the prescribed timelines and schedule to actually get the work done and respond quickly.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's reference to my sponsorship of Bill S-203. I was also the mover of the amendment that led to the water flow provisions on habitat. I agree with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford that it is a shame to see those lost.

I want to make this one point in 10 seconds: This bill has to pass. I wish I had not lost my section on water flows, but we have to move Bill C-68 through.

Does the hon. minister think we have time to move the amendments through the Senate and back to this place?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who were the original sponsors of both Bill S-203 and Bill S-238, which have now been incorporated into Bill C-68.

With respect to the question on aquaculture, last week we brought forward framework documents to develop and consult on how we assess risk on a go-forward basis. We concurrently implemented an additional step in the precautionary approach with respect to testing for strains of PRV and for specific illnesses that may exist within the net pens. The results will feed directly into the risk management framework that we have developed over the course of the last number of months.

As I said, we are inviting comment over the coming couple of months on the risk management framework to ensure we get this right in moving through the scientific process to make those determinations.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his speech. New Democrats will be supporting the passage of the bill. It is an important piece of legislation.

I would like to thank him for the part of the legislation related to shark finning, and I certainly thank my good colleague and friend from Port Moody—Coquitlam for his bill on ending the import and export of shark fins. It is very important. It is nice to see that he has been able to roll it into Bill C-68. We have heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast that they want to see an end to that practice.

One thing that concerns me is that there are no provisions here about aquaculture. It is a concern the minister has heard from me recently. I want to thank him for taking steps to commit to testing for PRV in fish on salmon farms, but we do not have answers on what will happen if fish test positive.

Has he made a commitment that fish will not be transferred to open-net fish farms should their tests have a positive result? He knows how important this is to coastal communities, and they are calling for this to stop.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very important for fish harvesters. Certainly they have made that abundantly clear in the conversations they have had with me.

It is an important initiative on behalf of the government to strengthen owner-operator and fleet separation through Bill C-68. It is an integral set of policies for underpinning our coastal communities and the economic viability of our coastal communities. We are very pleased to be moving forward with something that we think is extremely important for many Atlantic Canadians and fish harvesters in Quebec.

It will be a happy day for all of us when we get that done and passed.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to offer my support for Bill C-68 on behalf of my constituents who widely condemned the previous Conservative government's changes to the Fisheries Act. I am glad to be able to stand in this place and to fix the damages of the past.

That being said, however, I am very disappointed with the minister supporting Senate amendments 1(c) and 7 with respect to environmental flows. He should know why I am disappointed about this. It is because of the Cowichan River and the Jordan River in my riding. Yesterday, the Cowichan River was reported to be flowing at a rate of five cubic metres per second. This is in early June.

I do not know how the minister can stand in this place and not recognize that environmental flows are critical to fish habitat. I was on the river last month, helping to rescue salmon fry. There are huge swaths of the river that are now being affected. Loss of habitat is very widespread. We had a golden opportunity in this legislation that was passed by the House to have environmental flows enshrined in the legislation.

The minister knows that this is a big problem for rivers on the coast. I do not know why he is supporting that when the evidence is abundantly clear that environmental flows are absolutely critical to maintaining proper fish habitat.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

moved:

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, the House:

agrees with amendments 1(b), 1(c), 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 made by the Senate;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(a) because it is contrary to the objective of the Act that its habitat provisions apply to all fish habitats throughout Canada;

proposes that amendment 3 be amended by deleting “guaranteed,” and, in the English version, by replacing the word “in” with the word “by”;

proposes that amendment 9 be amended by deleting section 35.11;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 11 because the amendment seeks to legislate in respect of third party, or market-based, fish habitat banking, which is beyond the policy intent of the Bill that is to provide only for proponent-led fish habitat banking.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great privilege that I rise today to speak to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, which will restore lost protections to fish and fish habitat and incorporate modern safeguards into the law.

Before I highlight how Bill C-68 brings forward important improvements to the Fisheries Act, I would like to thank my predecessor, the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, the member for Beauséjour. It is due to his leadership that we are here today debating this bill which, once passed, will fulfill a promise we made to Canadians in 2015 and will ensure that our fisheries are sustainable for future generations. We all wish the minister, our friend, a very speedy and full recovery.

On this note, I would also like to extend my thanks to Senator Christmas, who is the sponsor of the bill in the other place, for his work on moving Bill C-68 forward, for his commitment to the protection of fish and ensuring that the voices of indigenous peoples are well represented. I note that he made a number of amendments that will strengthen the indigenous components of the bill that we will be accepting.

I also want to thank the other place as a whole, in particular the committee, for its study of this bill.

Today, I will begin with an overview of the bill itself, and then I will speak to the amendments proposed by the Senate.

In summary, we will be respectfully rejecting the amendments in relation to the definition of fish habitat, as well as rejecting the three amendments related to third party habitat banking.

On a minor amendment, I have already sought the agreement of Senator Christmas to make a technical change to one of his amendments so that the language reflects what is already in the bill with respect to indigenous rights.

Canadians elected a Liberal government because they knew that the Liberal Party had a plan for growing the economy and for protecting our environment. Today, we are debating an important part of that plan. Bill C-68 will restore lost protections to fish and fish habitat and ensure that the government has the tools to manage our fisheries so that they are sustainable and healthy for future generations.

The previous government gutted the Fisheries Act, made cuts to science and reduced the number of fisheries officers. These are not the types of actions Canadians want and that, in part, is why those members are sitting on the opposite side of this chamber. The Conservatives have no plan for the environment and no plan to protect our fish and fish habitat. On the other hand, this government does have a plan and that plan is working.

Bill C-68 amends the Fisheries Act to fulfill our government's commitment to better protect Canada's freshwater and marine fisheries, helping to ensure their long-term economic and environmental sustainability. The amendments we are making will modernize the act. These amendments include a new purpose clause and considerations when making decisions under the act that will provide a framework for the proper management and control of fisheries and for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution.

Factors to consider when making decisions with regard to potential harm to fish include the application of a precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach, community knowledge, indigenous knowledge, and social, economic and cultural considerations.

As well, key to the proposed changes to the act are the new requirements for stock rebuilding, which will introduce legally binding commitments to implement measures to manage Canada's major fish stocks above levels necessary to promote their sustainability.

Maintaining healthy stock levels and rebuilding those that have been depleted is critical to coastal communities and to their economic viability. That is why our government in the fall economic statement announced an investment of $107 million over five years and $17.6 million per year ongoing to support the implementation of these stock rebuilding provisions. There are a number of important fish stocks that have shown declines in recent years, which is why we have committed these funds to accelerate our actions to ensure sustainability. Over the next five years, this government is committed to making major fish stocks subject to the provisions on rebuilding.

Furthermore, key to the government's commitments are the 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, or HADD. First, we have expanded the scope to apply to all fish and fish habitat. Second, we have removed reference to serious harm, which, as many in the chamber know, was put forward by the previous Conservative government when it gutted the act in 2012. This new Fisheries Act will restore the application to HADD and would prohibit causing the death of fish by means other than fishing.

The new habitat provisions will also address major projects so that the proponents know which projects require permits. In response to industry concerns, we have also established codes of practice to guide best practices that minimize the impact on fish and fish habitat for smaller and routine projects. This will be especially critical for farmers and those in the agricultural industry who often undertake minor, routine works that relate to water.

Finally, the proposed Fisheries Act would enable ministerial regulations for the purposes of conservation and protection of marine biodiversity as well as the addition of other vital new tools, such as fisheries management orders, to quickly address threats to the proper management and control of the fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish.

Also, upon royal assent, the amended Fisheries Act will include a number of greatly needed updates, such as empowering the minister to establish advisory panels, set fees under the act and enter into agreements with indigenous governing bodies. Most importantly, the proposed legislation introduces a non-derogation clause as well as protections for indigenous knowledge when such information is provided to the government.

Bill C-68 also, very importantly, preserves the independence of our inshore fish harvesters by enshrining into law policies that support fleet separation. The legislation recognizes that when making decisions under the act, the minister can take into account social, economic and cultural factors, and the preservation and promotion of an independent inshore commercial fishery in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

These amendments are critical if we want to ensure that our stocks are sustainable for future generations and for the communities from coast to coast to coast who depend on our fisheries and on the health of our oceans.

Under the former Conservative government, there was no plan to rebuild our depleted stocks, just like the Conservatives had no plan to protect our oceans. It is under this government that we have now successfully protected over 8% of our marine and coastal areas, up from less than 1% under the former Conservative government. We now have a clear path to achieving our 10% target by 2020.

Canadians know that this government has a plan that will protect our oceans all the while ensuring that our communities continue to benefit and that our economy continues to grow.

This bill is a testament to meaningful engagement and consultations, and we heard from many Canadians, from coast to coast to coast. Consultations were extensive and public, on key issues for industry, non-governmental organizations, provinces and territories, and indigenous peoples across Canada.

During the fall of 2016, the department participated in more than 90 meetings with indigenous groups, communities and organizations, and resource management boards established under land claims agreements.

In the spring of 2017, there was a second phase of public engagement. During this second phase, Fisheries and Oceans Canada provided approximately $900,000 to 89 indigenous groups to support their participation and engagement. The department also held over 70 meetings with indigenous peoples and nine more meetings with resource management boards, who, in turn, provided more than 170 written submissions.

The government has listened and has been responsive to many of the concerns that have been raised during parliamentary review. Both the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the other place have provided robust and very constructive recommendations, as well as amendments that have been supported by the government. With regard to some concerns raised by industry, particularly regarding the adoption of the amendment deeming water flow fish habitat, the government was responsive to concerns raised that the new definition's application could be unnecessarily broad and that the core intent was already captured in the bill. Consequently, the government agreed to the removal of the deeming water flow fish habitat provision from proposed subsection 2(2).

Industry also expressed concern about the provisions for the permitting of major projects under the proposed act. The government recognizes that regulatory certainty is important to industry and to Canadians and that designated project regulations may capture portions of projects that are not related to fish and fish habitat. Not all works, undertakings or activities that form part of a designated project require permits under the Fisheries Act, as many have no impact on fish and fish habitat. This is why we have introduced amendments from the government on designated projects, which gives the minister the ability to identify and make the final determination on which works, undertakings or activities will require a permit.

The intent of these amendments is to bring clarity to project proponents on which projects require a permit, and to avoid duplication with the federal impact assessment process. Providing greater certainty and cutting red tape while ensuring that fish and fish habitat are protected is very much the intent of this legislation.

This government, through Senator Harder, also proposed important amendments that were adopted by the other place that relate to two Senate public bills: Bill S-203 and Bill S-238. Bill S-203 is commonly referred to as the ending captivity of whales and dolphins act. Bill S-238 is commonly referred to as the ban on shark fin importation and exportation act. These two bills respond to increasing public concern about the well-being of cetaceans held in captivity in Canada solely for public display, as well as concerns about the impact and the nature of the practice of shark finning. I am pleased to say that the government shares these concerns and is demonstrating leadership on these issues.

This government believes that the practice of keeping whales in captivity solely for the purpose of public display should be phased out.

I believe that the amendments proposed to Bill S-203, and the coordinating amendments in Bill C-68, will help us effectively phase out and restrict the captivity of whales.

Bill S-238 proposes to amend the Fisheries Act to prohibit the practice of shark finning and to amend WAPPRIITA to prohibit the import and export or the attempt to import or export into and from Canada of shark fins or parts of shark fins that are not attached to a shark carcass.

The intent of the proposed amendments to Bill C-68 related to shark finning is consistent with the legislative policy objectives of Bill S-238 to address the practice of shark finning, which is the practice of removing fins from sharks and discarding the carcasses at sea. There is no doubt that shark finning and the illegal trade in shark fins have had a devastating impact on global shark populations. In fact, over 63 million sharks are killed every year, many for the global shark fin trade.

Canada has demonstrated international leadership on the conservation and management of sharks and was one of the first countries to develop a national plan of action in that regard. Canada continues to work with its partners, including regional fishery management organizations, to adopt effective management measures to regulate the capture of sharks in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Without these amendments in Bill C-68, Bill S-238 is likely not going to pass due to the short time remaining in this sitting. This amendment will ensure that shark finning and the export and import of shark fins will be banned in Canada.

I would now like to turn to the proposed changes from the other place to Bill C-68.

The first amendment that we will be respectfully rejecting was made by Senator Poirier in relation to the definition of “fish habitat”. Senator Poirier's amendment would change the definition of “fish habitat” from “water frequented by fish and any other areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas” to “any area on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nurseries, rearing, food supply and migration areas”.

The original text of “water frequented by fish”, in addition to “areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly on”, increases the scope for the application of the fish habitat protection provisions. By removing “water frequented by fish”, this amendment goes against the objective of the bill to provide greater protection to fish and fish habitat across Canada. Therefore, we will not be supporting this change.

With regard to another proposed amendment, as part of the changes initially proposed, the government introduced provisions that would allow for proponent-led habitat banks. The department has been encouraging proponent-led habitat banking since 2013. Bill C-68 would enshrine this policy approach into law and provide new incentives to use habitat banking credits to offset impacts on fish and fish habitat caused by human activity. This represents an important evolution in the implementation of measures to help improve the conservation of fish and fish habitat.

Some stakeholders and senators have argued that we should go further, by expanding habitat banking to third parties and to allow cash payments in lieu of offsetting. Expanding habitat banking to third parties would allow any organization to earn credits through restoration or conservation projects. These credits could then be sold to project proponents that do not wish to create their own offsets prior to project development.

Payments in lieu of offsetting would allow project proponents to pay a fee up front instead of investing in offsetting projects prior to development. The intention is that revenues from these payments would be dedicated to aquatic habitat restoration. Third party habitat banking has its merits and is currently practised in some countries, including the biodiversity banking and offsets scheme in Australia and the wetlands mitigation banks in the United States.

However, there are important considerations and actions that we need to undertake prior to establishing third party habitat banking and fees in lieu of offsetting regimes here in Canada. First, it is the government's view that in order to offset the residual impact from a project, conservation projects created to acquire habitat banking credits need to benefit the specific fish populations and areas that would be affected by that project.

Second, this government believes that where aquatic species at risk are present, opportunities to undertake conservation projects involving the creation, restoration or enhancement of the habitat of aquatic species at risk should be given priority.

Third, in the freshwater and inland areas of Canada, provinces own the land and are responsible for resource management. In some cases, indigenous communities or governments may be responsible for resource management. Since habitat banks could certainly implicate these lands, the creation of a habitat bank requires that implicated stakeholders be consulted regarding the area in which the bank would be created. Consultation with other federal departments, provinces, territories, indigenous groups and landowners would be necessary to establish agreements to authorize these transactions. Due to these considerations, the proposed amendments to Bill C-68 to expand habitat banking would require regulatory initiatives that would, if not properly designed, present risks to the conservation community, indigenous groups and other land or rights holders.

In summary, although third party habitat banking and fees in lieu of offsetting are schemes that have significant potential for application in Canada, those in comparative jurisdictions are based on complex and lengthy legislative and regulatory framework development. The current proposed model is inadequate in this regard and would likely result in unintended consequences in its current form. Further, any such provisions certainly would require significant consultations with provinces, territories and others.

Due to the legal complexity and public policy considerations that the government would need to address prior to establishing and implementing such regimes in Canada, we will not be adopting the habitat banking amendments proposed by the other place. However, going forward, the department will commit to evaluating the performance of proponent-led habitat banks and to assess offsetting policies adopted elsewhere, including third party habitat banking and payment in lieu of offsetting.

Additionally, in light of the discussions on third party habitat banking as they relate to Bill C-68, I have asked the House fisheries committee to study this issue. This government has always been of the view that polluters should pay. It simply should not be free to harm our environment. I believe there is significant merit in further examining third party habitat banking.

I would also note that the Canadian Wildlife Federation, which proposed these amendments through Senator Wells and which does great work advocating for the protection of wildlife habitat, has indicated its support for the removal of the these amendments at this time. It understands that more work needs to be done before we can move forward fully in this area. In addition, we are making a technical amendment to an amendment made by Senator Christmas to ensure that the language used with respect to section 35 rights, as well as aboriginal treaty rights, is consistent with language used in the rest of the bill. I have spoken to Senator Christmas about this amendment and he has agreed to this change.

Bill C-68 is restoring lost protections that Canadians elected this government to do. Changes in this bill will help rebuild fish stocks and in turn support the communities that depend on them.

When the Conservatives were in government, they did the opposite. They watered down fish and fish habitat protection when they gutted the Fisheries Act in 2012, and they made deep cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by slashing the operating budget by $100 million. They also made staff cuts to critical areas, such as the Pacific region habitat management program, which helped support the management of our wild salmon.

I am proud to be part of a government that is taking the right approach when it comes to protecting our environment and our fish stocks. That is why last fall, in partnership with the Government of British Columbia, I announced $142 million to create the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund to support the B.C. fish and seafood sector, and to ensure the sustainability of wild Pacific salmon and other B.C. fish stocks. This government has also invested in science, small craft harbours across the country and whale research. As many Canadians know, it was this government that invested $1.5 billion in the oceans protection plan that has supported research, opened new rescue boat stations, increased Coast Guard capacity and restored coastal habitats. Canadians can count on this government to make the right investments in our environment while growing our economy and creating good middle-class jobs.

This bill has also been before both chambers for over a year now. The Conservatives will say that their move backward in 2012 to reduce protections may not have had a negative impact on the environment; they will argue that their changes were somehow merited.

Canadians know not to wait until stocks collapse before taking action. Canadians know that the Conservatives do not support science or a precautionary approach. That is why, under their watch, they muzzled scientists and made dramatic cuts. Canadians know that Bill C-68 will help protect our fish and fish habitat and is an important piece as we move forward with a plan that will protect our biodiversity, oceans, and ensure our fisheries are sustainable for future generations.

It is truly time to get on with passing Bill C-68. In response to the message from the other place, we are accepting many amendments, while rejecting just three amendments and amending one. Again, the Canadian Wildlife Federation that originally proposed the habitat banking amendments, through Senator Wells, has indicated its support for the removal of that amendment. I would also note that Senator Wells was one of just three senators who voted against the bill, effectively against the very amendments he put in at third reading. Further, as I had indicated, Senator Christmas supports the minor technical amendment that we are proposing.

I certainly hope that all members in this chamber can join with me in ensuring quick passage of this bill, so that our fish and their habitat can be assured of the protection they so desperately need.

Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak today during the final hour of debate after several years of work on a bill that is important to the world's whales.

I am particularly honoured to rise this morning because we are at the point that most members in this place appear ready to see this legislation pass. The legislation was first brought forward in the last few days of the Senate sitting of 2015. It has been, to put it mildly, a long haul.

The hon. member just raised concerns, and I think all concerns by my colleagues in this place are legitimate. However, it is important for anyone watching this debate to recognize that the bill is based on science.

Many scientists testified as to why it is critical that we stop keeping cetaceans in captivity. We understand why. They are obviously not akin to livestock, for instance. Cetaceans require the ocean. They require the space. They require acoustic communication over long distances. The scientists who testified before the committee who made the case so strongly made it based on science.

Yes, Canadians care. Yes, the school children who wrote to us in the thousands were not moved by the science; they were moved because they see movies and nature films and they understand that whales, dolphins and porpoises are of a different character than other animals.

I would reassure my friend that we could not just substitute the name for another species. Bill S-203 is firmly tied to the Fisheries Act. I do not think we would find any horses in the wild in the ocean. We have tied it down legislatively in such a way that others should not worry that there will be a creeping effect.

In the time remaining, I want to say how grateful I am for the non-partisan spirit. It has been my entire honour to be the sponsor of this legislation in the House. I am enormously grateful to my colleagues.

I mentioned the scientists. Let me thank Dr. Visser, who testified at committee, coming in by Skype from New Zealand in the days right after the Christchurch killings. It was an emotional time for everyone. I would also like to thank Dr. Naomi Rose, and from Dalhousie University, Dr. Hal Whitehead. Phil Demers, a former whale trainer at Marineland, offered excellent real-life testimony as to the cruelty of keeping whales in captivity.

Certainly Senator Wilfred Moore and Senator Murray Sinclair have done an enormous amount to help. So too has the government representative in the Senate, Senator Harder.

I also want to thank the Minister of Fisheries and his predecessor for taking companion elements in Bill S-203 and embedding them in Bill C-68. Bill C-68, the reform of the Fisheries Act, remains before the Senate.

I want to take a moment to urge all colleagues in the other place to move Bill C-68 through. I also urge everyone here, if there are amendments, to move Bill C-68 through, because the Fisheries Act is critically important on many scores, as well as being companion legislation to Bill S-203.

Again, in a non-partisan spirit, I want to thank the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, who we will miss in this place, and the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I also want to mention his constituent, Ben Korving, who put forward the legislation regarding zero-waste packaging. I pledge, as leader of the Green Party, to take on Ben Korving's motion and make sure that it does not die in this place, because those members made a sacrifice to allow Bill S-203 to pass before we rise at the end of June.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Beaches—East York, a Liberal, and my friend from Courtenay—Alberni, who was gracious in his praise earlier.

Everyone pulled together on this. The member for Charlottetown, the parliamentary secretary, helped enormously.

I would once again like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Repentigny.

I know that there were Conservative colleagues who did what they could.

I cannot tell members how important this legislation is. I will close with a few words that we have not heard in this place before. They are from the book of Job. They are found in chapter 41, verse 1.

Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;...

He is the first of the works of God;...

Can you draw out Leviathan with a fishhook
or press down his tongue with a cord?
Can you put a rope in his nose
or pierce his jaw with a hook?...
Will traders bargain over him?
Will they divide him up among the merchants?...

On earth there is not his like,...
He sees everything that is high;
he is king over all the sons of pride.

To everyone in this place, let us think for a moment. We behold Leviathan. He belongs in the wild. He will never again be placed in a swimming pool in this country.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House to speak to Bill S-203. Despite good intentions, this legislation is flawed in its current form. It should come as no surprise that there are many issues with this bill. In the short time it has been before the House for consideration, one of the major problems identified is an English-French language conflict in the text of the bill.

As we all know, Canada is a bilingual country. Our two official languages are French and English, and all legislation drafted and passed in Parliament reflects this. Anyone who has ever read these documents knows that the English text is on the left side, while the French text is on the right. We also know that Canadian laws and legislation must be applied in the same manner for all Canadians, regardless of language. This is fundamental for ensuring a fair justice system, which is key to our democracy. Otherwise, it would be grossly unfair and inhumane for a state to subject its citizens to different laws and penalties based on the language they speak. I hope in this place, and across Canada, we can all agree on that.

That is why I believe the mistake in Bill S-203 was an unfortunate oversight made by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Issues like this are more likely to happen when legislation is rushed through the process without being subject to a thorough study. As members may know, Bill S-203 was given only two meetings before it was pushed ahead without amendment.

It began on March 18, 2019. In a meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the government member from Miramichi—Grand Lake identified an important and significant language conflict in the text of Bill S-203. The following is a quote from the Evidence, as the member questioned a department official on this issue:

Another thing that would need to be clarified for me is clause 4 of Bill S-203 to prohibit the importation to Canada of living cetaceans as well as cetacean tissue or embryos, subject to a special permit. Apparently the English text of the clause refers to permits issued pursuant to proposed subsection 10(1.1) of WAPPRIITA [the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act] while the French version of the text is silent on the type of importation permit required. That sounds very odd. I wouldn't know of any other piece of legislation in which the French version would be different from the English version.

The departmental official replied, “I am not completely sure about the two clauses you are referencing. I haven't done a comparison of the English to the French so I don't have a response for you on that.” In response, the member asked, “Do you think we should clarify that?” The departmental official replied, “It would be important to make sure that the intent in both the English and the French is the same.”

Interestingly, it was a member of the current government, from a bilingual province, who flagged this critical language concern. It is also interesting how the department official stressed the importance of getting the language right.

The story does not end there. It continues.

On March 26, 2019, the Honourable J.C. Major, a former Supreme Court justice, penned a letter to all members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. He, too, identified the same language conflict as the member did. However, rather than merely stating his concern, he elevated the issue to be a constitutional matter. In addition to that, he informed the committee that this part requires amendment.

This is what the Honourable J.C. Major wrote to the members of the committee in his letter:

I have reviewed the proposed Section 7.1 which is scheduled as an amendment to Bill S-203 of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection Regulation of International and lnterprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA).

In addition I have reviewed the French to English and English to French review certified by...ABCO International which on review concludes that the wording of Section 7.1 between the French and English version is starkly different. The question raised is whether the difference is so material that compliance is affected. In my opinion the differences are material and confusion is inevitable and an amendment is the only remedy that will clarify the intent and purpose of Section 7.1.

Canada, by virtue of the Federal Government's legislation, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and evidenced by the Charter of Rights, is officially bilingual. In addition, under S.18 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Part 1 of the Constitution Act 1982), both English and French are made equally authoritative.

Given that both languages are authoritative and that differences between the French and English drafting of Section 7.1 are materially different, it is apparent that revisions by way of amendment of that section would by its uniformity confirm Parliament's intention as the section would then be clear to parties affected by it and invaluable to the judiciary.

The latter consideration is important as explained below as case law is replete with decisions evidencing the difficulty the courts in all provinces have from time to time reconciling statutory conflicts and either succeeded in doing so or entering an acquittal.

Section 7.1 of Bill S-203 is an enforcement provision under the Act. Given the conflict in the English and French versions of the proposed legislation its passage without a clarification amendment would, in the event of an illegal violation and subsequent prosecution, present a dilemma to the court. An obvious example being that an application under the English version would be required to meet the conditions set out in s. 10(1.1) whereas an application adhering to the French version would not. In the result the same law would be different depending on the site of the application. Should a charge be laid under the proposed Section 7.1 the difficulty described would be left to the court then to attempt a reconciliation of the conflict in the language and if not possible to strike down the section and order an acquittal.

The foregoing is a brief response to the difficulties that are inevitable if there is no amendment clarifying the intent of the legislation.

It is of value to consider the unequivocal recommendation number 35 of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada which concluded “the English and French versions of a bilingual Act must be identical in substance”.

My observation is that the member and the former Supreme Court justice both share the same concern: There is a language conflict in the bill's text. That common ground should be encouraging. However, what happened next in the committee at clause-by-clause was anything but. My party brought forward two amendments. One would make the English text read the same as the French, and the other would make the French text read the same as the English. Both amendments were rejected by the government, and Justice Major's legal opinion was ignored.

My second observation at committee was about the four government amendments that the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake suddenly withdrew at clause-by-clause. The withdrawals came as a surprise to the opposition members, because they were sensible amendments. Their intent was largely to coordinate Bill S-203 with the Liberals' own Bill C-68, which I can understand. Both bills share overlapping objectives, and if both were to pass, their implementation could clash or create confusion. In short, it made little sense for the member to make those withdrawals, especially when the changes were responsible ones that the Conservatives were prepared to support.

Here we are then. This is the second hour of third reading of Bill S-203. This bill is flawed. A former Supreme Court justice was called in. Bill S-203 is a constitutional challenge in waiting, and the scariest thing is that this bill is about to come into force.

This is as good a time as any to remind all members of the House that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the bills we pass are constitutional and legally sound.

Given the government's majority position, this decision ultimately weighs on the Liberal government to do what is right. It must act in the best interests of Canadians. That action is passing legally sound and constitutional legislation.

So here we are, at the second hour of third reading debate. The bill, in its current form, is flawed. A former Supreme Court justice has weighed in on the constitutionality, and those changes needed to be made. Now is a good time to remind all members of the House that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that all laws we pass are constitutional and legally sound.

Given these reasons, I hope the government reconsiders its position on Bill S-203.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I am proud to speak in support of Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, also known as the act for ending the captivity of whales and dolphins.

I also realize that I am speaking to the bill two days after World Oceans Day. Canada has the longest coastline in the world, and this past weekend, Canadians across the country raised awareness and celebrated our magnificent oceans. I took part in two community cleanups in Conception Bay, where I live.

While our oceans are vast and full of life, we also recognize the peril many of our ocean friends and marine ecosystems face due to threats from climate change and, of course, pollution. More than ever, we must work together to ensure that our oceans are clean and healthy for the many species that call them home, and to support our communities that depend on them.

Let us imagine whales and dolphins, which are used to having the ocean as their playground or feeding ground, being put in a cage not much bigger than a large outdoor swimming pool. Let us imagine the effect this would have on their ability to survive and flourish if they ever were released again. Let us imagine ourselves being put in a room which is 10 feet by 10 feet and being told that is where we have to live out the rest of our days. It certainly would have drastic effects on anyone, or on any animal, for that matter.

The bill has been strongly supported by my constituents of Avalon, and several members of the House have also supported the bill moving forward. I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who has been strongly advocating for the bill to move forward in the House, and all the other members who have spoken on the necessity of the bill for the protection of our whales and dolphins.

As many members know, the bill comes to us from the Senate, first by retired senator Wilfred Moore, who originally brought the bill forward in 2016, and then sponsored by Senator Murray Sinclair. The work of these senators cannot go without mention. I would like to thank them for their leadership when it comes to the protection of our oceans and the species that call them home.

Whales and dolphins are part of our Canadian wildlife, and we are very lucky to have them live in our waters. In Newfoundland and Labrador, whales are a major tourist attraction. We see many visitors each year and if they are not coming to see the icebergs, they are coming to see the whales.

Canadians know how important it is to preserve our marine wildlife. That is why our government is not only supporting Bill S-203, but through Bill C-68, making amendments that also strengthen the bill.

Over the years, we have come to learn more and more about the nature of whales and dolphins and the conditions required for their livelihood. Research has told us that these animals undergo an immense amount of stress when taken into captivity, and this stress persists throughout their life. That is why Canadians and this government support the bill banning the captivity of whales and dolphins.

I want to thank the House leadership team, especially the member for Waterloo, for working so hard to get the bill through the House at this time. Again, I commend the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Senator Moore and Senator Sinclair for their leadership on the bill and this issue, which is important to so many Canadians. I support the bill and look forward to its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak to this important issue today.

I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for bringing Bill S-203 to the House. The bill looks at the reality of phasing out the captivity of dolphins, whales and porpoises.

The riding that I represent, North Island—Powell River, is along the ocean, and these are beings that we live with. That interaction is very important to us. I think of the times I have spent watching this wildlife engage with us in their free natural state. It is important that we are talking about this issue here today.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank my caucus colleague, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, for his dedication to the country's oceans, rivers and streams. His commitment to protecting the wildlife that lives within them has resonated with people across Canada. He will not be sitting in the House with us much longer, so it is important to acknowledge the work he has done on files like this one.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has always had a special place in my heart because he represents the area where I grew up. I really respect his connection with the communities in that largest of ridings in British Columbia.

A couple of weeks ago, the member came to my riding to talk about his private member's bill on zero waste packaging. That issue is a huge concern in my riding. Packaging made of plastic takes so long to deteriorate and we know the impact it is having on our oceans.

Without that member's work we would not be standing here today debating Bill S-203. I understand that he is working with the minister right now to push forward his important piece of legislation around zero waste packaging. It deals with an important issue to make sure we do not fill our landfills with plastics anymore.

If it were not for the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley accepting a letter from me, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, our colleague from Victoria and Laurel Collins asking him to give up his spot on today's private members' hour, we would not be debating this bill today. I want to acknowledge that and thank him for continuing to work so hard on his zero waste packaging legislation. He will not give up, which is something that I appreciate deeply about the member.

Bill S-203 proposes to phase out the captivity of whales, dolphins and porpoises in Canada, except in situations like rehabilitation or rescue.

New Democrats will always support the ethical and useful research of these beings in the water, but the research can take place in the wild. Scientists in the wild environment can get a realistic view of the natural behaviours of these animals without causing a lifetime of pain and suffering, which we know is the reality when they are held in captivity.

What we have heard from scientists is that these beings suffer in confinement. They suffer a sense of isolation, serious health problems, reduced lifespans, high infant mortality rates, sensory deprivation, as well as trauma from the transfer to other parks and calf separation.

This bill speaks to an important issue where we can get it right and do the right thing. Given the evidence, captive facilities cannot provide for these beings' social or biological needs.

Keeping them in captivity is cruel. They are intelligent social animals. They are acoustically sensitive marine beings that spend their time in the vast oceans. They dive deep down to places many of us will never see.

When we look at their freedom in the wild, to swim freely, to dive deeply, when we think about their confinement, it is so much less. We have heard it is less than 1% of the range that they are used to. Can members imagine that? None of us in this place can imagine being in our environment, doing the things that we do, and suddenly being put into a small box and told that we have to be successful and perform for other people. We cannot ask these beings to do that.

It reminds me of what Maya Angelou said, “When you know better, do better.” This is an opportunity in this House to move forward because we now know better, so it is time for us to do better.

Unlike many issues, this really is not a partisan issue. It is a moral issue. It is a bill that is supported by science. We know that whales, porpoises and dolphins in captivity suffer in a way that cannot be justifiable. We know that this bill, Bill S-203, is a reasonable one. It is a balanced piece of legislation. It grandfathers the process and it gives zoos and aquariums time to phase out this practice. This is the right thing to do and I hope everyone in this House takes the opportunity to support this.

When we think about the grandfathering process out of captivity that Bill S-203 proposes, we know it will do important things. It will ban live captures under the Fisheries Act, except for rescues when some being out there needs help. Currently, captures are legal if they are licensed. We all need to pause and take a moment to think about what that means. We know that the last capture that happened was belugas near Churchill in 1992, so it is a practice that is not being implemented. However, the fact that it is still there is very concerning, and this bill would remove it.

Bill S-203 also bans imports and exports, except if licensed for scientific research. This is a hard one, but we want to see an open water sanctuary. We want to see the process happen in a way that is best for the whale, the dolphin or the porpoise. We want to make sure it is under the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. These are important factors that this bill can bring forward.

Finally, this bill would ban breeding under the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code. This is also very important.

Right now there is a bill before the Senate, Bill C-68, that would prohibit the captures but it would not restrict imports or exports by law nor would it ban breeding. This is why we need this bill. This is why I will be supporting it. This is the action that needs to be taken to complete what is happening already.

Twenty marine mammal biologists from around the world released a letter supporting Bill S-203. They said, “At a minimum, the maintenance of odontocetes”, in other words, toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises, “in commercial captive display facilities for entertainment purposes is no longer supported or justified by the growing body of science on their biological needs.”

We know it is the right thing to do and it is time to make sure that people have the opportunity to see these beautiful animals in the wild, to respect what they need and to create a new relationship. Keeping them enclosed is not the right way to go.

When we look at the wild, we know that dolphins, whales and porpoises travel up to 100 miles daily feeding and socializing with other members of their pods. The pods can contain hundreds of individuals with complex social bonds and hierarchies. That is their natural state. In captivity they are in small enclosures and unable to swim in a straight line for any distance. They do not have the ability to dive deep. Sometimes they are housed alone or housed with other animals they are not naturally used to being with. When we look at that isolation with this concern in mind, we know this is the right thing to do.

I look forward to seeing support from all members in this House. We can do the right thing. Today is the day and I look forward to seeing a positive vote.

Members Not Seeking Re-Election to the 43rd Parliament

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I should point out right off the bat that you were one of my team members yesterday, and thanks to your efforts, our team won. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was a pleasure to serve with you on that team.

I had the honour of being elected in this House nine years ago this October. I was elected in 2010 with a minority government; again in 2011, five months after my first win, with a majority government; and then again in 2015. I have experienced being a member of a minority government, a majority government, and the opposition. I have had the honour of spending a lot of time in Centre Block. Over a nine-year career, I have been very fortunate.

Why does a person enter politics? Quite simply, it is to make a difference.

My political transformation from a wet-behind-the-ears, know-nothing teenager to a budding Conservative actually started in 1968. We lived in Winnipeg. I am of Czechoslovakian descent, and we were part of a small Czech community in Winnipeg. What happened in 1968 is the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia. Our family took in refugees from Czechoslovakia. That gets a person thinking about the power of government and how government can be a force for evil, but if a person works hard enough, it can be a force for good.

Of course, being a Czech, we are made fun of a lot. I have been called a bouncing Czech, a cancelled Czech, a blank Czech. As long as I am not a phony Czech, I will be okay.

As the evolution of my political thought moved along, I bought a farm south of Riding Mountain National Park. I had a dream of becoming a farmer, living off the land, building a log house back in the woods, all that kind of stuff.

What went through my mind were the opportunities that this country offers. If people take risks, they can fail, but they can also succeed.

I am a Slavic person, as my mom was born in Poland. Slavic people like me have an inordinate fondness for property rights. We are visceral when it comes to owning our property. As I looked at the world around me, I could see that there were forces out there that were basically threatening my way of life and the way of life of all other property owners, and I do not just mean farmers; I mean people who have built something with their lives and how important that is to them. When government gets in the way of that, that is simply evil. People need a free society and the ability to take risks.

What comes with a free society? It is is personal responsibility. I get a little tired when people talk about crime statistics all the time. I will be quite blunt: It is as if it is my fault when somebody commits a crime.

Personal responsibility lies within the individual, so as I recite these characteristics, what political party would someone possibly join? It's the Conservatives, of course. These are the things that we stand for.

I represent a large rural area of 66,000 square kilometres. Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is one of the most beautiful places in Canada. My community is very diverse, with ranchers, farming, forestry, hunting, trapping, oil exploration and so on, yet with all that resource development, it remains an extraordinarily beautiful place.

Actually, conservation is one of the major activities of the communities in my constituency. People are harvesting trees in their day job, and then in the evening working with their fisheries habitat group to repair streams. Those are the kinds of people who are in my constituency, and I get very angry when people like that are attacked. Whether it is the animal rights movement, environmental extremists or people who want to take their firearms away, I get angry. We are not supposed to get angry in this job, but I simply could not help it. The injustice of what happened when those good people got attacked made me even more determined to defend that particular way of life.

I think we have a number of colleagues here who do exactly the same thing. I am very proud to be a colleague of members such as the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap and the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I have been on the farm of the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I would defy any environmentalist to go to his farm and see anything that he is doing wrong. He gently manages the land. He looks after it. He looks after the wildlife and cares about the world. The member for North Okanagan—Shuswap was the president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the member for Red Deer—Lacombe has a fisheries background just like mine, so Conservatives have absolutely nothing to apologize for in terms of our conservation ethics.

We are the people who actually get things done. Who negotiated the acid rain treaty? Brian Mulroney did. Who negotiated the ozone treaty? Brian Mulroney did. When I hear all this environmental stuff, all I know is that Conservatives can be very proud of our contributions to conservation.

I did not travel as far as my friend from Chatham-Kent—Leamington. I stayed at home and spent all my time on the fisheries and environment committees, and I very much enjoyed that. We had some very contentious bills to deal with such as Bill C-69, Bill C-68, CEAA 2012 and so on. I have to say, though, that I really enjoyed my time on the fisheries committee, because believe it or not, it worked across party lines. It is a very collegial group, and most of the reports were unanimous. I see the chair of the fisheries committee here, and I want to thank him for his efforts on behalf of Canada's fisheries.

Getting back to the constituency itself, what can I say about constituents? They place their faith in us. Nothing touches me more than when people I do not know comes up to me and says that they voted for me. Is that not something? We have all experienced that, because we cannot know everybody in our constituencies.

I want to thank my EDAs and the volunteers, of course. The late Jeff MacDonald was a mentor to me, as was Bob Lepischak. I thank all those people who worked so hard: the fundraisers, the EDA and so on.

What can I say about my family and my darling Caroline? I know she is watching—hello, darling. She was my best political adviser. As I said before, she is a spouse who praised me when it was required and made sure I knew what I was doing wrong when that was required as well.

Caroline texted me earlier. She was out today planting tomatoes in the garden. She is what we call a “bush chick”, which is a term that I use with the greatest respect. She lives in the woods and knows how to do things.

Tony and Marsha are our kids, and their spouses are Lainee and Graham. We have three absolutely beautiful grandchildren, Eden, Senon and Esmee. One of the reasons I will be heading out is to spend time with the three grandchildren on the farm. They love the farm. They love taking the guts out of a duck, cleaning a fish, driving a quad and doing all those things with papa.

I want to thank my brother and sister, Tim and Joyce, for their support over the years. I also thank the neighbours. Those who live in rural areas know how important neighbours are. When my wife Caroline is by herself on the farm, I know the neighbours are there for her. That is a very important fact.

I want to thank my mom and dad, Joe and Ida Sopuck. They have sadly passed on. They were both born in eastern Europe, dad in Czechoslovakia and mom in Poland.

I want to thank my mentors. They include Alan Scarth, an environmental lawyer from Winnipeg, who is a deeply philosophical man who helped me; Ted Poyser, who was chief of staff to Duff Roblin—and I am going to talk about Duff in a minute; Charlie Mayer, whom many members know, as he represented part of my area; and the sainted Harry Enns, who was the longest-serving MLA in Manitoba's history.

Harry gave me some really political advice. He said, “Robert, my boy, there are two things a politician never passes up: a chance to give a speech and a chance to go to the bathroom.” When one has a constituency as big as I do, one knows where all those spots are. I will leave it at that.

I thank my Ottawa staff Branden and Alex, who are in the office now, as well as Duncan, Brett, Jay, Dan, Olivier, Kyle, and the constituency staff Judy, Janell, Megan, Grace, Nellie and Valerie. I am sorry to go so fast, folks, but I do not have time to stop.

I really want to thank the House of Commons staff, the security staff and the bus drivers. They are salt-of-the-earth folks. As the member for Battle River—Crowfoot said, I was there in October when Parliament Hill was attacked, and we can never forget that these people will take a bullet for us. They deserve all of our respect.

I want to end by thanking my colleagues all around the House. I made friendships that will last for years. The value of the team is so important. I especially want to thank the Manitoba caucus, the member for Brandon—Souris, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, the member for Portage—Lisgar and the member for Provencher for their help and support and indeed love over the years.

I too want to talk about what it was like to serve under Prime Minister Harper, who, as history will show, was one of the greatest prime ministers this country has ever seen.

It has been an honour and a privilege to serve with all members on all sides of the House as I end my political journey.

Carbon Pricing

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a right to know exactly what the new Liberal carbon tax is going to cost them. In refusing to release Finance Department studies, paid by taxpayers, the Liberals Party is telling Canadians that carbon taxes will continue to increase.

Here are the facts.

At the rate the Liberal carbon tax kicked in at on April 1 of this year, the $20 a tonne carbon tax now being collected will not come anywhere near the Paris accord targets. To meet the Paris goals, the Liberal carbon tax will rise to $200 a tonne. The carbon tax is a consumption tax, just like the HST. If blended with the HST, it would have to rise another 6% to comply with the Paris accord. That means residents in Ontario will be paying a rate of 19%, which is a rate of 19% on every purchase. With the bulk of the taxes paid by the middle class, it will be average Canadians who suffer the most from the Liberal carbon tax.

The member for Ottawa Centre uses climate change as an excuse for every bad policy her government forces on Canadians. The carbon tax is the best example. The same minister, after invoking climate hysteria, claims the rebate bribe on this year's tax return will compensate for the Liberal climate change carbon tax grab.

Where is the compensation for the property owners along the Ottawa River who have lost their homes as a result of bad climate policy made by the Liberal government? The minister makes the comment, “We are all in this together.” Yes we are.

Therefore, let us talk about what is happening in the Minister of Environment's own backyard.

New rules are coming that will make flooding on the Ottawa River a regular occurrence. Bill C-68, which is now before the Senate, will render dam operators on the Ottawa River powerless to protect property owners from flooding.

Ontario Power Generation, OPG, looked at its generation portfolio in hydro power and determined that it “would take 80 per cent instantaneous passage of flow as a principle for meeting the objectives of the new definition of “fish habitat””. OPG modelled one of the outcomes of the legislative changes contained in Bill C-68.

OPG testified before Parliament that had the new rules been in place during this year's flooding “One of the outcomes was that the city of Montreal would have been under a metre more of water if we had not had the ability to store water on the watershed because of flooding in the Great Lakes.” What little authorities can do to control the Ottawa River levels will be removed by Bill C-68.

Anne-Raphaëlle Audouin, president of WaterPower Canada, and the Canadian Electricity Association add “If Bill C-68 is passed in its current form, its impact on our industry’s ability to operate its current stations and build new ones will be catastrophic.”

While the Ottawa River flooding issue is a shared issue for Ontario and Quebec as well as the federal government, Ottawa has legislative authority over “all works connected with the same, or in or on the waters of the River.” That definition is written into legislation that gives responsibility for the Ottawa River to the federal government. I am referring to an act respecting certain works on the Ottawa River, legislation, I might add, that has been on the books since 1870.

It is a given, and everyone knows the historic flood of 2019 has resulted in unprecedented financial losses and expense. Flooding victims have suffered much hardship and are angry and frustrated. Flooding victims are grateful for the help being provided by emergency response teams at all levels of government, including volunteers and soldiers from Garrison Petawawa. However, now is the time to start talking solutions or 2020 will be worse than the flood of 2019.

[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?

[Paul Gillis]

The importation and exportation prohibitions in Bill S-238 were transferred into Bill C-68, so yes, that policy intent of prohibiting the import or export of whole shark fins or parts of shark fins was transferred into Bill C-68.

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

Well, the headline is “An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade”, and then importation and exportation of shark fins. That is Bill S-238. I'm wondering if Bill C-68 actually has any influence at all on the international and interprovincial trade in this product.

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

There was obviously some intention of having.... It says here, “regulation of international and interprovincial trade”. Is any influence on the international trade in shark fins preserved in Bill C-68?

[Paul Gillis]

The amendments introduced by Senator Harder during the committee stage at the Senate transferred the content of Bill S-238 directly into Bill C-68. Proposed subsections 32(1) and 32(2) for the Fisheries Act were transferred from Bill S-238 into Bill C-68, as well as proposed subsection 6(1.1), proposed paragraph 10(1.1)(a) and proposed paragraph 10(1.1)(b) for the WAPPRIITA, with the exception of the derivatives element of the bill. The policy content of Bill S-238 was transferred into Bill C-68, with the exception of the word “derivatives”.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Explain if you can, then, the difference between Bill S-238 and how it appears in Bill C-68, or how it's covered by Bill C-68.

[Paul Gillis]

Good afternoon.

I'd like to thank the committee for its invitation to speak to Bill S-238, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act with reference to importation and exportation of shark fins. As originally introduced by Senator MacDonald, the bill's original sponsor in the Senate, Bill S-238 proposed to prohibit shark finning in Canada and ban the importation of shark fins and their derivatives into Canada. As you know, it was subsequently modified by the Senate to also ban the export of shark fins from Canada. The bill also provides for exceptions by ministerial permit if the importation is for scientific research and benefits the survival of the species.

Before I address the substance of Bill S-238, I would like to review the context in which the bill has been introduced.

The practice of shark finning refers to the removal of fins from sharks at sea, often while the shark is still alive, and discarding the remaining carcass. It is widely recognized that shark finning and the impact of the trade in shark fins has had a devastating impact on the global shark population. Driven by high prices of whole fins, sharks represent a commercially profitable catch. Outside of Canada, the shark trade is not well controlled and is often the result of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, 25% of the world's shark and ray species are threatened by extinction. In fact, it's estimated that more than 63 million sharks are killed each year, and scientists estimate that they're being killed 30% faster than they can replace themselves. The most recent statistics from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on trade in shark products conservatively put the average declared value of the total world shark-fin trade at $273.3 million U.S. per year from 2011 to 2015.

Canada represents a very small share of the global market in shark fins. In 2018, Canada imported $3.24 million Canadian worth of shark fins, mainly from Hong Kong and China, which represents around 1.9% of the reported global shark-fin imports of $173.9 million. Canadian shark-fin imports have declined by over 50% since 2005, when the value of imports was $6.4 million Canadian. Currently, Canada does not export any shark fins.

I would also like to note at this time the amendments introduced by Senator Harder to Bill C-68, which were approved by the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on May 14, 2019. Senator Harder's amendments have incorporated the policy intent of Bill S-238 within the Fisheries Act; however, instead of banning the import and export of shark fins with the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, WAPPRIITA, it is proposed to enact these provisions through the Fisheries Act.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to the conservation and sustainable management of shark stocks and strongly opposes shark finning. It is worth noting that since 1994, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has effectively banned the practice of shark finning by Canadian vessels through fish licence conditions.

Canada does not have a directed commercial fishery for pelagic sharks, and the harvest of pelagic sharks in Canadian fisheries waters is primarily as incidental catch, or bycatch.

Since 2018, the licence conditions have been tightened, and the fleets that have been permitted to retain incidental catch are now required to maintain the fins attached to the carcass until after the shark is offloaded from the vessel. This is an internationally recognized best practice, and key trade partners such as the United States and the European Union have changed their domestic management measures to move to a fins-attached landing requirement.

To strengthen and further support these efforts, Bill S-238 proposes amendments to the Fisheries Act that would explicitly prohibit shark finning in Canada.

That concludes my opening remarks. I thank you once again for the invitation to speak today. My colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to the government motion that would, among other things, extend the hours we would be sitting in this place until we have completed this Parliament on June 21. It would also take away a lot of the tools we have as the opposition to hold the government to account.

As we listened to some of the answers by the government House leader, it is no surprise that in the dying days of the scandal ridden, promise breaking, tax raising and very severely ethically challenged disaster of a Liberal government, we are seeing Liberals use disrespectful, draconian and bully-like mannerisms to get their agenda accomplished.

It was quite interesting and telling when the government House leader was answering questions and referring to a couple of things. First of all, when I asked her about our opposition day and whether she was going to make those days short, she stood and said to my colleague, the House leader for the NDP, as well as to me, that somehow our behaviour earlier in this Parliament was the reason she was going to punish us with shorter days.

That speaks volumes, and not in a positive way, to the utter lack of respect the Liberals, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the government House leader, have for the work we do in the opposition. We are not doing anything on this side of the House outside of the rules. We are using the rules, mechanisms and the tools we have to hold the government to account. What is the answer from the government to that? It is going to punish the opposition because it can. It is going to punish the opposition by giving us a very short day and not extend our hours of opposition. That answer was very indicative of the attitude of the Liberal government and the Liberal Party in general to this House of Commons and Parliament.

Secondly, when the government House leader was giving answers about debate, she talked about members of Parliament repeating themselves or speaking about partisan issues. She felt that that was when she should tell her members not to speak quite as long and that they should shut down their comments. Are we now in a new day and age when the Liberal House leader will tell duly elected members of Parliament that they should not use all of their time, and that she is going to shut down the opposition as well because she thinks that what we are saying is not relevant and that we are repeating ourselves?

When the Prime Minister appointed the House leader to her position three years ago, a lot of us had concerns because she was a very newly elected MP. She had not been in the House as a backbencher or sat on committees. She had been in her role for I think 70 days or so. She has really done a commendable job in that time with the hand she has been dealt. However, I do believe that with her comments that I mentioned, it is clear that is the message she is getting from the top. That is what she is hearing from the Prime Minister and the people at the top who direct her. She has been told by them to shut the backbenchers down. If members are talking too much on our side, she is to shut them down, as well as do whatever she can to shut down the opposition.

At the end of the day, the Liberals are in charge and are the bosses, so they are going to tell people what to think and members of Parliament what they can and cannot say. If they are talk too much or for too long, or the Liberals think their remarks are repetitive or partisan, because God forbid, Conservatives act like Conservatives and New Democrats act like NDP, they must be shut down. The Liberals are clearly partisan, but the Liberal belief is that if something does not align with what they think, then it must be dismissed and shut down. We have seen that on a number of occasions.

Sadly, the House leader's comments in the last few minutes regarding opposition days and that she is going to punish us, as well as telling her own members not to speak because it would be repetitive, are absolutely unbelievable and a very sad reflection of what we have seen over the last four years.

Now here we are. We have all returned from another May constituency week to another Liberal motion to extend our sitting hours. I have already acknowledged, and will say for the record, that our previous Conservative government did the same thing in 2013 and 2014.

In the last election year, 2015, however, we did not have to extend our sitting hours, because we managed the House in an efficient, respectful way. Stephen Harper's government had a well-managed parliamentary agenda. His House leader, my former colleague, the very well-respected Peter Van Loan, would often remind the House of the ambition to have a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament. That is what Canadians enjoyed up until the 2015 election.

Since then, things have changed, and they have changed drastically. That change is where the seeds for today's motion were planted. In came a new Prime Minister in late 2015, heavy on charm and light on substance, as it would turn out. One government, ours, with a track record of delivering, was replaced by a government obsessed with something called “deliverology”. Do members remember those days? I think my colleagues opposite were also kind of interested in what deliverology meant and where it was going to take us.

Deliverology was like a lot of things from the government. There are a lot of buzzwords. No matter how many buzzwords the failed Liberal government has repeated, it has conjured up pretty well zero results.

Let us go through some of those buzzwords, because they really are interesting to reflect on. Let us look at what was presented to Canadians, what was advertised and what was actually delivered, which was not as advertised.

Let us begin with the buzzwords “hope” and “hard work”. I am afraid the Liberals put way too much emphasis on a lot of hope and very little emphasis on hard work.

There were some things they worked hard on. The Liberals worked very hard on mastering government by Instagram and Twitter. They worked hard on posturing and, unfortunately, on dividing Canadians. The Liberals worked hard on finding ways to run endless deficits, to the point where it would take decades for the budget to balance itself, as our Prime Minister said. The Liberals have also worked hard on virtue signalling. In fact, they have that one down to an art form.

What about actual hard work and actual accomplishments here in the House of Commons? So far in this Parliament, 48 government bills, other than routine appropriation bills approving spending, have received royal assent, with 17 more passed by the House. Some of these bills were simply matters initiated by us, the previous Conservative government, such as a number of the bills related to the border. Those were bills we initially brought forward.

There were also free trade agreements, such as with the European Union and the Trans Pacific Partnership, as well as bills on victims' rights in the military justice system. Obviously, we agreed with those bills. We basically brought the government to the one yard line, and it took it across the finish line. The Conservatives know that we did the heavy lifting, but we were in agreement with those bills. Those are among the bills the government passed.

These numbers are also in spite of the government regularly using time allocation and relying on omnibus bills, even though that flies in the face of all the sanctimony the Liberals have thrown our way. Let us remember that. Let us remember that during the 2015 election, the Conservatives were preached at by the then-Liberal candidate, soon to be the Prime Minister, about how Parliament was going to be respected. He was not going to use time allocation. The Liberals would not be using omnibus bills, and they would allow parliamentarians to have their say. Let us remember the sanctimony.

By comparison, when the 41st Parliament drew to a close, a total of 95 government bills, other than appropriation bills, had received royal assent. That was under the Conservative government.

The contrast gets no better for the Liberals when it comes to private members' bills. Since the 2105 election, 20 private members' bills have received royal assent. At the close of the previous Parliament, 41 private members' bills had become law. That is why the previous Conservative government was able to claim that it had posted the strongest legislative results in a generation. No matter how many midnight sittings the Liberals plan, they simply will not be able to match our record.

I think of all the time the Liberal government has wasted. I think back to a year and a half ago when the Liberal government tried to bring forward changes to the Standing Orders. Those changes would have given us a four-day work week, when the rest of Canadians work all week long. The Liberals wanted us to get Fridays off. The Liberals wanted to make changes so that the Prime Minister would not have to come and answer questions in this place.

The Liberals wanted to make a number of massive changes, and they fought tooth and nail for them. Thankfully, between the NDP and the Conservatives, we were able to put a halt to that. With the small tools we had that they had not tried to take away, we were able to stop that.

We have seen, again, the lack of hard work on matters of substance that needed to be completed in the House of Commons on the legislative agenda. It never really happened. That is one buzzword we heard.

Here is another buzzword we were all really interested in. That was “Canada is back”. Do members remember that one? Boy oh boy. That one has not turned out well at all.

Right now, under the present Prime Minister, Canada has probably fewer friends than ever. The Prime Minister has managed to tick off and offend just about every one of our major friends and allies. It has been shameful to watch. We know that we will have our work cut out for us when the Conservatives win government in October. We will once again restore respectful, principles-based foreign policy on the world stage so that countries around the world know that they can respect us. They will know that we are not just lecturing them. We will have a relationship with our trusted allies, and we will build on those relationships.

The Liberals first talked a big game on peacekeeping, then they stalled and dithered. Then, when the rubber had to hit the road, they put forward a token effort, limited in time and scale, yet quite dangerous and misaligned with Canada's national interests.

In the NAFTA talks, the Prime Minister capitulated and failed to get Canada a better deal. Instead of negotiating, the Liberals focused on opportunistic leaks, photo ops and sound bites.

The Liberal leader, in the presence of the Japanese Prime Minister, twice mistook him as a representative of China. Do members remember that? That was only a few weeks ago. I am still shocked by that.

Then there was the strident, knee-jerk virtual signalling tweet sparking a diplomatic standoff with Saudi Arabia, with ramifications in a range of areas, including front-line health care in Canada.

Speaking of social media, the Prime Minister's infamous “Welcome to Canada” tweet sparked a massive, unprecedented surge in illegal border crossings into Canada.

In foreign relations, we were told what wonderful doors would open in China for Canada with the arrival of the new Liberal government. Tell that today to canola farmers. Tell that to our pork farmers. Tell that to any number of Canadian businesses, large or small, trying to do business in China. Tell that to individual Canadians who have been harassed by the Chinese government, denied visas, detained and arrested on political grounds.

Of course, there was the Prime Minister's unforgettable trip to India. It was a seven-day trip with half a day of government meetings. Each outfit was more colourful than the last; each development was more embarrassing than the previous one. The Prime Minister spent tens of thousands of dollars flying in a celebrity chef to cook supper, a celebrity chef who happens to be on his hand-picked Senate selection panel.

However, that was hardly the worst. The Prime Minister invited a convicted attempted murderer to hobnob with him at two receptions, and when that was discovered, the fingers started pointing. Wow. Of all the things that happened in the Liberal government, when we look back at the India trip, it was probably one of the most embarrassing for Canadians, not only because of what their Prime Minister did in India but because of the aftermath and the blame that was levelled. It started with it being a backbencher's fault. The Prime Minister threw one of his own backbenchers under the bus. He does that quite often.

Then it was an Indian government plot, then maybe it was someone else. In the end, Daniel Jean announced his retirement. In no circumstance would the Prime Minister fess up and acknowledge that he had blown it and that his office had blown it with a bad decision and bad judgment.

God forbid that the Prime Minister would actually apologize for something he did. He will apologize for all kinds of things, but there have been so many opportunities, as we have seen in the last four years, when he has done things that are wrong, when he has done things that are unethical and when he has done things that are on the borderline of illegal. That remains to be seen. He has fired people. He has treated people disrespectfully. He has done things that have shocked and appalled us.

The India trip was one of those where the Prime Minister could have stood up and said, “I am sorry. I made a mistake. I have issues with bad judgment. I'm trying to learn from my mistakes. All of you are paying for it, but I am human. I err a lot." He should have said that, but no, he did not. Everyone else got the blame.

Saying “Canada is back” really has not panned out very well, has it? It certainly did not help the Liberals advance their agenda here in Parliament.

Let just try another one on for size. How about “Sunny ways, my friends. Sunny ways”? Do members remember that one?

To start with, I think this is one of the things that has disturbed Canadians across the board, even those who voted for the Prime Minister. There were a lot of people, obviously millions of Canadians, who voted for the Prime Minister, believing him, believing his promises, believing that he was a fresh face who was going to do things differently. One of the things that is so frustrating and disappointing is his lack of ability to really embrace diversity. People may wonder how I can say that, because the Prime Minister always says that diversity is our strength. Just like everything with the Prime Minister, he says one thing with his words, but his actions are completely different.

The Prime Minister has very little tolerance for diversity of thought and different opinions. He wants to embrace diversity when it is easy for him and when it might help him score some political points. However, if an individual dares to disagree with him, that is when his real character seems to be exposed.

One of those items became very clear when illegal border crossers started crossing into Canada. There were a lot of concerns. A lot of Canadians, including in my riding, have been doing a wonderful job helping refugees who are coming into this country who need solace, who need protection and who need to be able to be in a country where they can live, worship and raise their families. Canada is welcoming them. We have so many private sponsors and Canadians across the country who are helping them, but there have been concerns raised about people coming across the border illegally. However, the minute these concerns were expressed, the Prime Minister, Prime Minister “Sunny Ways”, began the reckless name-calling, calling people racist, or, as his minister said, “un-Canadian”. It is un-Canadian if someone dares to ask questions of the government.

We will remember the Canada summer jobs attestation, where if one disagreed with the government on matters of conscience, one would not be allowed to have government funding. So much for diversity, again.

We should have seen this from the very early days and early months of this Parliament, when the Prime Minister almost lost a vote, and certainly lost his temper. Everyone will remember, after his legislation to help his friends at Air Canada squeaked through on the Speaker casting a vote, the Liberals proceeded with the draconian and outrageous Motion No. 6. Does everyone remember Motion No. 6? I think we all remember Motion No. 6, an outrageous and scandalous power play to silence the opposition and sideline critics.

In the midst of the uproar over Motion No. 6, the Prime Minister, as everyone will recall, stormed across the floor of the House, jostled some MPs who were slowing down his day and fiercely elbowed one of my colleagues. It was clear then that this was a prime minister who would have his way when he wanted it. We understood those words just recently with respect to the SNC-Lavalin scandal and how the Prime Minister would ensure he would get his way. We saw this tactic coming, foreshadowed by Motion No. 6.

Then, a year later, the government House leader released the so-called discussion paper, which I alluded to earlier, about standing order changes. It was a naked power grab that her colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee were keen to rush through.

I also remember the government noting that committees were free to do what they wanted to do. That has become the biggest punchline around this place. Committees are not free to do what they want to do. They are completely directed by the Prime Minister. We saw that at the procedure and House affairs committee regarding the Standing Orders.

This would have eliminated 20% of question periods, would have the Prime Minister show up once a week, would have silenced the opposition at committees and would have created a new time allocation on steroid procedure. Thanks to the efforts of the opposition, the Liberals would back down some six week later on the worst parts of their proposal. That did not represent a very sunny ways type of government.

With respect to name-calling, I want to mention something particularly disturbing. We heard the finance minister call our deputy leader a “neanderthal” because she dared challenge him on some of the policies he was bringing forward. Then the Prime Minister called her an “ambulance chaser”. I think that was during the time when we were asking why in the world Terri-Lynne McClintic was being moved to a healing lodge. At around that time, the Prime Minister called the Conservatives ambulance chasers.

Not only are the Liberals trying to shut us down in what we do in the House of Commons, but they are trying to shut down Canadians through this name-calling. We have been specifically called names by the Prime Minister, again, with no apologies at all. I think the former attorney general has also been victim to the same kind of thing. She has been accused of things, called names, maligned and has not been able to defend herself. She not only has not received an apology from the Prime Minister, but has not been able to defend herself.

This brings to mind somebody else who needs an apology from the Prime Minister. In all honesty, this man more than anybody deserves an apology from the Prime Minister, and it is Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

All of us on this side are used to these kinds of attacks from the Liberals and the Prime Minister, but not Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who has served his country with such distinction. Before any charges were even brought against him, the Prime Minister was already saying the issue would go before a court. It looked as if the Prime Minister and the PMO tried to bankrupt him. They accused him of things and put him and his family through such an emotional ordeal. I am sure it affected his family's physical health, financial, mental health and reputation. It is absolutely disgusting to see what the Prime Minister and his minions did to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

I do not like that the Conservatives were called neanderthals and ambulance chasers and that Canadians were called racists and un-Canadian, but above anyone, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman deserves an apology from the Prime Minister. All of us, including those on this side, need to remind the Prime Minister that before he writes up any more apologies to anybody else, for whatever reason he thinks might do him well politically, he needs to apologize to that man, this honourable Canadian. He needs to show the courage that he should have as a prime minister and apologize to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The actions and this attitude reflected in the Liberals' relationship with Parliament have only served the paralyze the House, not facilitate the passage of an agenda. As I said, so much for sunny ways.

I have given a few examples of all these empty gestures and slogans, but I want to highlight a few of them.

The next one is, “better is always possible”. That was another one from the government. After watching how the Liberal government has approached the criminal justice system, I cannot help but think this. After the Liberals leave office, things will get better for Canadians on a lot of fronts. Better will definitely be possible.

For example, the Prime Minister sees the criminal justice system as a toy. We saw the Prime Minister weigh in and condemn a unanimous jury verdict that he did not like in Saskatchewan. However, that was just small potatoes, as we would learn later.

As I said, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman would be charged with the breach of trust. That was his interference in that case. The charge was not a surprise, of course. The Prime Minister had been musing for months, a year actually, that Mark Norman would end up before the courts. How could he have known that?

He had demanded an investigation into an embarrassing leak that some members in the Liberal cabinet were looking to do the bidding of well-connected friends. The RCMP had clear signals from the very top that something must be done. Therefore, once before the courts, the government denied the vice-admiral access to the material he needed to defend himself. He was not even allowed access to his own emails. Things kept getting worse and worse for the Liberals. Finally, a well-respected MP, the Prime Minister's former chief whip, announced he would testify against the government. Days later, the charges were withdrawn.

I refer back to that case because I want to link it to the SNC-Lavalin affair. Even though a lot has been said, again it very much shows the disrespect of the Prime Minister.

In short, the Prime Minister wanted yet another friendly corporation to enjoy the blessings of its well-groomed Liberal connections. Amendments to the Criminal Code, as members will recall, to let SNC-Lavalin off the hook from a trial for foreign corruption and a ban on government contracts were shoved into a mammoth omnibus budget bill, the very thing Liberals swore off, and whisked through Parliament last spring. However, the Liberals were stumped, even though they got this bill passed. The director of public prosecutions was simply not going to do what the Liberals expected her to do.

Therefore, the Prime Minister set all kinds of pressure from various angles upon the former attorney general to get her to overrule the Public Prosecution Service, but she was not going to do it. She said no to the Prime Minister. How dare she, but she did. She said no not only to the Prime Minister, she told the finance minister that he and his staff needed to back off. She told the Prime Minister, his chief of staff and the clerk of the Privy Council, as we all heard on that tape, to back off, that they were interfering.

However, let us remember that the Prime Minister is used to having his way all the time. Some people who feel they are entitled and have never had to go through a hardship in their life and have a lot of privilege are used to getting their way. Clearly, the Prime Minister is one of those. When the former attorney general stood up to him and stood by her respect for the rule of law in Canada, she stood up to political interference in the criminal justice system. For that, she got fired. Sadly, we have not been able to hear her full story because the Prime Minister has not waived that privilege, but we have seen enough that we can connect the dots. We can see that when she was fired as attorney general and moved to Veterans Affairs, that was the reason why.

Thankfully, courageously, all of this has been exposed. Although we still do not have the full truth of what the Prime Minister has done, again it has shown Canadians that the Prime Minister is not at all as advertised. So much for hope and hard work, so much for sunny ways, so much for diversity, so much for tolerance, all of that is a sham under the Prime Minister.

We do hope the Prime Minister will one day lift the gag order. If he will not, the next prime minister probably will, and I think there will be an opportunity for that to happen. Canadians will hear the truth at one point or another.

What happened? Both the former attorney general and the former president of the Treasury Board stood up to the Prime Minister. and not only did they get fired and resign from their positions, they got kicked out of the Liberal caucus in violation of the Reform Act, again in violation of the law. That is a day in the life of the Prime Minister.

How many laws did he break with respect to conflict of interest and ethics? Four. He is the first Prime Minister in the history of Canada to break those laws. Then he broke the rules and the law regarding the Reform Act.

That entire episode gripped this entire House and paralyzed the government. It was in chaos. I think it had 10 cabinet shuffles in three weeks. The government was in absolute chaos. While there were all kinds of issues going on across the country, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister could only focus on one thing. It lost the clerk of the Privy Council. The principal adviser, Mr. Butts, resigned. It lost a number of cabinet ministers. It was in absolute chaos and shambles. We were gripped with this in the House of Commons as well.

In fact, it is the continuing mismanagement by the government that has brought the need for it to propose government Motion No. 30, which we are debating right now. It is the mismanagement that comes from the very top.

The Prime Minister is so infatuated with his own image and so focused on being a celebrity that he overlooks the substance and hard work of leading a government. That is a very sad reflection of the government and where we are in the country today. This is a prime minister who does not understand that being a prime minister is not a ceremonial role, not something just for a celebrity, but the top job in the country. It is governing not only the people of the country but the budget, the economy and foreign affairs. All of these aspects of a country like Canada should be at the forefront in the mind of the Prime Minister. Instead, he is focused on his celebrity status and getting on the pages of Vanity Fair or Vogue. Perhaps it is GQ, People or TigerBeat, if it is still a magazine. Imagine Donny Osmond and the Prime Minister on the cover of TigerBeat. He is sadly overlooking the substance and hard work of leading a government.

I have been here for almost 11 years and it really has been quite a privilege. I started as a backbencher. Backbenchers are underrated. They do such tremendous work.

I was on a committee for a number of years and learned so much about how committees worked. I was then privileged to chair a committee. That also helped me understand the rules of this place. I chaired a committee during a minority parliament. Even more so, when chairing the committee, I had to ensure I was impartial and applied the rules equally to both sides, the government members as well as the opposition, which at that point was a smaller Liberal opposition, the NDP and the Bloc. It was such a privilege to learn and work with colleagues. Then I was privileged to be a parliamentary secretary. In 2013, a number of years later, I became a minister. I believe that experience really helped me become a good minister, and now the opposition House leader.

Many of us on both sides have worked our way up from being backbench MPs to maybe working on committees and into other offices.

As I watched, I was inspired by the example set by our former prime minister, Stephen Harper, an exact opposite of the current Prime Minister. Stephen Harper knew every file backward and forward. He was not concerned about celebrity status. He wanted to connect with Canadians to know what their concerns were and to govern in a responsible way. He was an example of tireless devotion and hard work on behalf of Canadians.

The current Prime Minister has not helped his case by building a PMO where everything is reportedly bottlenecked through just one or two staff. We are hearing a lot about that. Even current Liberal MPs are very concerned with what is going on in the PMO and how decisions are being made there. As the House leader just confirmed, she tells her backbenchers whether they should shorten or lengthen their speeches.

Another example, and I already mentioned that, is the government House leader's early appointment. As I said, the hon. member for Waterloo had been here 70-some days when she was appointed as the government House leader. I felt that it sent a message. This is with respect to the House leader. She and I work well together. We certainly disagree, and I am certainly not happy that she is giving us more short opposition days, but as I said earlier, I think she has done the best she could with the hand that was dealt to her.

When the Prime Minister appoints as a House leader an individual who has been here only for 75 days, it tells all of us that he really is not very serious about getting things done. Maybe he thinks her position is just a ceremonial role as well. We certainly have seen her have to carry a lot of very difficult answers and non-answers to questions for the government. She has been put in a position where unfortunately she has lost a lot of credibility. While the Prime Minister is sitting there silently or signing autographs, she is having to defend his trip to billionaire island. While he is sitting in question period staring off into space or thinking about things, she is the one who is standing and answering or not answering very difficult questions. It is sad because I feel that the Prime Minister set her up to fail, and it is very disappointing to see that he has done that.

I did give a longer speech about this point previously. It was a speech around the Prime Minister's so-called approach to feminism, which I find to be fake. It is a lot of signalling and not true respect for the equality of women, and for us as women in this place being able to be where we are based on merit, based on our ability and our strength, being able to speak truth to power, being able to stand in this place knowing that we got here absolutely on our merit. When the Prime Minister appoints people just because they are women and then does not even respect them and listen to them, as he did with the former attorney general, we have seen time and time again that his approach to feminism is a lot of words and no action.

I am going back to the power of the PMO. I imagine the House leader has had a lot of struggles with the PMO behind the scenes trying to line up a legislative agenda and trying to get departments to hustle and bring their long-overdue proposals to the cabinet table and convert them into bills, and trying to get her colleagues to meet what a coordinated plan requires of them. However, it sounds like she is basically just telling her colleagues what to do.

News flash for them, that is not the way it happens. In the previous government, not only did we pass many private members' bills, but we had more government MPs vote against the government's position. We had more free votes than any other government. It was really quite remarkable.

I would never betray caucus confidentiality, but I will say this. I think this is a departure for the Liberals and it might be a good thing for them to think about when they are the third party again or maybe opposition after the next election, which remains to be seen, but they may want to allow their caucus members to speak their minds freely and not have to set their agenda ahead of time or allow the Prime Minister and his minions to tell them if they can speak. It is wonderful in caucus to be able to stand and not get permission, but be able to speak to the leader freely. He or she listens, and sometimes decisions are changed.

That actually happened in our previous government, and it is wonderful to be able to speak freely in our caucus to each other and to our leader. That would be a nice thing. Maybe those who have served under previous leaders like Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin or Michael Ignatieff were able to speak freely, but it does not appear that they are able to do that with the current government.

It is the Prime Minister's way, or they are out. Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more members of Parliament who were Liberals and who, under various circumstances, were disrespected and did not feel welcome anymore in the Liberal caucus. That is very sad to see.

Let us get to the next mess that the Prime Minister has made, and that is in the Senate. It is quite something to see what is happening in the Senate. The Prime Minister has a leader of the government in the Senate whom he tries to disavow. The Prime Minister has, however, done an excellent job appointing ideological fellow travellers to the Senate, though he likes to call them “independent”. At the end of the day, though, when something comes to a vote, the Prime Minister has always been able to count on his so-called independent senators' votes. However, getting there has not always been very pretty. I have to say it is a bit entertaining to watch on this side.

The real litmus test for his so-called independent Senate will be whether it heeds Liberal political imperatives in an election year, follows the spirit of Motion No. 30 and passes all of the Prime Minister's bills in the way that he wants. I guess time will tell.

In the meantime, it means that we have seen a number of Senate amendments to current legislation. Of course, at the end of the day, the Senate has backed down to the government's opinion every single time. It is quite interesting. While there is something generally reassuring about an elected House, even under the thumb of a majority government carrying the day, it has nonetheless meant that the House spends an extra two days or more on every government bill that gets bounced back from the Senate.

It is also a reflection of the government's lack of consultation with Canadians over many of its pieces of legislation. Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and Bill C-71 are all bills where, had the government just taken a little time to listen to Canadians, had it admitted that maybe it made some mistakes and had it made those adjustments, it might not be seeing the problems it is seeing with the current legislation in the Senate. However, that is what the government is getting.

The Prime Minister's mismanagement of the Senate has directly contributed to the mismanagement of the House of Commons, hence the need for government Motion No. 30. Here is the present scene: a scandal-ridden, disastrous Liberal government flailing about in the dying days of this Parliament in a rush to just do something, to get something done, something other than making pot legal. That is about the only thing the government has done, and it has actually done that pretty poorly. The legalization of cannabis is really the only notable accomplishment of the government to date. Even with that, it turned out to be a disaster.

What does the government have left to do, which it is in such a hurry to achieve? The government has horribly failed in meeting any of its lofty commitments to indigenous peoples. Now it is in a panic to rush through Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, the indigenous languages and indigenous family services legislation, so that it can say, “Look, we have done something.”

There is, of course, yet another omnibus budget bill that it is ramming through the House at this moment. The government will no doubt want to see that piece of legislation and all of its provisions to implement another promise-breaking, deficit budget through Parliament. Rumours have also started to fly that the government will seek to implement, before the election, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, the new NAFTA, where the Liberals capitulated to the American administration on replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement.

On the NAFTA negotiations, the Prime Minister wasted a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a better deal. However, Conservatives worked hard to get tariffs removed, and we recognize how important free trade with the United States is. We will be voting to ratify the deal in Parliament, but the Liberals cannot take this as a licence to abuse Parliament. We are already well into the 11th hour for this Parliament. I can confidently predict that the House will not be a happy place if the implementation legislation is brought forward at the very last minute and then we are called to rush through the bill with little or no scrutiny to make fundamental changes to the world's most important bilateral economic relationship.

Again, we need the government, at this very late hour, to show some responsibility and let Canadians know, let members know, what it is planning to do with this agreement and with the ratification.

Turning to other priorities the government will seek to advance this spring, we see other economic legislation that is really hurting our economy. The government is the proud owner of a $4.5-billion pipeline, which has not even started to be built. Government members are scrambling to shore up the support of environmental activists, whose votes they heavily courted in 2015 but clearly are losing. Today we are going to be seeing the welcoming of a new member of Parliament from the Green Party. I think when the Liberals talk about an emergency, that is an emergency they are very much seized with, the emergency of their losing their so-called environmentalist vote.

However, there is some legislation that is really problematic, such as Bill C-88, which is a bill that would restrict pipeline and resource development in Canada's north. Bill C-68 would make negative changes to fisheries laws, which would result in economic activity being hampered. Bill C-48, and it is quite interesting to see what is happening in the Senate with that one, is a symbolic gesture; well, it is more than a gesture, as this bill would ban tanker traffic from part of the B.C. coast, which is where many first nations are calling for greater pipeline development and economic opportunity. At the same time, there is no proposed tanker ban on the east coast, where Saudi Arabian and Venezuelan oil is coming to Canada.

Of course, there is Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, which would absolutely stop any energy infrastructure development in Canada. We have heard from experts, stakeholders, provinces and first nation groups that Bill C-69 is an absolute disaster for this country. We would not have any more pipelines built. They will be built in other countries. Canada will miss this window of opportunity. Again, the government does not seem to understand the consequences of its actions. However, I understand there have been many amendments by the Senate, up to 200 amendments, so it will be interesting to see if those are overturned by the Liberals, who are hoping to regain their environmentalist votes.

In Canada, majority government policies are usually assured of being put into place. Therefore, the shadow cast by these bills has, unfortunately, already done a huge amount of damage in our resource sector and in other parts of our country, putting a chill on investment and development long ahead of these bills becoming law.

Adding to that is the sad, sorry spectacle of the duelling climate emergency motions before the House this month, which is another interesting thing to watch. Before Victoria Day, the New Democrats put forward an opposition day motion declaring a climate emergency, and the Liberals defeated it. Lo and behold, the very next day, the Liberals brought forward their own climate emergency motion, which we debated for just a few hours. Then, the day after, they were on to something else, and the Prime Minister was flying somewhere in his jet. Can members imagine that there is a climate emergency and the Prime Minister gets on his jet and flies away? It is pretty unbelievable. I call that a high-carbon hypocrite.

Here we are this morning, back from our constituency break. Where is the emergency debate? I do not see it. The government's emergency is worrying about what is happening on its left flank, worrying about the senators and worrying about getting legislation through. However, this morning we have this debate, which is something different still. This afternoon, the Liberals are going to squeeze in another two or three hours on their climate emergency, hoping that some of their environmentalists are listening and they can fool them into thinking they care about the environment, when in fact the only plan the Liberals have for the environment is a tax plan. Who knows? The motion goes back into the parliamentary ether under the who-knows-when category.

I think this is just a political emergency. As I mentioned, the Green Party won a by-election on Vancouver Island, with the Liberal candidate running fourth, which is really quite something. I think the Liberals are very worried. They have to be worried about what is going on in B.C. The Prime Minister, as I said, scrambled and stuck something in the window to look like he was doing something. It is sort of fun to watch them do this.

I know what the Liberals are going to do. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change actually mentioned it on the weekend. Their approach, according to the minister, is that if they stand in the House and say it loud enough, as well as yell it in question period, Canadians will just believe it. Now we know why the Prime Minister and that minister stand and yell. It is sad to say, but they believe that if they say it loud enough and yell it enough times in this place that Canadians will believe it. That is horrible. It is cynical, disrespectful and shameful. I certainly hope that maybe at their next caucus meeting, some of those Liberals will have the courage to speak up to their boss, the Prime Minister, and maybe a few of their ministers, and tell them that it is about time they respect this place and respect Canadians.

Here we are debating government Motion No. 30, because the Liberals claim they are working hard to pass legislation. Then we will turn to a virtue signalling motion that will not change one law or do one thing. It is really interesting to see what the Liberal government is doing.

Let us go back to Motion No. 30. Those were my opening remarks, and now I am getting into the real substance of my speech. I appreciate the encouragement. Motion No. 30 before us today calls us to sit until midnight on four days a week, as well as for most votes to take place after question period. These are understandable. We were in government and understand it, but we did not have to do it in 2015. We were able to manage things so efficiently under Peter Van Loan and Stephen Harper that we did not extend into night sittings in the summer of 2015. However, for all the reasons I have pointed out, the Liberals had to.

Some of these measures can be understood by us, as Conservatives, as they are things we have asked the House to do. There is one addition to the motion that is truly a nice one, and I am going to compliment the government on it. There is a provision in this motion to have a couple of evenings that are dedicated to statements by retiring members from all sides. We will have the opportunity to set aside partisanship for a short period of time to hear the farewell speeches by our departing colleagues. That is something we do not always get to enjoy when we have one-off statements made in the midst of one political battle or another. I am really glad to see that provision. There are members on every side of the House who are retiring and not running again for various reasons. In the last Parliament, we set aside a couple of evenings for those members, who could invite their families, friends and staff members. It is a really good thing and I am grateful. I thank the government for putting that provision into this motion.

However, the motion is not perfect. This is where I am going to discuss the parts of the motion that we do not like and believe are a greedy approach on behalf of the Liberals. I have already talked about 2017 and 2018 when the government motion proposed reducing opposition days to opposition half days. We objected then, and we object again.

This year's motion is very aggressive in some other ways also. The rules normally require report stage votes and third reading debate to occur on separate days. Under government Motion No. 30, that waiting period would be eliminated. Again, this is another way that the government can rush through legislation.

With regard to the way that the previous motion on extended hours worked, there was a one-day delay between a vote on the previous question and a vote on the main motion. That would be eliminated under government Motion No. 30. In previous years, all dilatory motions were banned after 6:30 p.m., but now ministers would be allowed to propose them. The government wants us to sit late every night, yet wants to keep for itself the power to send us home early.

On the last opposition day in each supply period, we vote on the estimates. That is when we go through the government spending plan line by line and approve the items. Unfortunately for the current government, these have often fallen at times when the government was being particularly arrogant, like in March when the Liberals were insisting on preventing the members for Vancouver Granville and Markham—Stouffville from speaking. Therefore, we did have to hold the government's feet to the fire and we triggered marathon voting, which is one of the very few devices left for us to make our disagreements felt.

Now, government Motion No. 30 would create a backdoor procedural trick to group and apply these votes. That is in an effort to spare the Liberals from standing and voting for their spending proposals, and that is if a voting marathon even happens this spring. Again, this is one of the small tools we have to hold the government to account and draw attention to what the government is doing. The Liberals have taken that away as well. It is shameful. The takeaway from this is that while the Liberals are setting long hours, they want to make light work. Again, it is a lot of hope but very little hard work.

There is also one small curious difference between this motion and those from the previous years. Normally, when a concurrence debate is interrupted, the government has 10 sitting days to reschedule the conclusion of that debate. Under past motions for extended hours, whether Liberal or Conservative, that 10 days has been increased to 20 days to avoid further extending some House sittings from 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. Instead, the government motion proposes 31 sitting sitting days, not 20. It is an interesting little change, nuance, in this motion. Since there are only 20 scheduled sittings days left, that tells me one thing: The Liberal government now recognizes it has mismanaged its agenda so badly that it could be preparing for the House to have a summer sitting. I am wondering if all the Liberal members were aware of that little nugget. Again, it is going to be a matter of our watching this space to see what happens.

Finally, something that is not in the motion also has us concerned. That is the prospect of amendments to the Standing Orders getting rammed through this spring under the cover of midnight sittings. On one hand, there is a private member's motion, Motion No. 231, sponsored by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. It did not come through this morning, but many of us have had a chance to look at that private member's motion and have to wonder if it is not under the direction or the support of the Liberals. The Liberal government did—

Fisheries and Oceans

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pontiac for his commitment to these important issues.

I want to start by thanking my colleagues from Saanich—Gulf Islands and Port Moody—Coquitlam for their hard work on these files.

Because these issues are so important, our government is taking leadership by supporting Senate amendments to Bill C-68 to include provisions to ban the captivity of whales and dolphins and prohibit shark finning in Canada.

Our government is firmly committed to the protection of biodiversity and the humane treatment of marine mammals and sharks.

Oceans Act

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the speech by my colleague for Red Deer—Lacombe, especially when he talked about the effect of marine protected areas on Alberta. One would think there would not be a connection there, but my colleague very eloquently made that.

We talk about the marine protected areas, we talk about the tanker ban, we talk about the no pipeline Bill C-69 and, of course, the potentially new Fisheries Act, Bill C-68. It is just a litany of daggers aimed at the energy industry in Canada.

I know the member comes from an energy-producing area of Alberta. Could he talk about the effect of these pieces of legislation on the energy economy in his area and in Alberta?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

—associated with Bill C-68, which is to implement the stock assessment provisions within the bill. They don't have anything to do with habitat restoration. That's $142 million—partnering with the Government of B.C.

We have put in place the most comprehensive approach to addressing the decline in the Fraser chinook in the history of British Columbia. It is something that needs to be done if you are somebody who believes that these fish need to be saved. I, for one, do.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

As I mentioned in talking about Atlantic salmon, clearly the issues involved here are complex, and we need a comprehensive approach. With respect to Fraser River chinook, where 12 of 13 are listed or are in the process of being listed as being threatened, we are in the process of bringing forward Bill C-68 to strengthen protections that were lost under the previous government. We committed $142 million to habitat restoration, which is something the recreational fishers talk about a lot: the need for governments to actually spend on restoring habitat that's been destroyed. We announced in the fall $107 million for investments in the stock provisions part of the Fisheries Act to help us to do more stock assessments and those kinds of things to better manage the fisheries. We have convened, with the University of British Columbia, a symposium on predation by seals and sea lions, which is another topic of conversation. We have indicated to the recreational fishers that we are open to conversations around hatcheries and marked fisheries in a multi-stakeholder forum where we can surface some of the issues and have those conversations.

We also need to ensure that a sufficient number of these fish are getting back to the spawning grounds, that they will continue to survive and, ultimately, that they will continue to recover. The restrictions that were put into place a few weeks ago are to do exactly that. Those restrictions are as stringent for the commercial fishery as they are for the recreational fishery, and in some respects, you could argue that they are even more stringent for the commercial fishery. We have endeavoured to ensure that we only have non-retention limits in place while the Fraser River stocks are in the relevant area, and those are opened again as soon as those stocks are gone. Before those stocks have left, it's not a closure of the fishery; it's simply non-retention. You can catch and release, but you must release.

It is part of a comprehensive plan to ensure that we are not knowingly putting these Fraser River chinook on a path to extinction. That would not be something that's wise, and I wouldn't be doing my job appropriately if I allowed that to happen.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for the invitation to be here today. I will give some opening remarks, and then I think Jen will just supplement those a little bit.

As you noted, I'm accompanied by a number of members of our senior management team.

I'll give the committee a brief financial overview of the 2019-20 main estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard before speaking about some of the accomplishments of my department.

Through the 2019-20 main estimates, the department is seeking $2.994 billion, which represents a $548.4-million increase when compared to the 2018-19 main estimates.

The increased spending levels represent new funding for the procurement and conversion of three icebreakers for the Coast Guard, including the newest member of the fleet, the CCGS Captain Molly Kool. The main estimates also include $155 million that is directed to the construction and engineering of a Coast Guard offshore oceanographic science vessel, as well as to the purchase of long lead items, which need to be ordered well in advance of the start of construction, which is targeted for the end of 2020.

The main estimates also include a significant amount of funding for the small craft harbours program to deliver on its regular work, which is $92 million annual A-base funding. In addition, they include $150 million to deliver on the $250-million budget 2018 funding for small craft harbours. This is important because, in 2018, the commercial fishing industry had landings valued at over $5.5 billion. Today, this sector employs more than 77,000 workers from coast to coast to coast in harvesting, aquaculture and processing jobs. Furthermore, fish and seafood continue to be among the largest single food commodities exported by Canada, valued at almost $7 billion annually.

The top three items that comprise our main estimates—commercial icebreakers, small craft harbours and the offshore oceanographic science vessel—each represent 5% of the total 2019-20 estimates, or 15% as a whole. Furthermore, on the overall change of $548.4 million between 2018-19 and 2019-20, these three initiatives correspond to $435.5 million or approximately 80% of the overall increase that the department is experiencing.

Following my remarks, my officials will be able to share more specifics on how this funding will be used over the coming months.

Mr. Chair, it has been 10 months since my appointment as Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

I am very proud to be part of a government that has been making decisions and real investments to fight climate change and protect our environment. From coast to coast to coast, whether it is increasing the capacity of our Coast Guard or investing in small craft harbours, the decisions that are made are ensuring that we are protecting our oceans for generations to come and for our communities that depend on them.

The Canadian Coast Guard owns and operates more than 120 vessels of various sizes, strategically deployed on all coasts and major inland waterways of the country. In the past 18 months, six new small ships have joined the fleet, including search and rescue lifeboats and channel surveying vessels. We have announced the arrival of two more search and rescue lifeboats, the CCGS McIntyre Bay and the CCGS Pachena Bay, to join the west coast fleet. The first large ship under the national shipbuilding strategy, a specialized offshore fisheries science vessel named after Sir John Franklin, is expected to be delivered in June.

We are strengthening the Coast Guard's authorities to support a more proactive, rapid and effective response to ship-source and mystery-source pollution incidents. The Coast Guard responds regularly to pollution incidents, mostly small in scale. However, it also proactively intervenes when required to mitigate potential spills. This past fall, the Coast Guard and its partners successfully completed the bulk oil removal of 208.7 cubic metres from the wreck of the Manolis L near Change Islands, in Notre Dame Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador.

The government is making investments to ensure that the women and men of the Coast Guard have the tools they need to protect our marine environment and ensure the safety of mariners.

Small craft harbours provide critical support to the commercial fishing industry, which in 2017 had landings of over $3.4 billion. As part of budget 2018, we invested $250 million, over two years, to renew our network of small craft harbours and to work with municipalities to enhance local communities and economies and foster job creation. This is in addition to the $92 million that will be invested in 2019-20 for repairs, maintenance, construction and dredging at core commercial fishing harbours across this country.

Over the past year, Canada has been active and engaged internationally. One highlight was the G7 summit, where oceans and fisheries were featured as key issues. In addition, we sponsored the first-ever oceans conference at the Sustainable Blue Economy Conference, which was held in Nairobi, where we co-sponsored with Kenya and Japan. We also established the new DFO and Coast Guard region in the Arctic and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Nunavut and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association to work together to explore the potential protection of areas in the High Arctic Basin, while supporting the development of a conservation economy in the region. We also established an inshore rescue boat station in Rankin Inlet.

The government has committed to providing meaningful and effective protection to Canada's land and ocean spaces. To that end, we established an advisory panel on marine-protected area standards to consult with Canadians and provide guidance to the government on our approach to marine conservation.

During the nature champions summit in Montreal last month, I announced a set of strong, clear standards for Canada's marine conservation networks, which will include two distinct forms of protection: marine-protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, such marine refuges.

We're well on our way to meeting the international 10% marine conservation target in 2020, as a result of real protection measures that will have biodiversity benefits for generations to come.

Other progress includes partnering with indigenous peoples to respond to marine emergencies, and in the last year we provided marine safety training to 25 members from 17 first nations in British Columbia.

We are also continuing to take action to protect Canada's endangered whales, including the southern resident killer whales on the west coast, right whales on the east coast and belugas in the St. Lawrence.

We are working to leverage new research to refine and improve our approaches to managing fisheries in this country, with the resolve to provide needed protections, while supporting indigenous groups, fish harvesters, shippers and other stakeholders.

One of my most important priorities as minister is restoring important fish stocks across Canada, including Canada's wild salmon populations. As you know, our government last year announced an additional $107 million to support the implementation of the fish stocks provisions that are proposed in Bill C-68. To contribute to better managed fisheries, these resources will increase scientific capacity to do stock assessments, including salmon stock assessments.

We also announced the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund and the Quebec fisheries fund, both modelled on the successful Atlantic fisheries fund, to support projects focused on supporting stock restoration and resilience through infrastructure investments, promoting science partnerships and innovation and technology adoption.

These are among many activities that will support our wild salmon policy implementation plan and management of aquaculture over the next five years.

Canada's prosperity depends on making sure the benefits of a growing economy are felt by more and more people, with good, well-paying jobs for Canada's middle class. The government also firmly believes that economic prosperity and the long-term health of our environment can and must go hand in hand. We are continuing to make smart investments that are positioning Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard to deliver on these priorities for the benefit of all Canadians.

Now I will turn it over to Jen to add a couple of extra comments.

Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts, also known as the act for ending the captivity of whales and dolphins.

The bill proposes changes to three acts: the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, an act whose name did not advantage of creative acronym design.

I want to begin by first stating that I am indeed, like Canadians across the country, in favour of the bill and I know this government supports this bill.

I actually deferred my opportunity to speak on my own private member's motion, Motion No. 196, and work with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in order to help advance this important legislation before the session ends. Who knows, maybe I will not get the opportunity to speak on my motion, but I know this is very important to Canadians. Seeing it so close to the finish line, it felt like it was the right move to make. I am honoured by the small role I may have been able to play in advancing the common good across party lines and between the other place and this place.

I also want to highlight the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, who passed the bill unamended at committee.

The bill has progressed thanks to their leadership and is now even closer to being passed after years of debate in the Senate.

There is no doubt, as we have come to learn more about the living needs of whales and other cetaceans, that keeping them in captivity is simply the wrong thing to do.

Support for a ban on keeping whales in captivity has grown and is continuing to grow, not only in Canada, but around the world.

Canadians can see some of Canada's most majestic marine animals in their natural habitat all around Newfoundland and along all our coastlines from St. John's, Newfoundland, and Vancouver Island to the Arctic and Chaleur Bay.

We know from research on these animals that living in captivity is far from being in their best interest and that is why Canadians across the country have shown continued support for the banning of whales in captivity.

I would also like to add that while the banning of whale captivity is not yet in legislation, the practice has been in place for years in Canada, and our government continues to support this.

Licences for the capture of live cetaceans are issued only by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard for scientific research or rehabilitation.

In the past 10 years, as we have heard, only one licence has been issued for the rehabilitation of a live-stranded pseudo-orca calf.

Our government has also taken notice of the growing concern to ensure cetaceans are not being captured for the sole purpose of being kept for public display. That is why our government introduced Bill C-68, which is currently before the committee in the other place, and we hope will be reported out of the committee next week. It contains amendments that would prohibit the captivity of whales and would allow the minister to put in place regulations to ban the import and export of cetaceans.

Today, there are only two facilities in Canada that house cetaceans: Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario, and the Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia.

Marineland is a commercial facility with approximately 60 cetaceans. Most are belugas with one being a killer whale.

The Vancouver Aquarium is a not-for-profit facility and has one cetacean at its facility, a 30 year-old Pacific white-sided dolphin that was rescued from the wild and has been deemed to be unfit for release back into the wild. The Vancouver Aquarium works with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to rescue and rehabilitate marine mammals in distress.

We know we must do more to keep protecting cetaceans. That is why we need to send a clear message through legislation that whales do not belong in captivity. Today we are debating the importance of keeping whales in the wild, but I also want to emphasize the importance of ensuring their marine habitats are protected.

Over the past few years, the government has made real investments to protect and conserve our marine environment. In 2016, the Prime Minister announced $1.5 billion dollars for the oceans protection plan, which has since funded 55 coastal restoration projects, helped to address threats to marine mammals from vessel noise and collisions, increased our on-scene environmental response capacity and much more.

As part of budget 2018, this government also announced $167.4 million for the whales initiative, which has further funded recovery plans for endangered species, such as the southern resident killer whale, the beluga whale and in my area of the world, the North Atlantic right whale.

Our government continues to take action to protect our environment. We recently announced new standards for marine protected areas to ensure that ecologically significant areas are not disturbed by oil and gas exploration. This measure was introduced in response to the recommendations of an independent expert advisory panel on marine protected areas. This announcement was well received in Canada and around the world.

Our move toward protecting important marine environments will help ensure a good future for a healthy ocean and the health of marine species such as whales and dolphins. However, I really cannot say enough about the oceans protection plan; infrastructure; coastal restoration; the abandoned, derelict and wrecked vessels programs; arctic marine protection; science and research and the pilotage review.

In my riding of St. John's East, there is an institute called the Marine Institute. I had the good fortune to be there in September 2011 with the minister of fisheries and oceans and the Canadian coast guard at the time, now our good friend from Beauséjour who is on leave, the former minister of veterans affairs, now the Minister of Indigenous Services, and my good friend and colleague the member for Avalon to announce important work that is being done to restore marine habitat in Avalon using expertise that comes from the university in my riding, the Marine Institute.

We announced a program to re-establish the eel beds in Placentia Bay to increase that habitat. That is where lots of species, including scallops, shrimp, cod and whales, start their lives. It is important to protect these areas to improve the health and ability of our oceans to be fully functioning in certain areas where they have become damaged due to industrial activity.

This particular project is small in comparison to the overall total. It is about $7.4 million. Although it was announced on my wedding anniversary, my wife was not too upset. We had an opportunity to celebrate later. The money is actually already being spent. Last summer, scientists were able to go into Placentia Bay, do the diving and begin that restoration work in Placentia Bay that will pay dividends for years to come.

It is wonderful to work with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on this. As we did a little social media earlier, a lot of people came back to me and asked some important questions on how our government can be supporting industrial activity in the oil and gas sector and at the same time support environmental protections. They felt that it was counterintuitive or perhaps even contradictory. That could not be further from the truth.

The only way the government can move forward, protect the environment and fund the transition of our economy to a clean economy is with economic growth from our traditional sectors in resource development. We must continue to work on the demand side, and this means the purchasing decisions made by consumers and how they engage in their daily lives, and at the same time allow our natural resources sectors to engage in environmentally responsible development so that we can tap into export markets.

We cannot allow countries that do not have good environmental records to capitalize on oil and gas profits from their exports and not allow our industry to thrive. That is why our government, at the same time it is doing all this great work to help whales in the wild and help prevent whale captivity, is also funding the Trans Mountain expansion and has recently approved, with many conditions, continued exploration for two projects on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador for oil exploration. ExxonMobil and Equinor now have the opportunity this summer and over the course of the next decade to drill exploratory drills in our waters, subject to conditions that protect the right whales and protect our oceans. We will use this prosperity to fund things like the oceans protection plan.

In closing, let me say that I am very pleased to be here today to join with Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have come out in favour of ending the captivity of whales. Whales have been kept in captivity for too long, and that has to change.

Whales do not belong in captivity; they belong in the wild. I encourage all members to support this legislation.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join this important debate on Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts with regard to ending the captivity of whales and dolphins.

Both I and my constituents in Parkdale—High Park have anticipated this piece of legislation for some time since it moved from the Senate to this House. Now that it has returned from the fisheries and oceans committee without amendment, I am pleased to stand and speak in favour of this bill. It is important to highlight the important work that was done by a unanimous fisheries and oceans committee to get it back before this House expeditiously.

Before I speak to the substantive elements of the bill, I want to add my voice to the voice of the leader of the Green Party and thank the Senate sponsors for this bill, the now retired Senator Wilfred Moore and Senator Murray Sinclair, who carried the bill forward after Senator Moore's retirement. I want to thank as well the House of Commons sponsor, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who commenced this debate today. All of these individuals have been tireless advocates for this legislation, and their activism and advocacy has helped carry Bill S-203 to this point we are at this afternoon.

The bill itself seeks to prohibit the taking of a cetacean into captivity and will amend the Criminal Code to create offences respecting cetaceans in captivity. It will also amend other acts to require a permit for the import of a cetacean into Canada and the export of one from Canada.

I want to begin by tracking our government's progress on the commitment to promote animal welfare rights in Canada and abroad. This is an important issue to me and the constituents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park, as I frequently hear from them about the work we must all do collectively to ensure the welfare of animals. Since 2015, we have made progress on this commitment.

In my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, one of the pieces of legislation I have had the privilege of working on is Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to bestiality and animal fighting. That bill will make important amendments to our Criminal Code to change the definition of bestiality and expand the animal fighting provisions to capture more of this conduct and ensure offenders are brought to justice.

This week is indeed a momentous week in this chamber, because it was only this week that Bill C-84 received third reading and was then sent to the Senate. I, along with many others, look forward to its study and its eventual passage there. In the same week that we dealt with Bill C-84 in this chamber, we are dealing today with Bill S-203. It has been an important week for animal rights in this country.

With the help of stakeholders such as farmers, industry groups, provinces and territories, and veterinarians, our government has also been active on ensuring proper and humane animal transport. Federally, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA, administers the enforcement of regulations related to animal transport, and plans are under way to modernize the regulations and humane transport provisions of the health of animals regulations. These have not been updated since the 1970s. The need to reduce animal suffering during transportation is clear.

In 2017, we also announced an investment of $1.31 million to an entity known as the Canadian Animal Health Coalition, the CAHC, to help ensure the safe transportation of livestock, develop emergency management tools for the livestock industry and improve animal care assessments.

We have also been engaged with stakeholders on the topic of animal welfare during the slaughter process. The stakeholders in my riding of Parkdale—High Park have spoken to me repeatedly about the need to ensure that animals are handled humanely at all points of their lives and that the high standards we expect regarding animal treatment are upheld. I absolutely agree with their sentiment that this kind of protection must be a priority, which is why I currently serve as a member of the Liberal animal welfare caucus.

Let us get back to the bill before us, Bill S-203.

Scientists agree that whales, dolphins and other extraordinary marine mammals like them should not be kept in captivity or bred in captivity, and that doing so amounts to cruelty.

Additionally, it is well documented that the live capture of cetaceans and their transport to a foreign habitat harms the natural habitat where the cetaceans originate. At a time when oceans are under increased threat from a number sources, such as habitat destruction, coastal pollution, overfishing and global warming, which all harm these cetaceans, we can scarcely afford to be keeping them in captivity.

We must also think about the difficult living conditions for cetaceans that live in a confined space, such as an aquarium, without the social contact and normal activities most cetaceans in the wild would enjoy. Those that live in captivity suffer from a higher rate of physical health issues and a lower life expectancy.

As well, calves generally suffer from a much higher mortality rate and a lack of emotional connection to others of their species as a result of the limited space when they are in captivity.

Therefore, where we may have seen whales, dolphins and other cetaceans in an aquarium as a form of entertainment in bygone years, in many cases we now realize that it actually amounts to animal cruelty. Thus, our government firmly agrees that the capture of cetaceans for the sole purpose of being kept for public display should be ended.

Importantly, while the banning of whale captivity is not yet in law, the practice has been in place for some years now, which is a good sign. Bill C-68, which was mentioned earlier in today's debate in one of the questions by a member opposite, was introduced by our government. It is currently in the Senate and passed in the House in June of last year. It includes amendments to end the captivity of whales unless for rehabilitation. This legislation now before us is the next step, the next important step, in ensuring the safety and security of these intelligent and complex creatures.

Presently, as was mentioned by the Leader of the Green Party, there are two aquaria in Canada that are holding cetaceans: the Vancouver Aquarium, in British Columbia, and Marineland, in Ontario. The Vancouver Aquarium, which is a not-for-profit institution, currently has a Pacific white-sided dolphin, which was rescued from the wild and deemed not releasable, as well as five belugas on loan to aquaria in the United States. The Vancouver Park Board has not permitted the aquarium to hold cetaceans captured from the wild for display purposes since 1996, but it does work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to respond to cetaceans in the wild requiring rescue and rehabilitation. Marineland holds the remaining balance of cetaceans, including one orca.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans retains the authority to issue a licence for the capture of live cetaceans. However, only one such licence has been issued over the past decade, and that was for the rescue and rehabilitation of a stranded Pseudorca calf. No licence has been issued for the purpose of displaying a cetacean publicly in over 20 years. As stated earlier, it has been the practice of successive Canadian governments that cetaceans not be captured or placed in captivity unless for rehabilitation.

It is also important to note the elements of Bill S-203 that relate to the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, some of which feature whales and dolphins as a key component of their culture and traditions. These provisions were not initially part of the bill, but through the significant consultation process that took place while Bill S-203 was being studied in the Senate, the bill was sufficiently and appropriately altered.

It is essential to consider and address the needs of indigenous peoples. This is something I have heard frequently from the knowledgeable, engaged constituents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park and literally from people right around the country. They have always echoed to me that we in this place, as legislators, must apply an indigenous lens to all the legislation, government or otherwise, that comes before us. I am pleased to see that this is in fact exactly what was done in the Senate when it engaged in those consultations.

This legislation complements our government's work, which I have outlined. We are committed to the recovery and protection of marine mammals. This commitment is evident through another investment we have made, which is a $1.5-billion investment in what is an historic oceans protection plan that would help restore our marine ecosystems, in partnership with our indigenous partners.

As well, there has been a five-year $167-million investment in the whales initiative, which would take concrete steps to help endangered whales and reduce the impact of human-caused threats. Our latest announcement was $61 million for measures in support of the southern resident killer whale population off the coast of British Columbia.

Bill S-203 is one aspect of the support our government is giving to marine animals and their habitat. Bill S-203 is also supported by some significant leaders in the field of marine science and animal welfare, including Humane Canada and Animal Justice. Even the former head trainer at Marineland, Mr. Philip Demers, has expressed support for the measures in this bill.

What I think we are seeing here with Bill S-203 is the proper and necessary evolution of rights protections for animals in this country. It is a bill whose time has come. It is a bill I am very proud to support on behalf of my constituents and as a member of the government. I urge all members to do the same.

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

Madam Speaker, to my dear friend from Niagara Falls, I would say that Bill C-68 is a terrific piece of legislation. It does ban the taking of whales from Canadian waters, but it does not speak to the pith, substance and core of this bill, which is that people cannot continue to hold them in captivity, cannot breed them for captivity and cannot keep whales in captivity.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, this debate will continue, but I want to ask the hon. member if she has had an opportunity to compare what is in her bill to what is in the government's Bill C-68, which is now before the Senate. That bill covers a lot of ground, but a number of the issues are very similar, if not identical, to what is in her private member's bill. I will ask her to comment.

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

, seconded by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

She said: Madam Speaker, I thank those members who are applauding this historic day. I speak for myself and for many Canadians from coast to coast to coast when I say we are very grateful for the assistance of the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the assistance of the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the assistance of their parliamentary secretaries in assisting this bill to get through this place after its long, long, long gestation in the Senate. We are extremely grateful for that support to expedite the passage of this bill so that it can receive royal assent before this House adjourns for the summer and the election.

I am only going to canvass briefly the elements of the bill; I think we are all very familiar with it.

It was started in the Senate, where it was sponsored by an absolutely terrific Canadian who would make the case that we should change mandatory retirement at age 75 for members of the Senate.

Senator Wilfred Moore of Nova Scotia brought this bill forward in 2015. On his retirement, it was taken up by another magnificent and inspiring leader within this country, former jurist Senator Murray Sinclair. All of their work and all of the witnesses in the long hearings before the Senate made the same point over and over again: In the 21st century, we simply know better than to think cetaceans belong in captivity. We can no longer pretend that the entertainment value of these magnificent, sentient creatures in swimming pools anywhere in Canada is acceptable.

Parallel to our efforts on Bill S-203 is a very good bill, Bill C-68, from the former minister of fisheries, the hon. member for Beauséjour. It is is currently before the Senate, and we certainly hope will pass soon. To him, I once again want to underline my deep thanks for all of his work as minister of fisheries.

Bill C-68, would make it illegal to take a cetacean into captivity in Canadian waters. Bill S-203, finishes that piece and makes it comprehensive by adding that we will not breed cetaceans in captivity, nor will we buy cetaceans from other countries and keep them in captivity.

We are listening to the science and taking the appropriate actions.

I want to thank other people who have played a significant role in seeing this largely non-partisan effort, supported by thousands and thousands of Canadians, come to this point.

I want to thank the hon. members for Courtenay—Alberni, New Westminster—Burnaby, Beaches—East York and Pontiac; the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard; the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard; the members for West Nova, Avalon, and Charlottetown, and the member for Repentigny from the Bloc Québécois. There was help from members on all sides of the House, including the party that did not support the bill; there are individual members of that party who were very helpful.

The NGO community has been very helpful in assisting the process by networking with good scientists and also making sure the community of Canadians concerned with cetaceans received assistance. That community includes Animal Justice and its spectacular lawyer, Camille Labchuk; the Humane Society of Canada; Humane Society International; Ontario Captive Animal Watch; Animal Alliance of Canada; World Animal Protection; and The Whale Sanctuary Project. Assistance also came from scientists Dr. Lori Marino; Dr. Ingrid Visser, who testified by video link all the way from New Zealand; Dr. Naomi Rose; Dr. Hal Whitehead, of Dalhousie University; and Phil Demers.

All of these scientists, NGOs, individual elected Canadians and those from the unelected other place worked diligently and did their homework with one aim only: to end a practice that we all know is wrong.

It is a great honour for me to have overseen this private members' bill. It is a great honour.

I am surprised by the tremendous support that this bill has received across Canada. At this time, I would like to say just one thing: thank you.

I thank everyone involved and am in their debt, as are our wonderful free whales. Although it was certainly an accident of fate and Parliament that the bill was brought forward by Senator Wilfred Moore, I will say once more “Free Willy”.

Oceans Act

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, we, too, are very grateful to have someone of the calibre of the member for Beauséjour in our caucus and are fully aware of the substantial contributions he made while serving as the minister of fisheries, oceans and the Canadian coast guard.

We share the anticipation of the hon. member with respect to the return of Bill C-68 to the House and the speedy passage of Bill C-55, and are grateful for her support in this regard.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record that I will vote for Bill C-55, the Oceans Act, as it comes back to this place.

This is probably my only opportunity to say something I have been wanting to say for awhile, which is that we owe so much to the former minister of fisheries, the member for Parliament for Beauséjour. He worked hard to fix the Fisheries Act, Bill C-68, which I hope gets back to this place soon so we can pass it. I hope it passes in the Senate unamended.

We need Bill C-68 as quickly as possible. We need Bill C-55. Constituents have contacted me, asking me to vote for the Oceans Act, and I will.

However, I wanted to take a moment in the House to extend my best wishes and constant prayers for my friend, the member of Parliament for Beauséjour, the current Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade. I thank him for his work. I also thank the current Minister of Fisheries. This is important legislation and I am really pleased to see it have full support of the government.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-88. Despite the use of time allocation, I appreciate that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons earlier today said she would make efforts to give me a chance to speak and has done so. Even with abbreviated debate, I am therefore able to speak to this legislation.

I am also able to speak to what happened to this legislation when the Northwest Territories Devolution Act was brought forward in the 41st Parliament in 2014. It was something everyone wanted to support, but there were many measures with that act that were offensive to the foundational principles of self-government and respect for treaties.

In fact, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, the Sahtu Land and Water Board and the Wek’eezhii Tlicho Land and Water Board, all of which were the result of treaty negotiations between the Crown and those nations, were callously, carelessly, disrespectfully and completely violated with the notion that we could replace them with something described as more efficient.

I protested those changes at the time, as did the previous NDP member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories, Dennis Bevington. We tried quite hard to persuade the 41st Parliament that it was wrong to change the law in this way.

Subsequent to the changes being made, a number of the boards that were impacted went to court to challenge what had just happened. The notion of a superboard was deeply offensive to the principle that had been there, which was that the land and water boards represented fifty-fifty decision-making between first nations and the federal government. It would have reduced the self-government that the Northwest Territories Devolution Act was supposed to respect. It would have taken away rights and reduced the scope of review by those various boards.

Earlier today in debate I heard a Conservative member say that Bill C-88 was another effort by the Liberal government to interfere with development, to thwart development and to drive investment away from Canada.

I am saddened by that kind of commentary. I agree with a number of criticisms of the Liberal government. There are a lot of measures being taken that I find far short of what is required, particularly when looking at the climate crisis, and far short of what is required when looking at the need for thorough environmental assessment. There was a commitment in the election to undo the damage that had been done by the Harper administration in a number of areas, and so far the Liberal government has done really well in some areas and less well in others.

It did extremely well in undoing discriminatory legislation towards trade unions, and that was done relatively quickly by the former member of cabinet responsible for labour issues.

The Liberal government did an extremely good job on a piece of legislation that is still before the Senate, Bill C-68, to repair the Fisheries Act. Bill C-68 not only repairs the damage that was done by the previous prime minister and his government and not only brings back protections for fish habitat. It also expands and improves other protections for habitat. It is an extremely important piece of legislation and I hope it passes quickly.

It is also complementary to a piece of legislation that I hope will be passed here. Earlier today in the House, the hon. member for Avalon, the chair of the fisheries committee, presented the report, and Bill S-203 is now back before the House. I hope we move to report stage and third reading expeditiously.

Bill C-68, which I am referencing, is also complementary in saying that we are now going to ban the taking of cetaceans into captivity in Canadian waters.

Again, all of these bills speak to undoing the damage done by the previous government, but Bill C-68 goes beyond that with more progressive measures.

Unfortunately, Bill C-69 is also before the Senate. I hope it will be amended and sent back here quickly. The Minister of Transport did an excellent job of repairing the former Navigable Waters Protection Act. There are some innovative changes to energy regulations. Unfortunately, the middle piece of legislation in that omnibus bill, the one on environmental review, does not undo the damage of the previous government, but rather keeps it in place.

However, this legislation is excellent in that it would actually undo the damage the previous government had done. It would set back in place the integrity of self-government, of decisions for land and water boards that reflect the negotiations under self-government agreements and treaties. Now that we are debating this bill at second reading, I would certainly like to see this bill in committee so that it could receive one or two additional amendments.

As was mentioned on the floor of the House earlier today when we started second reading debate of Bill C-88, given the content, the context and the need to take a step further and be more progressive than merely repairing, we should say that this bill operates under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That would be a very welcome amendment and, assuming this bill gets to committee and we are in a position to put forward amendments during clause-by-clause consideration, it is one that the committee can expect to hear from the Green Party.

I certainly support this bill, including the provisions to allow moratoria on drilling to affect such decisions based on evidence. I do hope the bill passes. I would like to see it pass with an amendment to ensure that it operates under the terms of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I say it is an honour, but I really question that when I take a look at what this bill is proposing to do. I say “proposing” because I hope we can make changes to it. What we see in this bill is what we have seen in other bills and in actions by the government. Basically, they are anti-resource actions.

The first action we saw on this was in November 2015, barely a month into the government's hopefully very short reign, when the Prime Minister decided to shut down the northern gateway project that would have taken oil resources from northern Alberta to tidewater. Rather than working with the challenges that were identified in that project, the Prime Minister decided, basically unilaterally, without debate in the House and without any criticism of his actions, to shut that down.

People in the north were looking forward to those jobs. People in ports and people right across the country could have benefited from those jobs. However, the Prime Minister made the decision almost single-handedly. Was it single-handedly, or was it a decision by his senior advisers? There was certainly very little input or debate in this House on that decision.

Next was the energy east pipeline, which would have taken high-quality Canadian products, produced and refined in Canada, to meet the fuel needs of eastern Canada. However, instead of allowing that project to proceed, the Prime Minister canned it as well.

Where are we now? We are still bringing in billions of dollars' worth of foreign oil. This foreign oil is produced in countries with lower environmental standards than we have in Canada, with lower human rights standards than we have in Canada and with lower technologies than we have in Canada.

That is the type of choice the Prime Minister and the government have been making. They have been penalizing Canadian resource workers and the companies and businesses that supply the resource sector from right across the country.

A lot of people think that the only jobs affected are those in Alberta or those in the oil sands projects, but those jobs stretch far further than that. I live in the North Okanagan—Shuswap, the south central part of British Columbia, a long way from the Alberta oil sands, but it is very close for some of the businesses and workers in my communities. I visited a machine shop that builds the highest-quality parts and pieces for the oil sector, everything from pipefittings to brackets and attachments used in the oil sector.

When I visited that machine shop and talked to the managers and people there, the pride they took in the quality of products they built, because of the technology that is developed out of the resource sector in Canada, was second to none. They manufacture and machine to a higher quality than anywhere else in the world, and it is because of one thing. It is because we have a strong resource sector in Canada.

They have seen their technology work. They have continuously improved on it. They have decided to go into a niche market of only looking at that top-end, high-quality, high environmental standard, high safety standard product, because there are people and businesses all over the world competing for the 20-year-old technology that is used in some of those countries I just referred to, which have lower environmental standards, lower human rights standards and lower worker safety standards.

The government continues to penalize Canadians for being innovative, for being creative and for taking the risk. They sometimes risk millions of dollars, their personal investments and their family homes to build a business or an industry that is reliant on the Canadian resource sector.

This bill is another step in that direction. The government is taking what we had done in a previous government in reducing the size of bureaucracy, making it easier for projects to move forward still with our the same high environmental standards. Now the Liberals are splitting it up, making it so that a major project like the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would have to go through multiple individual steps all the way through. The bill would do that kind of thing. As I mentioned, Bill C-88 is similar to many other bills in some other ways.

I am very familiar with Bill C-55, the Oceans Act, and the unilateral power that that bill would give to the minister, the unilateral power to shut down activities in an area, regardless of whether there would be scientific evidence as to the effects or not. Bill C-68 does much the same thing.

Bill C-69, which has been referred to as the “never do anything ever again” bill, is now in the Senate, I believe.

Those bills would give unprecedented unilateral power to ministers to make a decision to shut down activities without it being based on science, without it being based on debate.

The other one, which we saw for the first time, was in Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act. There is a paragraph in there that says that the minister on making decisions on a project must consider the intersection of sex and gender into his decision-making process. We saw that clause and it baffled us. What does that mean in a Fisheries Act bill? We also have to wonder what it means in a resource act bill.

The briefing that we received, to summarize and really simplify it, meant that any project moving forward had to look at the impact of outside workers coming into a community, for example, the impact of growth in the community, the impact of, as I said, sex and gender in the project. That did not seem too bad, all in itself, until the Prime Minister actually was questioned on it and started referring to resource and construction workers as a threat to communities. I believe he called them “dangerous” and said that they could present a danger to those communities. We heard the outcry from people in communities where they had seen the benefits of those projects. They absolutely could not believe those construction workers could be considered a threat.

We see this trend continuing, with the government attempting to shut down anything that resembles a major resource project. Those projects are going to be needed if Canada is to continue to prosper and thrive as we move forward. We know countries with strong economies create the best environmental conditions and protect their environments better than others. However, the government seems to want to take away anything that would allow benefits and prosperity in our country. We have seen it in the government's previous budgets, in which it attempted to attack small business or attack family farms and the succession planning of small business to pass their family businesses and farms on to their family members. It would cost them as much as four times higher to sell the family farm to a family member than to a total stranger or a foreign entity. It is an absolutely atrocious attack on small business and family farms.

Second Reading

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The bill would make two amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act of 1998, and I will refer to this in my speech going forward as MVRMA. Part A reverses provisions that would have consolidated the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into one. These provisions were introduced by the former Conservative government within Bill C-15, Northwest Territories Devolution Act of 2014.

Part B would amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders, when in the national interest, to prohibit oil and gas activities, and freezes the terms of existing licences to prevent them from expiring during a moratorium.

Bill C-88 is yet another Liberal anti-energy policy in a long list of policies from the government that are driving energy investments out of Canada, costing Canadian workers their jobs and increasing poverty rates in the north.

First, I will speak to part A of the bill, the section that reverses the previous government's initiative to consolidate for the devolution of governance of the Northwest Territories, wherein the federal government transferred control of the territories' land and resources to the Northwest Territories government.

Part of that plan sought to restructure the four Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into a single consolidated superboard, with the intent to streamline regulatory processes and enable responsible resource development. For the reasons why this was proposed under Bill C-15, we have to turn back the clock nearly seven years earlier when, in 2007, then-minister of Indian affairs and northern development, the hon. Chuck Strahl commissioned a report on improving regulatory and environmental assessment regimes in Canada's north.

The consolidation of the Mackenzie Valley land and water boards into one entity was a key recommendation, which would address the complexity and capacity issues by making more efficient use of expenditures and administrative resources, and allow for administrative practices to be understandable and consistent.

Furthermore, during debates in the House in 2013 and 2014, the then-minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development, Bernard Valcourt and the member for Chilliwack—Hope, or as it was known back then, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, pointed out that the restructured board was included in the final version of the modern land claim agreements.

The proposed changes were not acceptable to everyone, and two indigenous groups, the Tlicho Government and Sahtu Secretariat, filed for an injunction with the Northwest Territories' Supreme Court to suspend the related provisions.

They argued that the federal government did not have the authority to abolish the Mackenzie Valley regulatory regime without consultation with affected indigenous communities. I should point out that, at the time, Liberal members of Parliament voted in favour of Bill C-15 when it was debated in Parliament, including the Prime Minister.

The report commissioned by the then-minister of Indian affairs and northern development was never meant to diminish the influence that indigenous people have on resource management in the north. Rather, it was meant to allow for this influence in a practical way, while at the same time enabling responsible resource development through an effective regulatory system.

This brings us back to today and the bill currently before us. As previously mentioned Bill C-88 would repeal the restructuring of the four land and water boards but also reintroduce regulatory provisions that were included in the previous Conservative government's Bill C-15.

These provisions have been redrafted to function under the current four-board structure and provide for the following: an administrative monetary penalty scheme that will provide inspectors with additional tools to enforce compliance with permits and licences under the MVRMA; an enforceable development certificate scheme following environmental assessments and environmental impact reviews; the development of regulations respecting consultation, which are intended to help clarify the procedural roles and responsibilities respecting indigenous consultation; clarification of requirements for equal proportions of nominees from government and indigenous governments and organizations; a 10-day pause period between a board's preliminary screening decision and the issuance of an authorization to allow for other bodies under the MVRMA to refer a project to an environmental assessment; regional studies that provide the minister with the discretion to appoint committees or individuals to study the effects of existing and future development on a regional basis; the authority to develop cost-recovery regulations that would provide the federal government with the ability to recover costs associated with proceedings; and the extension of a board member's term during a proceeding to ensure board quorum is maintained until the conclusion of an application decision.

These are good regulations and I am glad to see that the current government is continuing on with that and did not throw away these provisions.

The Liberals will say that Bill C-88 is about consultation, however, under part 2 is where the real motivation for Bill C-88 becomes evident.

Part 2 is simply the Liberals' plan to further politicize the regulatory and environmental processes for resource extraction in Canada's north by giving cabinet sweeping powers to stop projects based on its so-called national interest. So much for the comments from the parliamentary secretary to the minister of indigenous and northern affairs, who, on speaking to the Conservatives' Bill C-15 on February 11, 2014, said:

As Liberals, we want to see the Northwest Territories have the kind of independence it has sought. We want it to have the ability to make decisions regarding the environment, resource development, business management, growth, and opportunity, which arise within their own lands.

I would agree with that.

Bill C-88 exposes the Liberals' full rejection of calls from elected territorial leaders for increased control of their natural resources. The Liberals have demonstrated disregard for those who speak truth to power, they have demonstrated contempt for indigenous peoples advocating for the health and welfare of their children and now they are adding indifference for northern Canadians' interests to their long litany of groups marginalized by the Liberal government.

The Conservatives strongly criticized the Liberals for a moratorium on offshore oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea, an announcement made in December 2016, in Washington, D.C. by the prime minister, an announcement, I might add, where territorial leaders were given less than an hour's notice. The Liberal government's top-down maternalistic approach to northerners must end. It does nothing to reduce poverty in remote and northern regions of Canada.

Like Bill C-69, the no-more pipelines bill before it, Bill C-88 politicizes oil and gas extraction by expanding the powers of cabinet to block economic development and adds to the increasing levels of red tape proponents must face before they can get shovels into the ground. Like Bill C-68, the convoluted navigable waters bill before it, Bill C-88 adds ambiguity and massive uncertainty in an already turbulent investment climate. Like Bill C-48, the tanker ban bill before it, Bill C-88 aims to kill high-quality, high-paying jobs for Canadians and their families who work in the oil and gas-related industries.

We know the Prime Minister's real motivation. He spelled it out for us at a Peterborough, Ontario town hall in January 2017, when he clearly stated that he and his government needed to phase out the oil and gas industry in Canada. The Prime Minister's plan to phase out the energy industry has been carried out with surgical precision to date.

The Liberals' job-killing carbon tax is already costing Canadian jobs. Companies repeatedly mention that the carbon tax is the reason they are investing in jobs and projects in the United States over Canada. The Liberals new methane regulations could end refining in Canada by adding tens of billions of dollars of cost to an industry that is already in crisis.

The Liberals introduced their interim review process for oil and gas projects in January 2016, which killed energy east, the 15,000 middle-class jobs it would have created and the nearly $55 billion it would have injected into the New Brunswick and Canadian economies, a review process which delayed the Trans Mountain expansion reviews by six months and added upstream admissions to the review process.

The Liberal cabinet imposed a B.C. north shore tanker ban within months of forming government, with no consultation or scientific evidence to support it. The Liberals cancelled the oil and gas exploration drilling tax credits during a major downturn in the oil and gas sector, which caused the complete collapse of drilling in Canada. The Liberals' proposed fuel standard will equate to a carbon tax of $228 per tonne of fuel according to their own analysis.

When the Prime Minister vetoed the northern gateway pipeline, he killed benefit agreements between the project and 31 first nations, worth about $2 billion. The unprecedented policy will apply not to just transportation fuels but to all industries, including steel production, heating for commercial buildings and home heating fuels like natural gas.

All this is destroying energy jobs and investment from coast to coast to coast. Now, with Bill C-88, we add another coast, the northern coast.

The Liberals love to champion the Prime Minister's personal commitment to a new relationship with indigenous people through new disclosure and friendly policies. They will, no doubt, due so again with Bill C-88.

This is what some organizations and people have to say, with respect to the Prime Minister's so-called commitment:

Stephen Buffalo, the president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council, in the National Post, October 19, 2018 stated:

...the government of Canada appears to consult primarily with people and organizations that share its views...It pays much less attention to other Indigenous groups, equally concerned about environmental sustainability, who seek a more balanced approach to resource development.

Here is another quote from that article:

The policies of the [Prime Minister's] government are systematically constraining the freedom and economic opportunities of the oil- and gas-producing Indigenous peoples of Canada. We are not asking for more from government. We are actually asking for less government intervention

Roy Fox, chief of the Kainaiwa first nation, in The Globe and Mail, December 10, 2018 stated:

While the Kainaiwa [nation] continue to fight against high unemployment, as well as the social destructiveness and health challenges such as addiction and other issues that often accompany poverty, my band’s royalties have recently been cut by more than half. Furthermore, all drilling has been cancelled because of high price differentials – the enormous gap between what we get on a barrel of oil in comparison to the benchmark price – which has limited employment opportunities on our lands.

Chief Fox continued:

...it’d be an understatement to say the policies proposed within Bills C-69 and C-48 are damaging our position by restricting access and reducing our ability to survive as a community....I and the majority of Treaty 7 chiefs strongly oppose the bill for its likely devastating impact on our ability to support our community members, as it would make it virtually impossible for my nation to fully benefit from the development of our energy resources.

I can continue to read quotes. However, we here on this side of the aisle are deeply disappointed that the Prime Minister, who campaigned on a promise of reconciliation with indigenous communities, blatantly would allow and choose to deny our 31 first nations and Métis communities their constitutionally-protected right to economic development.

This is from the Aboriginal Equity Partners:

We see today's announcement as evidence of the government's unwillingness to follow through on the Prime Minister's promise.

The Government of Canada could have demonstrated its commitment by working with us as environmental stewards of the land and water to enhance marine safety. All 31 AEP plus the other affected communities should have been consulted directly and individually in order to meet the Federal Government's duty to consult.

I have said this many times in my speech. It is time to stop politicizing these projects. Bill C-88 politicizes oil and gas development in the far north by providing the cabinet in Ottawa the unilateral power to shut down oil and gas development without consulting the people it affects directly.

I want to point to a few “key facts” from NRCAN's website. It states that in 2017, Canada’s energy sector directly employed more than 276,000 people and indirectly supported over 624,000 jobs; Canada’s energy sector accounts for almost 11% of nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP); government revenues from energy were $10.3 billion in 2016; more than $650 million was spent on energy research, development, and deployment by governments in 2016-17; and Canada is the sixth largest energy producer, the fifth largest net exporter, and the eighth largest consumer

Just last week, in The Globe and Mail, David McKay, the president and CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada, stated:

History has placed Canada at a crossroads. No other country of 37 million people has access to more natural resources – and the brainpower to convert those resources into sustainable growth for a stronger society.

And yet, Canada is at risk of taking the wrong turn at the crossroads because some believe there are only two paths: one for economic growth, and the other for environment.

We’re seeing this dilemma play out in Canada’s energy transition as we struggle to reconcile competing ideas.

We aspire to help the world meet its energy needs and move to ever-cleaner fuel sources. We aim to reduce our carbon footprint. We want Indigenous reconciliation and long-term partnership. And we hope to maintain the standard of living we have come to enjoy.

But without a balanced approach to harnessing our energy future, all of this is at risk.

We need to take a third path--one that will help us develop our natural resources, invest in clean technologies and ensure a prosperous Canada....

But we’re reaching a critical time in our country’s history.

As our resources sector copes with a growing crisis, we worry that Canada is not setting up our energy industry for growth and success in a changing world.

When I travel abroad, and proudly talk up our country, too many investors tell me they feel Canada's door is closed when it comes to energy. We need to change that impression immediately, because these investors are backing up their words with action.

According to a recent study from the C.D. Howe Institute, Canada has lost $100-billion in potential investment in oil and gas in the past two years.

We can’t forget that energy is not only part of the economic fabric of Canada, it also funds our social needs. The sector has contributed $90-billion to government revenues over the past five years, which covers about 10 per cent of what the country spends on health care, according to RBC Economics.

And if we squander our huge advantage and cede the dividends to other countries, we’ll also risk losing the opportunity to help combat the most daunting challenge of all – climate change.

The article ends with the following charge to government:

We can’t stay at a crossroads.

It’s time for Canada to pull together on a plan – one that re-energizes our place in the world.

The Conservatives have long viewed the north as a key driver of economic activity for Canada for decades to come. The Liberals, however, view the north as a place to create huge swaths of protected land and shut down economic activity.

Bill C-88 appears to be based in a desire to win votes in major urban centres rather than reduce poverty in remote regions of Canada. Northerners face the unique challenges of living in the north with resilience and fortitude. They want to create jobs and economic opportunities for their families. They deserve a government that has their backs.

We are at a crossroads and it is time for Canada to pull together a plan. The Conservatives are up to that challenge. We look forward to unveiling our plan and growing the economy in the next election for voters to decide for themselves who really has the best interests of Canadians.

[Adam Burns]

As mentioned earlier, I think some of the amendments the House has passed in Bill C-68 will accomplish—if you will permit me to say it—probably two-thirds of the objectives. The amendments in C-68 would prohibit the minister from issuing a permit to capture a whale within Canadian fisheries waters for the purpose of public display, as well as allow the government to create an import prohibition for new whales to be brought in. It would leave the captive breeding piece, on which the province of Ontario has already exercised jurisdiction in relation to orcas.

[Adam Burns]

The provisions in Bill C-68 that sort of parallel the objectives of Bill S-203 are entirely within the scope of the Fisheries Act. As I mentioned earlier, it would basically prevent the minister from authorizing, essentially, the capture of a cetacean from Canadian fisheries waters for public display purposes—which we haven't done since the 1990s—as well as provide the government with a regulation-making authority that could then be used to close the door on the import of any new animals brought in for those purposes as well.

I think your question, then, relates to provisions within Bill S-203 that are outside the scope of the Fisheries Act. Really, the one point would be about the captive breeding, which the Province of Ontario has exercised jurisdiction on with regard to orcas and the captive breeding of orcas.

In terms of the import restrictions of WAPPRIITA, one could view the regulation-making authority proposed in Bill C-68 as being similar to that, assuming that the appropriate regulations were made.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all, for your testimony. Maybe I'll start with Fisheries and Oceans.

Can you tell us the difference between Bill S-203 and Bill C-68? What would Bill S-203 prohibit that Bill C-68 would allow?

[Adam Burns]

In essence, C-68 would create two provisions.

In no particular order, the first would eliminate the ability for the minister to issue a licence for the taking into captivity of a cetacean for public display purposes, for example. Whales would no longer be able to be captured in Canadian waters for those purposes. Again, that hasn't been authorized since the 1990s anyway, but it would put that into legislation.

The other change is that it would give the government a regulation making authority regarding import and export. That would, in essence, give the government the ability to implement a regulation that would prohibit the importation of a whale or dolphin for public display, as well as the export of those animals for those purposes. As I understand it, it's a fairly broad-ranging regulatory power that would be given to the government in order to close the door to new animals being brought into the country or animals leaving the country.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Burns, you spoke about amendments in Bill C-68 and said that they could achieve similar objectives to Bill S-203. Can you expand on this and compare the changes in the Fisheries Act through Bill C-68 with the changes being proposed here through Bill S-203?

[Adam Burns, Director General, Fisheries Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I think it's just me.

Good afternoon.

I would like to thank the committee for the invitation to speak to Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), also known as ending the captivity of whales and dolphins act.

This bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act, and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, WAPPRIITA.

Before I address the substance of Bill S-203, it's important to review the number and location of cetaceans held in captivity in Canada. To my knowledge, there are two facilities in Canada that hold cetaceans in captivity, the Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia, and Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario. The Vancouver Aquarium has one cetacean in captivity, a 30-year old Pacific white-sided dolphin. It was rescued from the wild and deemed non-releasable. In January 2018, the aquarium announced that it would no longer display cetaceans at its facility.

The majority of Canada's cetaceans in captivity are located at Marineland in Ontario. My understanding is that it has approximately 61 cetaceans: 55 beluga whales, five bottlenose dolphins and one orca or killer whale. In 2015, the Province of Ontario enacted legislation banning the possession or breeding of an orca whale; however, the prohibition provided for an exception for the possession of the orca currently in captivity at Marineland.

With that context in mind, my remarks this afternoon will focus on Bill S-203's proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act. I will let my colleagues from the Department of Justice and Environment and Climate Change Canada respond to your questions concerning the bill's proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and WAPPRIITA.

Having said that, I will briefly outline the bill's proposed amendments.

Bill S-203 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would make it a criminal offence to own or have custody of or breed a cetacean, or possess its reproductive materials. Cetaceans currently in captivity would be grandfathered under the bill. There's an exception to the captivity prohibition for cetaceans that are injured and require assistance, care or rehabilitation, or when captivity is deemed to be in the animal's best interests as determined by provincial authorities. The bill's prohibition on breeding or possessing a cetacean's reproductive materials would not be grandfathered.

The bill's proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act would prohibit the moving of a live cetacean from its immediate vicinity for the purpose of captivity unless it is injured or in distress and in need of care.

Bill S-203's proposed amendments to WAPPRIITA would prohibit the import and export of a live cetacean or its reproductive materials unless authorized by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for scientific research purposes or if it's in the cetacean's best interests.

With that as an overview of the bill, I will now turn my attention to the proposed Fisheries Act amendments in Bill C-68.

The capture of cetaceans from the wild falls within federal jurisdiction, and specifically falls under the authority of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The committee may want to consider how the provisions in Bill C-68, which was approved by the House, and is currently in the Senate, addressed the objectives of Bill S-203; that is, phasing out the captivity of cetaceans while building in exceptions for the rescue and rehabilitation of those animals.

The government introduced Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, on February 6, 2018. Included in the amendments were provisions related to the captivity of cetaceans. Specifically, Bill C-68 contains a prohibition against fishing for a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity, except where authorized by the minister for animal welfare reasons.

It's important to note that as a matter of policy, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not issued a licence for the capture of a live cetacean for public display purposes since the early 1990s. The proposed amendment will simply codify the department's long-standing practice.

In addition to the cetaceans in captivity provision, Bill C-68 contains a new authority to make regulations with respect to the import and export of fish. Cetaceans are defined as fish for the purposes of the Fisheries Act. The department's view is that this regulation-making authority would give the government more discretion to determine the circumstances under which cetaceans could be imported into and exported from Canada. For example, there could be an import prohibition where the purpose is to keep a cetacean in captivity.

By way of exception, import or export could be permitted where the purpose is to transfer the cetacean to a sea sanctuary should those facilities be established in the future. There may also be circumstances where the captivity of a cetacean is deemed necessary to conserve or protect the species.

Like Bill S-203, Bill C-68 contains a non-derogation clause affirming that none of the proposed amendments affect the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples protected by the Constitution.

Minister LeBlanc, the former minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, acknowledged that the amendments to the Fisheries Act proposed in Bill C-68 related to the fishing for cetaceans with the intent to take them into captivity were inspired by Bill S-203 and in particular by the work of now retired senator Moore.

That concludes my remarks. I thank you once again for the invitation to speak on S-203 and will be happy to take your questions.

[Senator Murray Sinclair]

I realize that you were in the House and listening to the statements. Let me just repeat what I said earlier.

Bill C-68 does that, but it does it by amending the Fisheries Act. It's a Fisheries Act offence and therefore not a Criminal Code offence; it doesn't place this activity into the cruelty to animals provisions of the Criminal Code; Bill S-203 does. This is palatable and is something you can do. You can have two pieces of legislation arising from the same incident, creating separate offences under separate legislation.

The other thing Bill S-203 does, which Bill C-68 does not do, is prohibit the sale of cetaceans. It prohibits the sale of parts of cetaceans and controls international trade.

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

I'm going to also say that I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a biologist. I have some questions that, hopefully, you can help me with.

Bill C-68 was passed in the House of Commons on June 20, 2018. It bans the capture of cetaceans in Canadian waters, unless the animal is in distress or in need of care. Why do we need Bill S-203?

[Senator Murray Sinclair]

Yes. If you look at the provisions of the bill, you will see that there are exemptions for the taking of cetaceans into captivity for purposes of addressing issues of distress that the animal may be undergoing or to provide assistance to the animal, to use the wording of Bill C-68.

There is a recognition that, from time to time, that is justifiable and it's an exception to the prohibition that's contained in the legislation.

Perhaps Dr. Visser can talk about how that is best done, but the reality is that we did consider that and there is an exception within the bill at present.

[Murray Sinclair, Senator, Manitoba, ISG]

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Visser, for that. You have filled in a number of details.

I also want to thank the members of the committee for inviting me to be here to speak to this bill, which I took over sponsorship of after it outlived the career of Senator Moore, who retired while it was still in second reading.

We have essentially developed a bill in the Senate, which is an amendment to the Criminal Code, that makes captivity of cetaceans a criminal offence. If you look at it from that perspective, you'll see that there were some consequential amendments that had to be made such as those relating to exemptions as well as those relating to amendments to the Fisheries Act, all of which are set out in the bill.

The bill is a simple and straightforward one. It works from the presumption that placing these beautiful creatures into the kinds of pens that they have been kept in is inherently cruel and that, therefore, the Criminal Code amendments relating to cruelty to animals should be made applicable.

There are a number of consequential amendments that relate to that, such as the ban on the breeding of the animals, a ban on the import and export of parts of animals and the animals themselves, but essentially the bill is a straightforward Criminal Code amendment provision, and I think it very clearly addresses that.

I also want to just point out that the indictable offence and summary conviction offence penalties that are in place are in keeping with the Fisheries Act itself when it comes to the amounts of fines that can be imposed and the potential term of incarceration that can be imposed for an alternative to the fine, so I don't see that as being particularly out of line.

In addition to that, I also want to comment on correspondence that's been shared with members of the committee, I believe—it has certainly been shared with me—relating to concerns about the potential charging of Marineland, which is the only company in Canada that continues to deal with these animals in this way, that they might be subject to prosecution because some of the belugas that are in captivity right now are pregnant and may give birth afterwards.

The reality is that a pregnant beluga today would give birth after the bill is enacted, and Marineland would still be protected, because the beluga that is born would be part of the beluga that is inherently grandfathered into the legislation, if that is the right word for a pregnant beluga, but the reality is also that no one is going to prosecute someone who legally has the mother that gives birth to the whale after the legislation has been enacted or while the legislation is being enacted.

Those provisions that relate to the impregnating of whales will be for those that are impregnated following the passage of the legislation. I think we need to recognize that will be a particular offence that will be caught by the legislation.

The other question that has been raised has been: How does this bill work in conjunction with Bill C-68, which has already been passed by the House? Allow me to point out to you that Bill C-68 makes it an offence under the Fisheries Act to fish for cetaceans, but it doesn't make it an offence to breed them, and it doesn't make it an offence to sell the embryos or the body parts. It also doesn't make it an offence to trade internationally in the various parts of the animals. Those are amendments that are contained in Bill S-203, so there is a very distinct and clear separation here.

The third area I want to comment upon is the fact that the question has been raised as to whether this is provincial jurisdiction or federal jurisdiction. Provincial jurisdiction in the area of fisheries has to do with the licensing aspect of the business and not with regard to the criminality or the misconduct of individuals in the taking of the animal or the fish. In this case, this is very clearly a Criminal Code provision and a consequential amendment as a result of the Criminal Code amendment, so this very clearly falls within federal jurisdiction. It allows for exemptions to occur when they are subject to a provincial licence, and provincial licensing authorities are not impacted by this bill in any negative way.

I didn't really come here in order to spend a lot of time going through the bill with you because the bill is pretty straightforward. I commend to you the evidence from all of the expert witnesses who testified at the hearings, particularly the testimony of Dr. Visser. Someone raised the question, for example, of whether jobs might be affected by the closing down of Marineland. Marineland has enough beluga whales in existence to probably continue for another 30 years, so no jobs are going to be lost as a result of this in the immediate future.

My view would be that this amendment is necessary because, in the long run, our society will be much better off if we start to treat other creatures of this existence in the same way that we ourselves feel that we should be treated.

Thank you.

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, on behalf of my Conservative colleagues, the Conservative supplementary report to the study on forest pests that was recently completed by the natural resources committee.

Our report highlights the many challenges to Canada's forestry sector, including the uncertainty created by Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 for resource development and rural infrastructure, increased costs from the Liberal carbon tax and the new Liberal fuel standard. Committee members have heard repeatedly that Canadian lumber mills are being closed or idled and jobs are being moved to the United States.

During the study, the Liberal member for St. John's East also repeatedly suggested that there should be no action against the mountain pine beetle so that “nature will take its course”.

Conservatives agree with the executive director of the National Aboriginal Forestry Association, who said during the study that to tell the community that is sitting in the middle of what are basically matchsticks ready to go up that we shouldn't do anything would be “a recipe for loss of human life and devastation”.

Conservatives believe combatting and preventing forest pests like the mountain pine beatle and the spruce budworm are important federal responsibilities, just like the track record of the previous Conservative government that made unprecedented investments and took measures to fight foreign pests and successfully secured a softwood lumber deal to protect Canadian forestry producers and workers.

[Cailyn Siider, Fisher, As an Individual]

Honourable Chair and members, thank you for having me here today to speak.

My apologies for not being here earlier in the month with the other young fish harvesters—and older fish harvesters—but I'm grateful for this opportunity today.

Thank you, as well, to the other folks on this panel for sharing your time with me.

Most of you have heard me speak before, though that was some time ago, so please allow me a moment to reintroduce myself.

I'm Cailyn Siider, a fifth-generation commercial fisherman from Sointula, B.C., a small fishing community situated in Kwakwaka'wakw territory between northern Vancouver Island and the mainland.

Since speaking to this committee last April, I've been fishing prawns in area A, or Hecate Strait, catching Dungeness crab, longlining for halibut, and trolling for salmon. That was all within my four-month window between fall and winter semesters at university, where I'm finishing a degree in peace and conflict studies, with a focus on conflict transformation and transformational justice.

Last April, when I travelled here to speak, it was in support of Bill C-68. This time it is to speak to the study on the regulation of west coast fisheries, although, as with my last visit, I come here to speak about my experiences of, and reflections on, west coast fisheries policy.

As we speak, my dad, sister, and cousins are building nets and tending to our family punt in preparation for the herring season. My mom and her partner just finished two back-to-back live cod longline trips. My stepbrother and my partner are both preparing for the start of the area B crab fishery on March 1, albeit on different boats.

To describe my family as one of active fish harvesters may be an understatement. Despite commercial fishing being our livelihoods, our involvement is not purely economic. We are fishermen. It is our identity, our culture, and the backbone of the communities to which we belong. I also think it's important to note that my family are not just active fish harvesters—they are also independent licence and quota owners of salmon, halibut, raw fish, shrimp, crab, and herring. As both active fishermen and licence owners, they recognize the fundamental feelings and inequity inherent within the current licensing system. It is a privilege to own fishing licences and quota, and I believe it is a responsibility to recognize that privilege and address inequity where it exists.

My fishing experience, and that of my family, is not academic; it is lived. It is my mom teaching my sister how to hang nets. It's my dad fishing my great-grandpa's sockeye sets in the straits. It's teaching my nieces how to peel crab or dig clams, and it's me spending my last school summer trolling out of Masset, setting gear in the same deep waters and swells my grandpa did, waiting for a smiley to jerk on a line. This intergenerational knowledge and our shared livelihoods are what our communities have been built on, and it's what we're in danger of losing.

By now you're all familiar with the collection and complexity of problems that we face in west coast fisheries. I do not believe that I have much to add that has not already been well articulated by many others, so I'll try to keep my conceptualization of these issues brief.

The problems that many of us brought forward to you through the past year centre on the corporate privatization of fishing resources on the west coast. This has been the result of public fisheries policy that has systematically removed access and benefits of the fishing economy from indigenous and coastal communities and placed them in the hands of a few.

The problems that have been continually presented to this committee do not exist in isolation from one another. Prohibitive lease prices, the issue of marine licences, vessel length restrictions, problematic advisory processes, lack of a framework for succession plans, decreased community access to fish, socio-economic and cultural losses due to this access—all these are intended, or unintended, symptoms of larger systemic problems at play. A system built upon privatization that has the principle of privatization institutionalized within its structure is not designed to benefit the majority of independent fish harvesters or their communities. This institutionalized privatization targets our communities, not just by eliminating our access to a livelihood but also by disrupting our social fabric. Our lives and livelihoods have become externalities of the system.

I'll be the first to admit that fishermen sometimes disagree—one fisherman may assert that the tide has changed to an ebb, and the next may counter that it's still flooding. It's in our nature to differ. It's this independence and inclination for dissent that make us fishermen, even if it's frustratingly so sometimes. We are so stuck within the current system that any hope of consensus right now is out of reach. We've been forced to play this game and to exist within this system of increasingly limited access for survival.

Fishermen have had to adapt to maintain what little sovereignty we have over our livelihoods, and people are worried to lose that little bit they have. Fish harvesters in our communities have well-founded historical reasons to be skeptical of policy change in Canada. Too often these processes have been top-down approaches that have proven to be disastrous for coastal communities, furthering our marginalization and erasure.

Some folks and entities have adapted well to the current system, but while they recognize their success as an indication of a meritocratic system that works, many others have worked their entire lives to fight over what scraps are left. That being said, it is by no means an us-versus-them scenario, which I hope to demonstrate in explaining my family's involvement as both harvesters and licence and quota owners. Any potential change needs to happen responsibly with mitigated or little harm to those who are entrenched within the existing system.

The well-being of our coastal communities is inextricably tied to access and adjacency to the ocean. Privatization and corporate ownership of fishing is an act of dispossession and displacement and fundamentally disrupts this connection.

If the committee has recognized any consistent themes regarding west coast fisheries policy, it's likely that it's a complex issue. Rather than focusing solely on the complexities of these issues, which can be overwhelming, it may be useful to work backwards and understand core sets of patterns and dynamics that build this complexity.

Foremost in locating the roots of this complex issue is understanding it as a systemic problem that requires systemic and institutional change. This change needs to be truly constructive in that we need to shift relationships, whether at the federal level, within DFO Pacific region or just on the dock, from those fear-based and destructive relational patterns to ones of mutual respect and proactive engagement. This isn't a specific recommendation for this committee but rather something for everyone listening in to think on.

As for some more tangible recommendations for the committee to consider, policy change, and the institutional change that it will foster, is essential to increasing and protecting the well-being of active fish harvesters in the communities to which they belong. Fisheries policy must focus on ensuring that the benefits of fishing resources remain in the communities and in the hands of harvesters who work and depend on the water. Owner-operator and fleet separation policies are a direct and tried means to this end.

Any policy changes must centre active fish harvesters within their respective fisheries. Every fishery is different, and though this adds to the complexity, it is integral that any change processes be bottom-up approaches designed by active harvesters within those fisheries.

[Richard Williams, Research Director, Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appear today as research director for the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, the national human resources sector council for the fish harvesting industry across Canada. Our primary focus is labour force renewal.

We have submitted to committee staff a recent report on the serious demographic challenges now facing the industry. The report provides compelling evidence of industry dysfunction and policy failure in the Pacific region: failing harvester incomes, severe labour supply challenges and poor economic returns relative to comparable fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Alaska.

It seems clear from testimony before this committee that something needs to be done to mitigate the unfair distribution of economic benefits in the B.C. fishery and to put the industry on a stronger growth track. Representatives from the corporate sector have acknowledged the need for some moderation in quota leasing costs, but have argued strongly against a more substantial shift in B.C. They make three basic assertions: one, aside from the leasing cost issue, the B.C. industry is performing optimally, or “it ain't broke, so don't fix it”; two, vertical integration and open market access in fishing rights are essential for managing overcapacity and building a competitive industry; and three, the B.C. fishery is too complex to withstand a major policy shift without risk to everyone.

There is insufficient time here to debate the first point, but by any standard measure of success—employment, incomes, export earnings—the B.C. industry is not on the growth path we see in other regions. Some of this evidence is appended to the testimony I've provided.

On the second point, the case for vertical integration is weak in the fishery. In theory, corporate ownership of licences provides secure access to raw materials that should spur investment in harvesting and processing technology, R and D and market development. If the theory worked in reality, we would be seeing company fleets of new high-tech fishing vessels, with well-paid and well-trained crews, and much more value-added processing in B.C. Instead, we find companies offloading financial risk onto independent harvesters, moving processing operations offshore, and leasing out their licences rather than fishing them. Ironically, we see much more positive investment and innovation trends in the Atlantic, where vertical integration is constrained.

Lastly, the argument that the B.C. industry is too complex to risk a major policy shift is, frankly, specious. The Atlantic fishery has many more fleet sectors, four DFO regions and five provincial jurisdictions, and it has weathered many large-scale transitions: the 1990s groundfish collapse, shifts to quota management in many fisheries, rapid expansion of indigenous access, and extensive capacity reduction—phenomena we have seen in B.C., but on a much larger scale. Yet, stock conservation and industry growth outcomes have improved dramatically since the 1990s in the Atlantic. We believe this is precisely because the owner-operator and fleet separation policies have given everyone—harvesters, processors, communities and governments—a stake in advancing the industry. We've submitted a separate paper just on this topic.

Put quite simply, all fisheries are complex, but that is not a reason to avoid changes if policies and industry structures are not meeting sustainable growth objectives. The relative success of the Atlantic fishery, we believe, is built on three policy foundations: owner-operator, fleet separation and adjacency. Could such foundations be developed in B.C.? These are decisions to be made by stakeholders in B.C., but experience in other jurisdictions provides options and guidance on process.

First, the almost universal experience has been that large-scale changes in fisheries policy require harvester leadership, engagement and buy-in. In B.C., steps would need to be taken to strengthen organizations representing active harvesters and to expand their role in advisory committees.

Second, an important first step would be for the minister to establish a time frame with sufficient runway for licences to change hands through more or less normal market processes or transactions. The best operational example, of course, is PIIFCAF, which established a hard stop at seven years, after which all licences had to be in the hands of active owner-operators. This was planned to provide sufficient time for most holders of trust agreements to divest them without severe financial losses.

Third, a licence exchange board could be established to buy and sell licences at prices regulated according to fair market value within an owner-operator fleet separation context. This model exists in Europe. It could be established under federal or provincial legislation, as a federal-provincial partnership, as an independent Crown corporation or as a non-profit. Sellers could receive a one-time payment or pension income with tax advantages through annuities. New entrants could lease, lease to own, or purchase with the board holding a mortgage.

Fourth, reverse auction processes have been used in some jurisdictions to implement licence transfers without stoking price inflation. Over 10% of lobster licences in gulf New Brunswick were retired over five or six years when the Maritime Fishermen's Union invited owner-operators to submit bids on their selling prices and then accepted the lowest bids.

Fifth, to buy licences from companies and investors, new entrant harvesters will need access to affordable capital. Fisheries loan boards, loan guarantee programs and other financial services provide such access. The fisheries loan boards in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick recently changed their policies to provide loans for licences and quota, as well as vessels, and they have special programs for young new entrants. The Canadian Farm Loan Board provides generous grants, affordable credit, and business management training for young people to acquire farms and equipment. Local government agencies and industry organizations in Maine, Alaska, Iceland and Norway make small quotas or lobster trap allotments available at no cost to get young people started in fisheries.

Sixth, there are a number of social enterprise models in operation in different jurisdictions. Non-profit licence banks, controlled by harvesters and/or community boards, purchase access rights in the open market and make them available at affordable lease rates to active harvesters and new entrants. Co-operatives, owned by active harvesters, could purchase quota to share among members at affordable costs. First nations communities collectively own licences and quota, and they train and equip individual harvesters to become vessel operators.

A transition strategy for B.C. should be determined by B.C. industry stakeholders. The main point is that there are lots of working models to learn from and adapt. Bill C-68 will soon provide the DFO minister with the legislative scope to initiate a significant shift in Pacific region policy.

We strongly encourage this committee to recommend to the minister the development of owner-operator, fleet separation, and adjacency policies appropriate to British Columbia fleets and fisheries.

Thank you.

Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the issue of Bill S-203, which has a stated objective of ending the captivity of whales and dolphins, while allowing some exceptions for rescue and rehabilitation. I support the bill's moving forward to be studied by a committee. As MP for Pontiac, I call upon members of this chamber to move forward quickly so that this can be studied, because Canadians are expecting more action on this issue. We need to do a better job of protecting our whales and our dolphins.

Banning whale and dolphin captivity would demonstrate a concrete step toward international leadership on this key animal-welfare issue. It would bring Canada into step with countries like France, India, Chile, Costa Rica, Switzerland and various U.S. states where there are strict restrictions. Canadian values are evolving. They are changing. As scientific understanding evolves, so do Canadian values and so does our appreciation for those sophisticated creatures with which we share this planet. Canadians understand that whales and dolphins are complicated, intelligent beings and that the breeding in captivity of these species has no place in Canadian society.

One of the leading conservationists of the past two generations, Dr. Jane Goodall, whom I had the good fortune of meeting in Parliament in 2016, has said that the phasing-out of captive cetacean programs is the natural progression of humankind's evolving view of our non-human animal kin. This is an issue that has been raised by my constituents as embodying, yes, a scientific dimension, but also an important moral dimension. Bill S-203 has attracted tremendous support from the public as well as politicians of all parties, and it is clear that it is an opportune moment for the bill to be sent to committee and studied further.

As the member for Pontiac, I am proud to urge my colleagues in the House of Commons to move forward with this bill quickly and send it to committee because it is an innovative measure to protect whales and dolphins. Prohibiting the captivity of cetaceans is an important step toward international leadership on animal welfare. Canadians have been showing their growing opposition to keeping cetaceans in captivity. Today, the only facilities where cetaceans are still kept in captivity are the Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia and Marineland in Ontario.

Fierce debate continues over issues such as mortality rates and longevity, especially of whales and dolphins while they are in captivity. The most conclusive data, as I understand it, are for orcas. Their annual mortality rates are significantly higher in captivity than in the wild. The mortality data related to live captures are relatively straightforward. Capture is undeniably stressful and, in the case of dolphins, results in a sixfold increase in mortality risk during and immediately after capture.

Live captures, particularly of dolphins, continue around the world in regions where very little is known about the status of populations. For smaller stocks, live capture operations are a significant conservation concern. These are issues that we have to take seriously. Even for those stocks not currently under threat, the lack of scientific assessment or regard for welfare makes the proliferation of these operations an issue of global concern. Therefore, it is good and it is appropriate that Canadian legislators are examining putting an end to cetacean captivity.

In the case of Bill S-203, to achieve this objective the bill proposes amendments to a series of statutes, namely the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, which tends to be called WAPPRIITA.

The capture of live cetaceans falls under federal jurisdiction. Although the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard has the authority to issue licences for the capture of live cetaceans for the purpose of public display, no such licence has been issued since the 1990s.

Bill S-203 proposes to amend the Fisheries Act to prohibit moving “a live cetacean...from its immediate vicinity with the intent to take it into captivity.” This translates into making it illegal to capture or take a wild cetacean with the goal of keeping it captive. An exception is made when the animal is captured to help it.

As mentioned in the first hour of debate, the amendments to the Fisheries Act proposed in Bill S-203 are substantively similar to those introduced by the government in Bill C-68. In drafting Bill C-68, great care was taken to include the intent of Bill S-203, which is to end the capture of cetaceans from Canadian fishery waters for public display purposes.

Like Bill S-203 before us today, Bill C-68 includes provisions that would prohibit the capture of cetaceans and would allow for changes to import regulations to stop the import of cetaceans.

One of the important things for committee members as they study Bill S-203 is to examine what is the best legislative path forward, given the measures proposed in Bill C-68 and those proposed in Bill S-203. I look forward to following that process carefully.

There is one particular aspect that would merit an in-depth study, specifically the amendments this bill seeks to make in relation to WAPPRIITA, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.

WAPPRIITA forbids the import, export and interprovincial transportation of species it applies to unless those specimens are accompanied by the appropriate documents, licenses and permits. In all cases, the act applies to plants or animals, alive or dead, as well as the parts and any derived products. What is most important to understand about WAPPRIITA, which is the domestic statute that enables us to fulfill our international obligations under the CITES convention, is that it is a conservation-focused statute. We need to make sure that the objectives of that statute are consistent with Bill S-203. That is going to be an important discussion to have at committee.

The other thing we need to take into account is that this debate speaks to Canadian values.

I have had the wonderful opportunity to observe cetaceans in their natural environment, not just in eastern Canada, but also in western Canada, the Pacific and the St. Lawrence River. I know just how many Canadians have been touched by this experience.

My two young children have loved that experience, and they cannot even contemplate how cetaceans could be kept in captivity.

My wife, Regina, spent a summer with Dr. Paul Spong on Vancouver Island at his research station on Hanson Island studying the A5 pod. She was forever changed by that experience.

Most Canadians will recognize just how important it is to all of us that we do right by these species that are so special. Let us be conscious of the fact that these are some of the most highly sophisticated, most incredible beings on earth. When they are in captivity, they demonstrate absolutely abnormal behaviours. We need to make sure that Canadian legislation respects that these are incredibly sophisticated beings with complex social relations, and they deserve to be in the wild.

I appreciate this opportunity to urge the House to move this legislation forward for study in committee.

[Peter Schiefke, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts, also known as the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act.

This bill proposes changes to three acts: the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act, and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.

I will begin by saying that I strongly support this bill, as do a large number of my constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges and Canadians across the country. I hope that this debate will continue in committee.

As we learn more about the life of whales and other cetaceans, it is clear that captivity is never the right thing to do. Canada is not alone on this. To be honest, the movement against the captivity of whales has grown and keeps growing around the world. My wife and I saw whales in the St. Lawrence and in Tadoussac and the experience changed us. Tadoussac is not the only place to go whale-watching.

The reality is that support for this law is not just strong for those near the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There are also those on the west coast who are in awe of the beauty of these creatures, such as those who live in Vancouver, Victoria or Haida Gwaii where people on the coast are treated to the incredible sights and sounds of the orcas as they play, hunt and share their majesty with us all.

However, it is not just coastal Canadians who are fuelling this movement. It is all Canadians, young and old, who have listened to the science, learned more about these incredible creatures and know that they do not belong in swimming pools, no matter how large. This is indeed good news, but that is not all the good news that I want to share with my colleagues.

While the banning of whale captivity is not yet in legislation, the practice has been in place for years in Canada. Licences for the capture of live cetaceans are only issued by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard for scientific research or rehabilitation. In the past 10 years, only one licence has been issued for the rehabilitation of a live stranded Pseudorca calf.

Our government has also taken notice of the growing concern to ensure that cetaceans are not being captured for the sole purpose of being kept on public display. That is why last year our government introduced Bill C-68, which is awaiting committee consideration in the other place, and contains amendments that would prohibit the captivity of whales and allow the minister to put in place regulations to ban the import and export of these beautiful creatures. Today, there are only two facilities in Canada that house cetaceans: Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario, and the Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia.

Marineland is, as many of us know, a commercial facility with approximately 60 cetaceans. Most are belugas, with one being a killer whale. The Vancouver Aquarium is a not-for-profit facility and has one cetacean at its facility, a 30-year-old Pacific white-sided dolphin that was rescued from the wild and has been deemed unfit for release back into the wild. The Vancouver Aquarium works with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to rescue and rehabilitate marine mammals in distress. Even with all of this, we know that we must do more to ensure that cetaceans continue to be protected. That is why we need to make it clear through legislation that, indeed, whales do not belong in captivity.

While we are here today debating the need for whales to remain in the wild, I also want to highlight the need for us to ensure that their marine environment is also protected. Over the past few years in that regard, this government has made real investments to protect and conserve our marine environment. In 2016, the Prime Minister announced $1.5 billion dollars for the oceans protection plan, which has since funded 55 coastal restoration projects, is helping to address threats to marine mammals from vessel noise and collisions, and increased our on-scene environmental response capacity all across the country.

Further, as part of budget 2018, this government also announced $167.4 million for the whales initiative, which has further funded recovery plans for endangered species such as the southern resident killer whale, the beluga whale and the North Atlantic right whale.

It is clear that protecting marine mammals is an ongoing initiative and today we are debating a piece of legislation that will help ensure that whales stay where they belong: in the wild.

However, I heard some concerns about our jurisdiction and the mechanism that would allow this bill to make important changes to the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.

As many members know, a number of provinces also have animal welfare laws in place. For example, Ontario has legislation that prohibits the breeding and acquisition of killer whales, as well as other animal protection rules. The bill before us today also seeks to amend the Criminal Code regarding animal welfare. I look forward to hearing the debates in committee and learning more about the shared federal-provincial jurisdiction in this regard.

In spite of everything, I continue to support this bill, and I fully support the principle behind it. It is time to put an end to the captivity of whales and cetaceans. Let's do it for our children and our grandchildren.

[Rebecca Reid, Regional Director General, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting the department to appear before your committee today.

Good afternoon to the committee members. Thank you to all for your welcome.

As introduced, I'm Rebecca Reid, regional director general for Fisheries and Oceans in the Pacific region, which includes B.C. and the Yukon. I'm honoured to appear before the standing committee with my colleagues. I'd like to introduce Mr. Kevin Anderson, senior adviser on indigenous relations, previously the regional director general for the Newfoundland and Labrador region. I'd also like to introduce Mr. Andrew Thomson, regional director of fisheries management in the Pacific region.

We are pleased to appear today to provide you with information related to the department's licensing and management regime and to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Anderson will be able to speak to the Atlantic situation, while Mr. Thomson and I are familiar with the Pacific coast fisheries.

The conservation, protection and sustainable management of the resource is still the department's core mandate. However, the department recognizes the importance of social, economic and cultural considerations in fisheries management decision-making.

As I'm sure you all know, Bill C-68 includes proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act that clearly state this principle.

The department's fisheries management regime is designed to achieve five objectives: conservation outcomes; compliance with legal obligations, such as first nations rights; promoting the stability and economic viability of fishing operations; encouraging equitable distribution of benefits; and facilitating the necessary data collection for administration, enforcement and planning purposes.

I would like to provide a very brief overview of how this has taken shape in the Pacific coast commercial fisheries, outlining key features of our licensing and management regime and describing how it has evolved into a set of diverse arrangements that are in place today.

There are approximately 80 marine and anadromous species caught in over 20 uniquely licensed commercial fisheries operating in British Columbia. These fisheries are made up of about 7,600 eligible licences, 2,400 vessels and 5,000 individuals with fisher registration cards. The total landed value of commercial capture fisheries excluding aquaculture was approximately $398 million in 2017.

Licence policy in British Columbia has evolved over the decades. If you looked at historical records, they documented recognition by fishery managers of the day of the need for adequate tools to manage fishing effort to ensure conservation of the stocks. Even going back to a policy for Canada's commercial fisheries, described in a 1976 paper by then minister Roméo LeBlanc, the policy document reflected on challenges facing the industry, many of which are familiar even today, that provided broad principles to establishing our licensing policies.

Since then, there have been many reviews and papers written reflecting on the changing conditions and contexts facing the fishing industry. In the Pacific region, licensing policy has continued to evolve over the past several decades, culminating in our current set of policy documents and codification practices.

Because fish populations, fisheries and fishing technology change over time, so must the licensing rules and management approaches governing our fisheries. Different rules and management approaches between fisheries are a reflection of the unique biological characteristics of the targeted stocks, how they've been fished and the expansion of fishing capacity within each fishery. Many of the rules have been added to control aspects of the fishery, with the particular need to manage the amount of effort, what we call “fishing power”, that the fleet exerts on fish stocks.

There are five licensing and management features common to most or all of the Pacific coast commercial fisheries that I'd like to describe for you briefly.

The first feature, which is common to virtually all Pacific coast commercial fisheries, is called “limited entry licensing”. It was first introduced in the salmon fishery during the late 1960s and was subsequently extended to other fisheries. Limited entry is intended to limit the growth of fishing capacity and reduce the risk of overfishing.

The second feature relates to how licences are held. In the Pacific region, there's a combination of vessel-based and party-based licences across fisheries. Under vessel-based licensing, the licence is held by a vessel and the vessel owner or owners have control over licensing transactions. Under party-based licensing, the licence is held by an individual, company or first nation that has control of licensing transactions.

The party-based licences are annually designated to a vessel. There is a list available of which licences are party-based versus vessel-based that we can review in further detail, if requested.

Third, length restrictions on vessels are in place for many fisheries. These restrictions were introduced primarily to constrain fleet capacity and limit catch and effort, though they can also support equitable and orderly harvest and viable operations for participants.

The fourth is the rules governing the transfer of licences from one party or vessel to another. The rules serve to ensure a clear and consistent process for licence transfers, but can also include objectives relating to resource conservation. The rules are fishery specific and are established to manage or control particular objectives of that fishery.

Finally, the fifth aspect I want to talk to you about is called “stacking and splitting rules”. When licences for different fisheries are placed on one vessel, specific rules will stipulate that licences may not be separated and placed on different vessels—we call these “marriage rules”—again, with the objective of preventing increases to the number of vessels in the fleet.

You may be wondering by now why or how the licensing rules have evolved in the manner I've described and what the reasons are for some of those changes. There are a couple of important trends that underpin many of the approaches that drive our current licensing rules.

An overarching issue that has driven Pacific fisheries policy is that we have an overcapacity in our fleets. Common themes relate to the size of the fleet and its harvesting ability, or as I've described it, its fishing power, and that exceeds what is necessary to obtain an optimum yield.

In response, strategies have been put in place to manage or reduce fishing capacity in order to conserve and protect fish populations. In the mid-1970s, individual quotas, IQs, began to be introduced in many Pacific coast fisheries; licences were allocated a specific share of the catch limit. In many cases, individual quotas are transferable among licence-holders.

Individual quotas have been introduced in a number of fisheries, including integrated groundfish fishery, for example, halibut, sablefish, geoduck, prawns, and certain salmon fisheries. The purpose of quotas is to ensure more effective controlled fisheries within catch limit, an orderly and well-managed fishery, and improved financial performance of fisheries. Where implemented, individual quotas have shifted the focus of fisheries management from controlling fishing effort, or input controls, to controlling the catch, or output controls.

Individual quotas illustrate the question that I posed before about why licence rules change. This approach has allowed a shift away from this input control management regime, which is no longer needed to achieve our conservation objectives. In cases like this, DFO has been able to relax or eliminate rules governing things like vessel length restrictions and marriage rules, with the objective of providing industry with increased flexibility.

As an example for you, in 1996 the Pacific salmon revitalization strategy was introduced as a way to reduce fishing capacity through compensated voluntary licence retirement, the introduction of area and gear-based licensing, and stacking, which meant that a vessel could have more than one licence, thereby encouraging overall reduction of the fleet.

As a general rule, major fisheries management changes are controversial among fishery participants. Investments in a fishery based on pre-existing rules and changes do not benefit all participants equally. Dynamics like this illustrate the complexity of making licensing and fisheries management changes.

The context and history on the west coast is highly influenced by approximately 200 first nations groups, many of whom rely on fishing for their food and cultural and economic well-being. The aboriginal fisheries strategy, introduced in 1994, and the Pacific integrated commercial fisheries initiative, introduced in 2007, have both provided funds for the acquisition of licences and quota from existing fishery participants to be transferred to first nations. These programs have resulted in substantial and ongoing reallocation of fishing access from regular commercial licence-holders to first nations, worth about $140 million.

Just to wrap up, I would like to say that the Pacific fisheries continue to evolve, and we regularly receive proposals for changes put forward by various commercial fishing groups. We consider these proposals and incorporate them into reviews and consultations. While we are supportive of implementing proposals when they are supported by a clear majority of participants, often what we end up with is a diverse range of perspectives, which makes implementation very difficult.

In summary, in the short period of time it is very hard to even scratch the surface of many of the factors and features important to understanding the licensing policy, but I have been able to share a few of them with you.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this topic, and we are available for your questions.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, first of all, I'm going to support this because I think this is very important. I think we need to send a strong signal to the stakeholders that the Prime Minister cares, is listening, and has an idea of where he wants to go and what the end looks like. I haven't heard that from him at all, other than high-level talking points.

He can do lots of things on the tariff removals. As far as the regulations and the removal of Bill C-69 and Bill C-68, for example, there are things he can do that won't cost him any money and would provide stability for small and medium-sized enterprises and the different sectors that are in crisis right now.

I think he should tell Canadians what he is prepared to do. Let's face it, if he's not going to tell us in question period, then he can come to the committee and tell us. Then, if he's not going to tell us there, I'm going to ask his constituents to ask him at every meeting he goes to, and I'm going to ask your constituents to do the same. What's the plan? That's a fair question, because they need to know.

For him to duck away from this would be really bad form. It would show really badly on him as Prime Minister and the leader of our country, and on the Liberal Party and their chances for re-election anywhere outside of maybe one or two ridings.

I would strongly encourage my friends across the aisle to get behind this and let this happen, because I think it's very important.

Opposition Motion—The Economy

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I guess his answer to my previous question is that he will not answer the question about his constituents, because he will not answer it in the House. However, I will ask another question.

My colleague from Edmonton Riverbend talked about the 2,000 workers who protested the Prime Minister in Calgary, trying to get across to him how dire the oil and gas sector was out west. Will he at least do something to help them? Will he stop Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 and recognize the dire consequences of that legislation? The people who invest in pipelines tell us point blank that if those bills go through, they will never invest in a pipeline in Canada again.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin this debate by quoting the premier of the Northwest Territories when the Prime Minister, in 2016, as part of a Joint Arctic leaders' statement, declared that the Beaufort Sea would be a national park essentially and that there would be no more drilling. This meant that any infrastructure there would now be landlocked and any infrastructure that had been invested in would now be stopped and be held up from being developed.

The premier of the Northwest Territories said that they would end up “living in a park.” That is precisely what the Prime Minister and his principal secretary Gerald Butts would like to see, that all of Canada become a national park, with no economy happening whatsoever.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Bill C-88 lays out the legal framework for the drilling moratorium. It is part of an ongoing trend we see from the government. Canadians are welcome to live in Canada provided they do not do anything to touch the environment. Again, in the Northwest Territories, this is a record. However, we are seeing a trend.

The Prime Minister has pounded his fists on the table, saying that he will get the Trans Mountain pipeline built. However, when it comes to every other energy project in the country, he has done everything in his power to undermine it. It all started with Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium on the west coast. This effectively killed the northern gateway pipeline. It is part of a larger trend.

In Bill C-68, we see the reversal of the changes we made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, making it easier for municipalities to develop their regions by putting culverts in and pipelines across streams. Those kinds of things were important changes we had made to make life easier for the people who live beyond Ottawa and Toronto, yet we see the government of today definitely reversing that.

There is also Bill C-69, what we are calling the no more pipelines bill that overhauls the regulatory process for pipelines.

We had a great regulatory framework to build pipelines. Under the Conservative government, we built four pipelines, approved northern gateway and other pipelines. What is really frustrating is that the Liberals went around saying that the public had no confidence in the process, which was completely false. It had been tested significantly by the court. Now that they are in power, they feel the need to overhaul it entirely so it will have to be tested by the court again.

We see that again with Bill C-69, putting the livelihoods of many workers in the oil patch at risk. It is putting the livelihoods of many people who live north of the 55th parallel at risk. We would like to see the government change its ways regarding this.

Bill C-88 is part of a strategy to keep oil in the ground. Therefore, we would definitely like to see it pull this bill back and Bill C-69 in particular.

Over the weekend, there was much to be said about the back-to-work legislation the House imposed on the Canada Post workers. Just yesterday I saw a carton on Facebook about two oil field workers. One of the workers said, “I wish Ottawa would legislate us back to work.” This bill would legislate them out of work.

The Beaufort Sea has vast oil reserves that have been explored. There are millions of dollars in infrastructure sitting up there, which has been basically been abandoned because of the drilling moratorium.

We need to ensure that Canada can work and be prosperous again. We have to ensure that our natural resources, whether oil in the Beaufort Sea, diamond mines in the Northwest Territories, or gold mines in the Yukon, can be developed and can bring prosperity for all of Canada.

One of the major things we know about in northern Canada is the carbon tax and how that will affect northerners in particular. We hear the Liberals talking all the time about Canada being a carbon intensive economy. If we looked outside this morning, we would see that it was snowing, and we typically have snow for six to nine months out of the year, depending on where one lives in Canada. That means the temperature is below freezing for that length of time in the year, so we need to warm things up. We need to make sure our houses stay warm. I enjoy a warm shower every morning. Those things require energy. Not only does Canada require energy, but the world requires energy as well. What better place to get our energy than right here in Canada? However, when we bring in a drilling moratorium in the Beaufort Sea or introduce a carbon tax or table Bill C-69, we limit the development of our natural resources and we then import the energy we need from other jurisdictions that do not have the environmental regulatory framework we have. We do not allow our economy to flourish so it can bring prosperity to some parts of the country that could really use it.

It is important that we develop our resources, including resources in the Beaufort Sea. We know that a large amount of money has been invested in developing that part of the world, and to just bar its development, through government regulation into the future, seems shortsighted and pandering on the world stage to forces outside of Canada.

The announcement in 2016 shows to some degree that the joint Arctic leaders' statement did not take into account the Canadian perspective whatsoever. It was pandering to an international audience. The Prime Minister only had the decency to phone the premier 20 minutes before he made the announcement. That left the territories scrambling. When I was up in the Northwest Territories, one of the things they often said was to let them keep their own royalty revenues. Allowing them to keep the royalty revenues now, when they are unable to develop anything, will not help the situation whatsoever.

With that, I ask the Liberals to reconsider the bill, to reconsider the drilling moratorium in the Beaufort Sea, to reconsider Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and ensure that we can get development of our natural resources back on the table, bringing prosperity to all Canadians and all Albertans.

Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in support this bill to end the captivity of whales and dolphins. What is important to me in seeing this bill go forward is that we are making steps about animal welfare. There is so much more to do, but we are seeing steps going forward.

I was pleased to speak in favour of the bill that would end sexual abuse of animals and animal fighting. I am looking forward to bills that are coming from the other place in respect to testing on animals for cosmetics, as well as shark finning.

Today, I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill, which builds on work that was done by the government bill, Bill C-68, which also aims to end captivity or at least capture cetaceans. This Senate bill goes further and it is a very important step.

One of my favourite holiday memories is from my vacation to Newfoundland. I went for my friend's wedding. We went to the Bonavista Peninsula.

We were at the Bonavista Social Club. As my family and I sat on the porch, we watched whales out in the bay. It was the most beautiful thing. What was beautiful about it was not just the whales; it was the fact that they were in their natural element. It was part of what added to the beauty. If people want to learn about animals and about cetaceans, the best way is to do that is to see them in nature, enjoying themselves and being together. That was truly one of my favourite holiday memories.

When I compare that memory to what I hear about the conditions of cetaceans being kept in captivity, it breaks my heart. It also breaks my heart when I hear members from across the way talking so disparagingly about taking this step forward to support our cetaceans and to ensure they do not suffer.

Keeping cetaceans in captivity is a fairly new development. It started in the 1960s. I understand the first orca on display was in 1964. Therefore, this has not happened forever. However, 54 years after that first orca was put on display, it is finally time to put an end to this practice. It is time for us to say “no more”.

I would like to take a moment to thank the leadership of the former Senator Wilfred Moore, who brought the bill forward in the other place, and Senator Murray Sinclair, who then took over the sponsorship of the bill and moved it forward. I also look very much forward to working with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to ensure we get the bill through this place, so we can move it forward.

What would the bill do?

It proposes to ban holding cetaceans in captivity. It also bans the breeding of cetaceans. That is also part of the problem. It is not just taking them out from the wild, but it is also about breeding them for the purposes of captivity. It bans the capture of cetaceans from the wild and it bans the import and export of cetaceans.

For anyone who is not used to the the term cetacean, it is defined as whales, dolphins and porpoises.

It is important that the bill have some teeth. Therefore it proposed a fine of up to $200,000 for people who contravene it.

As I mentioned, the bill goes further than Bill C-68, but I am very happy our government took that first step. Right now, Bill C-68 is being considered in the other place. However, this bill takes important additional steps. I ask all members in this place to give it serious thought and see how we can go further.

I want there to be no mistake. We must end keeping whale and dolphins in captivity. It is heartbreaking to hear some of the examples, such as confining whales to small spaces. A wild orca may travel 150 kilometres in a day. I was reading an article that described orcas in captivity as couch potatoes. It is not healthy. Apparently the largest orca tank in the world is less than one ten thousandths of 1% of the size of the smallest home range for wild orcas. That is unbelievable. Imagine how that would feel.

To picture that, an orca would have to swim the circumference of the main pool in SeaWorld more than 1,400 times to get that kind of distance. It is dizzying. I could not imagine having to go through that. Senator Sinclair perhaps said it best when he was speaking to senators in the other place about this bill. He said, “So think about this, senators: How would you feel if you had to live the rest of your life in a bathtub?”

I put that same question to the members here. How would they feel spending the rest of their lives in a bathtub?

Another part that really struck me was when I heard about the effect of sound in these tanks for cetaceans. They use sound to be able to get around. Echolocation is the right term. It is the main sensory system. Sound reverberates within these tanks, and they have more sounds from filtration systems, clapping, yelling and music. We can imagine being confined to a small space and having that kind of sensory overload. It is horrible, and it actually has an impact on whales and dolphins.

We see whales harming themselves in captivity. They do not in the wild, but we can understand that being held in a tank like that, having heard a bit of what I have described, would be so frustrating for them. They have hurting teeth. Their teeth are damaged from biting on the bars. They rub against the sides of the tank and damage themselves. That is not normal behaviour. It is the behaviour of whales and dolphins that are deeply frustrated and are being harmed by their circumstances.

Another part we have heard a bit about and I would like to emphasize is that whales, for example orcas, are very social. They are part of a family. In fact, I read somewhere that male orcas never leave their moms. They go away for a short bit, mate and come back. They stay as a family, and it is very important for them to stay together. If we take whales out of that family pod, we are breaking a very important tie for them. Not only are they confined to this bathtub, not only do they have these sounds disturbing them, they are pulled away from their social networks. That is a very important part of their health and mental health. We can add to that the fact that they do not necessarily get along with whales from other families, so there can be aggression between them, and we have seen that type of aggression in certain situations.

There are also shortened lifespan. When we have whales in captivity, they do not live as long as they do in the wild. From what I understand, of 200 orcas that have been held in captivity, none have reached what we would describe as old age, which would be about 60 years for a male and 80 years for a female. None of them have lived that long, because of the conditions they are kept in.

I want to mention sanctuaries for whales, because ultimately, we are going to have to find a place for those who cannot be released into the wild after they have been held in captivity. When we are doing this, we need to make sure that we do not have sanctuaries that also treat the whales as entertainment. We need to be sure that the sanctuaries provide them with a healthy atmosphere.

Mr. Speaker, you have been very kind to give me this time. I would like to thank the animal advocates who have stood up and carried this ball. We are going to keep carrying that ball and bring it over the line.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins).

The bill was first introduced in the Senate in 2015. It has taken three long years to get it here, and I fully support its quick passage into law. The purpose of the bill is to phase out the captivity of cetaceans: whales, dolphins and porpoises in Canada. There is an exception for rescues, rehabilitation, licensed scientific research, or if it is in the best interest of the cetacean.

Keeping these incredible creatures confined is cruel. This is a moral issue, but it is informed by science, and I hope all members of the House will support this legislation. The study of cetaceans is important, but New Democrats believe research on cetaceans can be conducted in an ethical manner in the wild where they belong. There, scientists can get a realistic view of their natural behaviours without causing a lifetime of pain and suffering.

Science has proven that they suffer in captivity. Let us have a look at what the Animal Welfare Institute reports about their natural behaviour compared to when they are in captivity.

In the wild, cetaceans can travel up to 100 miles a day, feeding and socializing with other members of their pods. Pods can contain hundreds of individuals with complex social bonds and hierarchies. In captivity, they are housed in small enclosures, unable to swim in a straight line for long or dive deeply. Sometimes they are housed alone without opportunities for socialization, or they are forced to live with incompatible animals and even species with which they would not naturally have close contact.

In the wild, cetaceans spend approximately 80% to 90% of their time under water. They have the freedom to make their own choices. In captivity, they spend approximately 80% of their time at the surface, looking for food and attention from their trainers, who make the choices for them.

In the wild, they are surrounded by other sea life and are an integral part of marine ecosystems. They have evolved for millions of years in the oceans, and in most cases, they are the top predators. In captivity, cetaceans are in artificial environments that are sterile or lack stimulation. Tank water must be treated or filtered, or both, to avoid health problems for the animals, although they may still suffer from bacterial and fungal infections that can be deadly. Other species, such as fish, invertebrates and sea vegetation cannot survive these treatments, so display tanks are as empty as hotel swimming pools.

In the wild, cetaceans live in a world of natural sound. They rely on their hearing as we do on our sight. Echolocation is their main sensory system, and they use sound to find mates, migrate, communicate, forage, nurse, care for young, and escape predators. In captivity, cetaceans must listen to filtration systems, pumps, music, fireworks and people clapping and yelling daily. Their concrete and glass enclosures also reflect sounds, so a poorly designed enclosure can make artificial noises worse. Echolocation is rarely used, as a tank offers no novelties or challenges to explore.

In captivity, it must be horrific for these animals. Cetaceans are intelligent, emotional and social mammals. Orcas, in particular, are highly social animals that travel in groups or pods that consist of five to 30 whales, although some pods may combine to form a group of 100 or more.

Canadians witnessed their extraordinary human-like behaviour this past summer, as we watched the grieving ordeal of the mother orca, J-35 Tahlequah, who carried her dead newborn calf for about 1,600 kilometres over 17 days. She empathetically held on, diving deep to retrieve her calf each time it slid from her head. Jenny Atkinson, director of the Whale Museum on San Juan Island told the CBC:

We do know her family is sharing the responsibility of caring for this calf, that she's not always the one carrying it, that they seem to take turns. While we don't have photos of the other whales carrying it, because we've seen her so many times without the calf, we know that somebody else has it.

This type of grieving behaviour is not unique to killer whales. Dolphins and other mammals, including gorillas, are known to carry their deceased young in what is widely believed by scientists to be an expression of grief.

Sheila Thornton, the lead killer whale biologist for Fisheries and Oceans Canada describes it. She said:

Strong social bonds between the families of orcas drive much of their behaviour. The southern residents share food, a language, a culture of eating only fish and an ecological knowledge of where to find it in their home range.

Bill S-203 is an important piece of proposed legislation that would grandfather out captivity in three ways.

First, it would ban live captures under the Fisheries Act, except for rescues. To be clear, the bill would not interfere with rescues. In fact, it would allow for research if the cetacean is unfit to return to the wild.

Second, it would ban cetacean imports and exports, except if licensed for scientific research or in the cetacean's best interest. An example of that exemption would be a transfer to an open water sanctuary under the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, or WAPPRIITA.

Third, it would ban breeding under the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code, subject to a summary conviction and a $200,000 fine unless provincially licensed for scientific research.

It is important to note that government Bill C-68, which is currently in the Senate, prohibits cetacean captures except for rescues and authorizes the regulation of imports. However, Bill C-68 would not restrict imports or exports by law or ban breeding.

Bill S-203 would also ban cetacean performances for entertainment. Currently, two Canadian facilities hold captive cetaceans. The Vancouver Aquarium holds one dolphin and has publicly committed to not hold any new cetaceans following the Vancouver Park Board ban. Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario, holds 50 to 60 belugas, five dolphins and one orca. Since 2015, it has been illegal to buy, sell or breed orcas in that province.

For these facilities, a change brought on as a result of Bill S-203 would be felt gradually. Marineland, for example, could keep its current whales and dolphins, many of which should live for decades, and in that time it could evolve to a more sustainable model, perhaps with a focus on conservation. The Vancouver Aquarium, for instance, could retain its current residents for research and may even acquire new whales and dolphins through rescue and rehabilitation.

Phil Demers, a former head trainer at Marineland, said this about the bill:

As a former Marine Mammal Trainer, I believe the bill to ban cetacean captivity and breeding in Canada is imperative and long-overdue. I have witnessed the physiological and emotional consequences captivity imposes on these magnificent beings, and those who care for them. No living being should be forced to endure what I’ve witnessed, and it’s my hope that this bill will finally put an end to these cruel practices.

It is about time. Canada is behind other jurisdictions on this issue. The United Kingdom, Italy, New Zealand, Chile, Cyprus, Hungary and Mexico all have banned or severely restricted these practices. Companies have begun ending their partnerships with other companies that keep cetaceans in captivity. Air Canada, WestJet, JetBlue, Southwest Airlines and Taco Bell have all recently ended their association with SeaWorld Entertainment, which operates a total of 12 parks in the United States.

In a letter to the Vancouver Parks Board, Dr. Jane Goodall said:

The scientific community is also responding to the captivity of these highly social and intelligent species as we now know more than ever, about the complex environments such species require to thrive and achieve good welfare. Those of us who have had the fortunate opportunity to study wild animals in their natural settings where family, community structure and communication form a foundation for these animals’ existence, know the implications of captivity on such species.

In 1977, I received the honour of a lifetime when the Squamish nation bestowed me with the name Iyim Yewyews, meaning orca, blackfish or killer whale, a strong swimmer in the animal world. They gave me this name for the work I was doing to conserve, protect and restore the watersheds, our marine environment and the natural world, which includes these whales.

I encourage all members to get on the right side of history and pass this important bill.

[Sean Casey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, also known as the act for ending the captivity of whales and dolphins, or as we have heard, the Free Willy bill. It was introduced in the other place by the hon. Senator Wilfred Moore on December 8, 2015, and following his retirement was carried by Senator Sinclair.

The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. Because I only have 10 minutes, I will refer to that statute from here forward as WAPPRIITA.

The goal of these amendments is to end the captivity of cetaceans; that is, whales, dolphins and porpoises in Canada. Indeed, the stated objective of Bill S-203 is to gradually reduce and eventually do away with the practice of holding whales, dolphins and other cetaceans captive in Canadian facilities.

Bill S-203 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would make it an offence to hold cetaceans in captivity. It proposes an amendment to the Fisheries Act that would prohibit the capture of a cetacean in order to take it into captivity. Finally, Bill S-203 proposes to amend the WAPPRIITA to prohibit the import of cetaceans into Canada and the export of a cetacean from Canada.

Bill S-203 is a response to growing public concern about the well-being of cetaceans. We now have a greater understanding and awareness of the nature of these animals and the living conditions they need to be happy and healthy. There is clearly growing support for the protection of whales and other marine mammals in Canada and around the world.

Since its introduction, Bill S-203 has undergone significant changes. Our colleagues in the other place, particularly through the consultations and study done by the standing committee, have sent us a bill that deserves our full consideration.

Bill S-203 also now includes provisions that affirm the rights of indigenous peoples, many of whom feature whales as a central part of their culture and traditions.

In order to enable certain critical conservation and research activities to continue, Bill S-203 includes provisions that would create exceptions where an animal is in need of rescue or rehabilitation. Cetaceans currently in captivity at Marineland and the Vancouver Aquarium would also fall under the exception clauses; that is, these facilities would not be closed down, leaving animals that have never known another home with no place to be cared for.

We are surrounded on three incredibly wide-ranging coasts by spectacular oceans. These waters are home to 42 distinct populations of whales.

All of these animal species and many more are facing major threats. Global warming has affected water temperatures, and that is affecting the food supply. Illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing, accidental by-catch and entanglement in commercial fishing nets, declining food availability, noise pollution, habitat pollution and even collisions all pose a threat to cetaceans.

The conservation and protection of marine mammals in the wild, including cetaceans, has become a whole-of-government priority in Canada. This priority has been underscored by the increasing threats facing three endangered species of whales, the southern resident killer whales on the west coast, the North Atlantic right whales on the east coast, and the St. Lawrence estuary beluga in Quebec.

The government's commitment to recovering and protecting Canada's whale species is reflected in the support provided through the $1.5 billion oceans protection plan announced by the Prime Minister in 2016, the $167.4 million whales initiative announced as part of budget 2018, and the recent announcement of $61.5 million for measures in support of the southern resident killer whale.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been coordinating with other federal departments and provincial and territorial governments to advance other initiatives, including reducing vessel strikes and entanglement of the North Atlantic right whale, reducing contaminants affecting the St. Lawrence estuary beluga, and introducing amendments to the marine mammal regulations that establish minimum general approach distances for whales, dolphins and porpoises in Canadian fisheries waters.

Bill S-203's focus is on the capture of wild cetaceans for the purpose of keeping them in captivity as an attraction, and the ongoing holding and/or breeding of cetaceans in captivity. As I have said, there are only two facilities in Canada that hold cetaceans in captivity, Marineland in Niagara Falls, Ontario and the Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia.

Marineland is a commercial facility that has approximately 60 cetaceans, including beluga whales, dolphins and one orca or killer whale. The vast majority of cetaceans held at Marineland are belugas.

The Vancouver Aquarium is a not-for-profit facility. It has only one cetacean at its facility, a 30-year old Pacific white-sided dolphin that was rescued from the wild and deemed non-releasable. Earlier this year, the Vancouver Aquarium announced that it would no longer display cetaceans and would focus instead on its work on conservation and rescuing stranded and injured whales and dolphins. The Vancouver Aquarium works with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to rescue and rehabilitate marine mammals in distress.

The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard only issues licences for the capture of a live cetacean when the purpose is for scientific research or rehabilitation. In the past 10 years, only one such licence has been issued for the rehabilitation of a live stranded Pseudorca calf. It has been a matter of public policy for more than two decades that wild cetaceans not be captured and placed in captivity unless the goal is to rescue, rehabilitate and release them.

Provincial and territorial legislative regimes in this area continue to evolve. In 2015, Ontario banned the buying, selling or breeding of orca whales. The province also amended the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to increase protection for other marine mammals held in captivity.

This bill was debated in the other place, so we have debated the amendments to the Fisheries Act that the government introduced in the spring and summer.

My colleagues may have noticed that some of the amendments put forward in Bill C-68 would achieve the main goal set out in Bill S-203: ending the captivity of cetaceans. Bill C-68 would do that without impeding the government's ability to do important scientific research.

Bill C-68 also includes provisions that protect the rights of northern indigenous peoples to export cetacean products, such as narwhal tusks.

Bill C-68 would prohibit capturing a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity. Exceptions are made for the minister to authorize an exception if a cetacean is injured, in distress or in need of care.

The bill also proposes a regulation-making authority with respect to importing fish, including cetaceans. This regulation-making authority would allow the government to determine the circumstances under which a cetacean could be imported to or exported from Canada. For example, these movements may be permitted for purposes of repopulation or conservation. They may be prohibited if the intent is to display cetaceans in aquariums. These regulatory tools could also enable the government to authorize the import and export of cetaceans to sea sanctuaries should those facilities be established in the future.

The former minister of fisheries, oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard has acknowledged that the amendments to the Fisheries Act proposed in Bill C-68 as they pertain to keeping cetaceans in captivity were inspired by Bill S-203, and in particular the bill's sponsor, retired Senator Wilfred Moore.

There is no doubt that this government and Canadians from coast to coast to coast support the ban on the captivity of cetaceans for the sole purpose of display. That is why I look forward to supporting this bill to committee and participating in the debate that will occur there and hearing from witness testimony.

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

, seconded by the member for Drummond, moved that Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured this evening to speak to Bill S-203 at second reading stage. This bill would put an end to the captivity of whales and dolphins.

This bill already has quite an interesting history in the other chamber. It was introduced in the Senate by Senator Wilfred Moore, from Nova Scotia, who is now retired. After the senator retired, the bill received the support of Senator Murray Sinclair.

I am very honoured to have this bill in my hands to take through the House. However, I would like us all to regard this bill as being in our collective hands. It is best that we not see this as a partisan issue or for anyone's particular credit. It is about time that we took the actions that are put forward in this legislation.

We have learned a lot about whales and dolphins over the decades. It happens that one of the pivotal stories that changed how humans have thought about whales had a link to my own riding. There is a story of a whale, an orca that was wrongly named Moby Doll, instead of Moby Dick, because when humans first took this whale into captivity, they wrongly assumed that they had a female whale. This story goes back to the effort to kill the whales to study them back in the 1950s. Killer whales are carnivores. They will eat seals but are extremely friendly toward human beings and not a threat in open water.

Saturna Island is one of the perfectly gorgeous small islands that I am honoured to represent here. I represent Saanich—Gulf Islands, Saanich being the anglicized word for WSÁNEC nation. These islands are the unceded traditional territory of indigenous peoples. The islands were scattered and in WSÁNEC traditional creation myths, the islands themselves had life and had been peopled and had been scattered. One of those scattered islands is Saturna, which to this day has the most astonishing land-based whale watching one can experience.

In any case, the scientists and other people from Vancouver aquarium came up with the idea of capturing and killing a whale. They harpooned the killer whale, held it for a period of days and realized that the whale was intelligent. The taking of Moby Doll was the beginning of scientists' realization that whales are not big fish. Rather, the whales reminded them of ourselves. The whales are sentient beings. In the Sencoten language, I was mentioning that we are all related. In Sencoten language, the phrase for human beings is the “human people” and the word for whale translates as the “whale people”. We are very connected.

That connection with whales has led science in different directions. Moby Doll did not survive. They did not know how to feed it. It was already injured. However, we learned a lot from that one contact. We learned that whales are our relatives. They are sentient beings and they are intelligent

Over the years, this has led us to greater research. What are the needs of whales? They are social creatures. We now know that the southern resident killer whales in the Salish Sea are acutely endangered. However, we have also learned a lot about what their needs are in the wild. They need a lot of space. They need to be able to swim in the wild. They have social needs. They have physical needs and bio-physical needs. They need to be in the wild. In the meantime, our fascination with them is for an obvious reason. They are fascinating.

The keeping of whales in captivity has become a form of entertainment. However, the science increasingly makes us understand that what might seem to be simple entertainment and a simple pleasure is actually animal cruelty, because these animals cannot be held in a swimming pool without significant cruelty and real pain and a loss of social contact and normal activities. As the science points out, cetaceans suffer from confinement, isolation and health problems. Confinement reduces their life span, their calves have much higher mortality, and the deprivation to their senses constitutes trauma, and when they are moved from place to place, kept in captivity or bred in captivity and separated from their calves, they suffer.

We saw this in the wild this summer when one of the southern resident killer whales in the Salish Sea gave birth to a dead calf or one that died immediately thereafter. That mother whale pushed that calf through the waters for 17 days while grieving. Even scientists who wanted to say they could not anthropomorphize this or assume that the whale was actually grieving realized, when this has gone on for 17 days, that the mother was grieving the loss of her calf. Imagine those kinds of sentient, emotional connections and then deciding to keep whales and dolphins in a swimming pool, thinking they would be fine.

We have taken steps in this country very recently, thanks to the former minister of fisheries, currently the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, who shepherded Bill C-68 through the House. It is now before the Senate. It quite rightly, and for the first time, banned the capture of whales in open water. However, what Bill C-68 does not do is deal with this additional large risk of keeping whales in captivity, breeding them in captivity, selling them, importing them and having a trade in whales and dolphins. That is what this bill would end. The bill would end the keeping of whales and dolphins. This step has already been taken by the United Kingdom, Italy, New Zealand, Chile, Cyprus, Hungary and Mexico. They have either banned or severely restricted the keeping of whales in captivity.

I also want to acknowledge the leadership in this regard of the Vancouver Aquarium. That aquarium, by the way, has a phenomenal science program. I love touring it and talking to its scientists. They are doing a lot of the heavy lifting on issues like plastics in our oceans, but they kept whales in captivity for entertainment and have pledged to stop doing that. They have said they will stop voluntarily.

This bill is supported by numerous leaders and marine scientists, including the Humane Society internationally and in Canada; The Jane Goodall Institute; Animal Justice; and the former head trainer at Marineland, Phil Demers, who has appeared at press conferences with members in this place.

Whales are still being kept in captivity in Canada. We do not want to put the one institution that keeps whales in captivity out of business. There are lots of other ways to maintain a tourist attraction with the great facilities present in that institution. There are display and trained seal operations, one can imagine. I think of the Cirque du Soleil. We used to think circuses needed animals, that we needed to see an elephant lumbering through, and we now know that one of the most successful, economically profitable, off-the-charts successful circus is Cirque du Soleil.

Cirque du Soleil does not use a single animal; only humans. The circus is nevertheless quite famous and has been very successful. The same is possible in Marineland, in Ontario. They could have a kind of Cirque du Soleil that would actually be a circus of the sea.

I am not going to give professional tourist advice, but I want to make it really clear that this is not about shutting down a tourist attraction. This bill is about ending animal cruelty. We cannot pretend anymore that we do not know this is cruelty. That is very clear from scientists around the world, and I am really pleased to know that this bill has so far been supported and seconded officially by members of the other parties in this place.

This is why I hope we can make this a non-partisan effort and collectively and collaboratively end keeping whales and dolphins in captivity, phase out and end the trade in whales and dolphins and ensure that Canada joins other progressive countries from around the world in protecting our whales in the wild. That must be done. We have three species right now of critically endangered whales: the right whales in the Atlantic, the belugas in the Saguenay and, as I have mentioned, the southern resident killer whales of the Salish Sea.

Much more needs to be done to protect whales in the wild, but we cannot as a country continue the practice of holding these animals of intelligence and with complicated communication systems. Their ability to communicate songs over wide distances in the open ocean is impossible when they are kept confined essentially in swimming pools. No matter how much affection may appear between a trainer and a whale, these animals are being kept in ways that harm them, that kill them and that deny them their ability to be what they are: magnificent creatures, leviathans. One of the great texts of the Bible to describe a non-human species is the description of leviathan, one of God's great creations. Masters of the oceans, they cannot any longer be kept in captivity.

To all my colleagues in all parties in the House, I say that it is time to put an end to this cruel practice of keeping whales and dolphins in captivity. This must stop immediately.

Now is the moment that we begin the second reading process of this bill. Please, I urge my colleagues, let us get it expeditiously to committee. Let us get it expeditiously back for report stage and third reading. Let us ensure that when we go back to our electorate in each one of our ridings across the country, we are able to say that we did one thing this year that we are really proud of. Let us say we ended the practice of keeping whales and dolphins in captivity, that we did something our children want us to do, that we did something for the wild beings of this planet.

In honour of Senator Wilfred Moore, I would like to end my remarks by saying that it is time we free Willy.

Canada's Oil and Gas Sector

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the challenge that we face today in the energy sector is very simple. It is a question of stability and a question of certainty, both for the people who are making the investment decisions to invest in production in Canada's energy sector, and the people whom I talk to every day, who have selected me to be their voice in Ottawa. It is a question of certainty, and it is a question of stability.

The colleagues opposite who are laughing at this tonight should give their heads a shake. When people are sitting around a corporate board table and trying to determine whether or not they should spend several billion dollars on a major capital investment, they look at several determinants. They look at labour availability, political stability, market conditions, and all sorts of things. They make a determination based on a set of information available at the time, but they have to be certain that the information is right and that it is going to stay stable.

If there is no certainty in an area, workers who are trying to decide whether or not to stay in a region, or whether or not to sell their house, or what sort of purchases to make, or how to make ends meet, are going to make a decision one way or another.

The problem we have seen with the government over the last three years is the question of instability. When we started to see a shift in the supply side model of energy products in North America, as the Americans started to come on stream with more energy supply—and of course we should spend a bunch of time talking about the demand side model internationally as well—what the government should have done at that point in time, when they the Liberals came into government in 2015, was to do everything in its power to make the situation more certain and stable for the workers in Canada's energy sector so that companies could stay and prosper in Canada, and for those who seek to invest in Canada's energy sector, to do the same.

What does the government need to do to rectify the decisions it has made that have led to instability, so that we can see projects built from here on in?

First of all, the government has to scrap its carbon tax. It creates investment instability in the energy sector and is a burden on energy sector workers. There is no economic modelling to show that it will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because for the most part carbon in Canada is price inelastic.

The second thing that it needs to do is to repeal its cancellation, during a major downturn in the Canadian economy, of the oil and gas exploration drilling tax credit. It needs to reverse that decision that it made.

The government needs to reverse the tanker ban that it put in place.

The government also put in place a five-year moratorium on northern oil and gas exploration, giving the territorial governments less than two hours' notice. That caused instability. It needs to reverse that decision it made.

The government also need to reverse the decisions it made around the methane regulation framework that it put in place. That is an example of the instability the government caused when it knew that the energy sector was going through a downturn.

The government needs to scrap and do everything possible to stop the passage of Bill C-69, which it has tabled. That bill creates instability. It creates a new regulator and an environmental assessment process with indeterminate timelines. If people are sitting at a corporate board table and trying to make a decision whether or not to invest, it is not about just getting to a yes, but about getting to a yes or no within a defined, clear set of timeframes. Bill C-69 completely undermines that.

Any investor who is looking at investing in Canada's energy sector looks at Bill C-69 and says, “No way.” The government put that in place in a time of economic downturn, and it needs to scrap that.

The Liberals need to scrap Bill C-48, which put in place the unilateral imposition of a ban on using B.C.'s north coast for oil and gas exports. They put that in place. They need to reverse that.

Bill C-86 gives cabinet the authority to unilaterally shut down the shipping of natural resources by water anywhere in Canada, including offshore oil and gas. That is instability that the sector looks at. They need to repeal that bill that they put in place during a major downturn in Canada's energy sector.

They need to repeal Bill C-68, because it dramatically increases the red tape on project development by adding a multi-month review under the navigable waters act for any water on a project site that is large enough to float a kayak. It adds instability. It is unnecessary red tape. They need to repeal this bill that they put in place during a major energy sector downturn.

They need to repeal Bill C-88, which politicizes oil and gas development in the Far North, by providing cabinet in Ottawa the unilateral power to shut down oil and gas development in the Far North.

As well, they need to stop the proposed fuel standards that they are proposing to unveil before Christmas that will equate to a carbon tax of $228 per tonne of fuel, which would almost certainly mean the end of the oil and gas sector.

They also need to apologize for standing here and applauding Barack Obama after doing nothing to prevent the veto or speak against the veto of the Keystone XL pipeline.

They need to apologize for the fact that they did nothing when they allowed Denis Coderre to dump millions of litres of raw sewage in Quebec and say that energy east was not in the best interest of Canada. Instead they stood up here and agreed with him. The speech by the member for Calgary Centre was such a disgrace. He said he was going to pound on the table for a pipeline. Where was he when Dennis Coderre was doing that? He got kicked out of cabinet. He was our supposed voice in cabinet for Calgary who did nothing to stop any of these bills.

They politically vetoed the northern gateway pipeline. In a political process, the government overturned a years-long regulatory review of the northern gateway pipeline that had over 200 conditions on it that was set and ready to go. That created uncertainty and instability, and politicized a system during a downturn in the energy sector.

They need to invoke section 92.10(c) of the Constitution Act to bring the Trans Mountain pipeline completely into federal jurisdiction so that B.C. cannot obstruct its building out through permitting or other mechanisms in their jurisdiction right now.

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

They need to start building the Trans Mountain pipeline. If what the Prime Minister said is true, and it is in the best interest of this country, why are the Liberals kicking the can down through a potential spring election window? If they are serious about it they should be building it out today. There should be shovels in the ground tonight.

The last thing they need to stop doing, for the love of all that is holy, is stop abdicating the responsibility for getting these policies right. Every time, they stand up here and say that it is Stephen Harper's fault. They had three years to get these projects done. With that litany of lists that are nowhere near complete, all they have done every step of the way is add uncertainty and instability for the investors in Canada's energy sector and for the workers in my community. All the people in my riding want to do is get back to work. Everything the government has done has been to abdicate responsibility and create instability.

The last thing they need to do is the Prime Minister needs to stop going overseas and telling his true agenda to the world, which is that he wants to phase out Canada's energy sector. If I was a worker in Canada's energy sector or if I was looking to invest in this, I would be saying that is a pretty clear policy. He has backed it up with action. Every single one of these bills and actions has been anti-energy sector.

None of the Liberals can stand up in this place and say they have done anything for Canada's energy sector. However, they can tonight by undertaking to repeal all of these bills and standing up and saying that they were wrong, that this stuff was wrong, that it created instability and the death of Canada's energy sector.

We are out of time. The Liberals need to build Trans Mountain. They need to get the shovels in the ground tonight, repeal these bills, and start being serious about one of Canada's most prosperous and stable industries in this country.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

Canada's energy sector is in crisis. It is a national emergency that impacts all of Canada and disproportionately hurts Alberta and Albertans. The oil and gas sector has already lost more than 100,000 jobs and over $100 billion since 2015 under the Liberals. That is eight times the GDP of, and more jobs than, the entire aerospace sector and five times the GDP of, and almost as many jobs as, the entire auto sector. That would rightfully be an emergency with full attention and action from any other federal government, but the response to the devastation in Alberta, in oil and gas, and on oil and gas workers and families has been a combination of empty platitudes with hostile attacks and legislation and policy that have only made things so much worse.

The ongoing and widening price differential for Canadian oil threatens to add tens of thousands more new job losses throughout 2019. Major producers with decades of history in Alberta are cancelling expansions and curtailing production, and are at risk of going bankrupt.

As recently as 2014, nine out of 10 new full-time jobs created in Canada were created in Alberta and more than 120,000 Albertans alone are out of work today. The most that the Prime Minister and the Liberals have offered is a five-and-a-half-week extension of EI benefits two years ago, which did not initially include Edmonton Bruderheim and the industrial heartland, and a “hang in there” ever since.

However, Albertans do not want EI. They just want to work and continue to be able to make their outsized contributions in the best interests of all of Canada. ATB Financial predicts that this crisis could cause a recession in Canada. The Bank of Canada already predicts no new energy investment in Canada after 2019, which will mean less money for pensions, health care, schools, social services and all governments across the country.

Over the past decade, Western Canadian Select has sold for an average of $17 U.S. less per barrel than West Texas Intermediate. This month, the differential hit a record of around $50 U.S., close to where it remains today. That is wreaking havoc on the industry and, by extension, on the entire Canadian economy. Every day, $50 million to $100 million is lost in Canada because of this differential.

Under the Liberals, more energy investment in Canada has declined than at any other time period in more than 70 years. Capital investment in Canada is collapsing while it soars in the U.S. Energy demand and development is increasing all around the world.

At least eight major companies have sold most of their Canadian business to invest in the United States. Canadian homegrown service, supply, technology and drilling companies are going with them. Business bankruptcies in Alberta are up 27.8% between August 2017 and August 2018. Real estate vacancies and property values are dropping. It is damaging all sectors.

Even the Prime Minister in Calgary last Thursday had the gall to say, “This is very much a crisis”. However, it has been three years of a crisis for Alberta. The Prime Minister's messages to Canadians and the world and policies caused it and only make it worse. What is unconscionable is it is a direct result of federal government policies and it is within the Prime Minister and the federal government's power to fix.

The Liberals cancelled the northern gateway pipeline, which would have exported Canadian oil to Asia-Pacific. The Liberal intervention, delays and double standards imposed on the energy east pipeline proposal were designed to make its proponent abandon it, which they warned a month before that they did; yet it would have secured Canadian energy independence and exports to Europe. They have disadvantaged Canada precisely because of the decision-making of the Prime Minister, especially with regard to the U.S., which continues to not only be Canada's number one energy customer, but also Canada's number one energy competitor right now, poised to supply 80% of the world's growing oil demand in the next three years.

The Trans Mountain expansion remains stalled indefinitely because of the Liberals' failure, with no start date yet in sight for construction. The Liberals chose the longest and most complicated option, delaying it still indefinitely, even while they gave Canadian tax dollars to Kinder Morgan, which is selling out of Canada and building pipelines in the U.S., even while they give Canadian tax dollars to the Asian infrastructure bank to build pipelines in China, and even while they fund anti-energy activists and Canadian pipeline protestors with Canadian tax dollars.

That lack of pipeline capacity and the landlocking of Canadian oil is a direct result of federal government policies that have stopped those new export oil pipelines and have directly caused the price discount.

The Liberals are layering on red tape and added costs at the very worst time, destroying confidence in Canada for investment. The Liberals' job-killing carbon tax is already costing Canadian jobs and driving Canadian companies into the United States. Imagine this. Canada is the only one of the world's top 10 oil-producing countries to impose a carbon tax on itself, but Canada is the most responsible energy producer in the world, and has been for decades. It makes no sense for the Prime Minister to make it even more difficult for Canadian oil and gas workers to do their work, which they do better than any other energy industry on the planet.

The Liberals cancelled the oil and gas exploration drilling tax credit during a historic collapse in Canadian drilling and energy job losses. The PM directed a B.C. north coast crude oil tanker ban, which is actually a ban on pipelines and on the oil sands, within 27 days of forming government, with no consultation or science or evidence to support it. The Liberals imposed a moratorium on northern oil and gas exploration, giving the territories less than two hours' notice before the announcement.

Their new methane regulations could destroy heavy oil development and end refining in Canada by adding tens of billions of dollars to an industry already in crisis, not because industry does not want to meet the standards but because of technology and timeline challenges to do it within the framework the Liberals are demanding.

The Liberals' “no more pipelines” Bill C-69 would create a new regulatory and assessment process with actually no concrete timelines and with vague conditions for review. It would open more foreign intervention in Canadian resource reviews and give new powers to federal cabinet ministers to politically interfere in the project development process. Certainty for proponents under their new legislation will only be determined through regulations out until 2021, continuing the uncertainty they created at the start of 2016.

Bill C-86 would provide cabinet with the authority to unilaterally shut down the shipping of natural resources by water anywhere in Canada, including offshore oil and gas in Atlantic Canada and the north.

Bill C-69 would dramatically increase red tap on project development by adding a multi-month review under the Navigation Protection Act for any water on a project site that could float any kind of watercraft, including a ditch. That would hinder mining, oil and gas and agriculture.

Bill C-88 would provide cabinet with the unilateral power to shut down oil and gas development in the far north. It would take back delegated authority powers from the Northwest Territories.

The Liberals proposed fuel standards will be the first of their kind in the world, equating to a carbon tax of $228 per tonne of fuel, to apply to industrial facilities.

This should be a concern for every Canadian, because energy is the number one private sector investor in Canada, and it is Canada's second biggest export. Canada is home to the third-largest reserves in the world, and it is the fourth-biggest exporter of energy on the planet, with a track record of responsible energy development literally second to none.

This emergency in the Canadian energy sector and the catastrophic job losses in Alberta are rippling through all sectors across all provinces. It is a national emergency.

Let me tell the House what Nancy Southern, the CEO of ATCO, says as she considers moving assets from ATCO, one of the oldest and largest privately started businesses in Alberta. She says, “How heartbreaking it is to see our wonderful resource-laden province so constrained by regulatory policy and politics of various dispositions.”

Gwyn Morgan, the founder of Encana, the largest Canadian-based energy company, which started in Alberta, said it plainly. He said what the more than 2,000 Albertans in Calgary said to the Prime Minister when he was there last week:

The past few years have been a nightmare for the Canadian industry, where every light at the end of the tunnel has turned out to be a train driven by the Prime Minister barrelling at us from the opposite direction.

No wonder Albertans do not believe a single word the Prime Minister or the Liberals say. This is a national emergency, and the Liberals should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for putting our country in this position. I probably share this view with my colleagues.

I look forward to Albertans delivering their verdict in 2019 on exactly what they think of the Liberals' record.

[Jonathan Wilkinson]

As you know, in Bill C-68, there are a number of provisions that relate to the owner-operator policies, although those policies apply primarily in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.

We certainly are aware that there are some in the Pacific region who are interested in seeing measures similar to those in Atlantic Canada. There are others who have a different perspective on that, and that is something that we are thinking of and discussing. We're very interested in the work the committee is going to be doing with respect to this issue. I think it will help us in the context of trying to figure out what the right pathway is here.

Sylvie, do you want to make any further comment?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard]

Thank you.

I'm happy to be here in my role as Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to discuss the supplementary estimates (A) for 2018-19.

As was noted, I'm accompanied by a number of my officials and the Honourable Sean Casey, my very able parliamentary secretary.

I am honoured to have been entrusted by the Prime Minister to play a leadership role in the protection of our oceans, coasts, waterways and fisheries to ensure that they are healthy today and for future generations.

Since being appointed as minister, I've developed a better understanding of the work being done by the communities whose livelihoods depend on our fisheries and oceans and on my department. I'm committed to building strong partnerships in order to protect our oceans and freshwater resources, not just in Canada, but as part of a global effort in the face of significant changes to climate and habitat around the world.

I want to commend the members of this committee for their efforts to help strengthen both the Oceans Act and the Fisheries Act. These pieces of legislation will be integral to restoring lost protections to fish and fish habitat, and to moving us toward our marine conservation targets.

Thank you for inviting me today to discuss supplementary estimates (A). Fisheries and Oceans Canada, including the Canadian Coast Guard, is seeking Parliament's approval of $980 million through these estimates.

The men and women of the Coast Guard are hard at work every day across this country, and our government is committed to providing them the tools that they need to keep Canadians safe, to protect our marine environment and to keep our economy moving. That is why over 80% of funding for supplementary estimates (A), $827.3 million, is to be spent on updating the Coast Guard's fleet through the purchase and upgrade of three icebreakers from Chantier Davie in Quebec. The ships will help to ensure that the Coast Guard maintains icebreaking capacity over the next 15 to 20 years as our fleet is being renewed.

Another $57.8 million under the estimates will go to the Coast Guard's offshore oceanographic science vessel project to allow for the completion of the engineering phase, as well as to purchase material to advance the construction of the ship.

As this committee knows, Canada's freshwater and marine coastal areas are inextricably linked to the economic prosperity of Canadians. Our government has an obligation, therefore, to incorporate modern safeguards and restore lost protections in the Fisheries Act. That's why $21.5 million is being sought for Bill C-68 to ensure that, should the amendments pass in the other House, we'll have the capacity to implement the act in a timely manner.

We are also seeking to increase investments beyond Bill C-68 when it comes to indigenous consultations and negotiations. Some funding included in the estimates, $48.9 million, will support negotiations and reconciliation efforts with indigenous peoples, specifically to implement treaty obligations such as undertaking fisheries studies and enabling access to fisheries, both of which will help indigenous communities improve capacity for self-government and self-determination.

I would like to take a brief moment to outline some of the important work the department has been doing as a result of previous investments.

Two years ago, our government launched the historic $1.5 billion oceans protection plan to make our oceans cleaner, safer and healthier. Since then, we've worked tirelessly to protect our marine coastal areas and endangered whales and to prevent and respond to oil spills, as needed.

Marine safety and accident prevention is an area that our government is firmly committed to through investments and new measures, enhancing Coast Guard capacity with new radar and the reopening of the Kitsilano Coast Guard base. We are leasing two offshore towing vessels for use in the waters off the west coast and increasing our towing capacity by installing tow kits on all of the Coast Guard's major vessels. These types of projects will help us to avoid potential marine pollution incidents. We are also strengthening the Coast Guard's capacity to respond to incidents. For example, we purchased 23 portable skimmers and 67,000 feet of curtain booms to help with potential spills. We opened four Coast Guard facilities, including two search and rescue stations.

A few weeks ago I introduced new measures and $61.5 million to further safeguard the southern resident killer whale population. We are taking decisive action by increasing access to food, reducing threats from vessels and protecting against contaminants.

Beyond implementation of the OPP, we are making significant progress in other areas as well. For instance, we have now protected almost 8% of our marine and coastal areas, up from just 1% when this government came to office in 2015. My officials and I will continue to work to ensure we achieve Canada's 10% commitment by 2020.

I would also like to highlight some of the investments in infrastructure that we're making to ensure that our communities are well supported. In budget 2018, we announced a $250 million commitment to renewing Canada's network of small craft harbours.

This funding is helping to accelerate repairs and enhance existing installations for planned projects at core commercial fishing harbours and at non-core harbours. Small craft harbours are key economic hubs in coastal communities across Canada, and they support regional fishing industries.

Finally, as part of Canada's 2018 G7 presidency Minister McKenna, Minister Sohi and I co-hosted the G7 ministerial meeting in September on the theme of working together on climate change, oceans and clean energy. We made progress in a number of areas related to healthy oceans and resilient communities. By combatting illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and addressing marine plastic pollution by signing on to the Global Ghost Gear Initiative, we will support sustainable oceans and fisheries management.

We'll also increase our knowledge by expanding our global observation efforts and sharing scientific data in support of the development of clean energy systems in coastal communities that are vulnerable to challenging weather conditions.

Colleagues, Canadians can be proud of the progress we have made to date, but I am sure that you will agree there's still much more to do. Our government will continue to lead the way on new and innovative policies and actions that provide meaningful and lasting protection for our oceans and freshwater resources.

Thank you.

I would like to turn to my parliamentary secretary who will share a little bit about the work he is doing.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are drowning Canadian job creators in red tape and tax hikes. Whether it is the carbon tax, small business tax hikes or the many cancelled tax credits and deductions, the Liberals are driving businesses out of Canada and killing Canadian jobs, hurting workers and middle-class families across the country.

Every other day major oil and gas companies cancel future projects, stop expansions or completely sell their Canadian businesses and take their money to other countries. It is a crisis, and it is not a result of external factors beyond the government's control. In fact, it is a direct consequence of the Liberals' message to Canadians and the world that Canada is closed for business because of the Liberals' added red tape and imposed cost increases.

Context is important. The energy sector is the biggest private sector investor and accounts for over 11% of the value of Canada's economy. To put this in perspective, it contributes twice as much as agriculture and fisheries combined, sectors in which farmers and fishermen also often have jobs in oil and gas. It contributes more than the banking and finance sector and more than the auto sector. The benefits are shared across Canada. Every one job in the oil sands creates seven manufacturing jobs in Ontario. Every one upstream oil and gas job in Alberta creates five jobs in other sectors, in other provinces.

However, spending in Canada's oil and gas sector declined 56% over three years, from $81 billion in 2014 to $45 billion in 2017. More money has left Canada's oil and gas sector since the 2015 election than at any other comparable time period in more than 70 years. The equivalent value would be losing 75% of auto manufacturing in Canada, or almost the entirety of the aerospace sector in Canada, something no one rightfully would accept.

The biggest beneficiary is the U.S. where spending in oil and gas increased 38% to $120 billion in 2017. Today, U.S. investment in Canada is down by more than half. Canadian investment in the U.S. is up by two-thirds. The consequences of these losses are hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work and less revenue for core social programs and services at every level of government in every single province.

Over 115,000 Albertans are out of work and not receiving any employment insurance assistance right now and tens of thousands more have lost their jobs. The Liberals' anti-energy agenda is clearly both hindering the private sector from being able to provide well-paying jobs, but it is also risking the life savings of many Canadians.

Oil and gas companies are a big part of most people's pension plans, and whether through employer provided defined contribution plans or personal investments in mutual funds, chances are that most Canadians are invested in oil and gas. When oil and gas companies leave Canada, the value of those investments in Canada drops, reducing the value of everyone's retirement savings. Now CPP and the Ontario teachers' pension plan are also investing in the United States.

I want to highlight an aspect of this legislation that will compound uncertainty and challenges for Canadian oil and gas proponents. On page 589, in the very last chapter of this 840-page omnibus bill, clause 692 implements sweeping new powers for the federal cabinet to impose regulations on marine transport. Included in these powers is the ability to pass regulations:

(j) respecting compulsory routes and recommended routes;

(k) regulating or prohibiting the operation, navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels or classes of vessels; and

(l) regulating or prohibiting the loading or unloading of a vessel or a class of vessels.

This means the Liberal cabinet can block any class of tanker from any route leaving Canada or from docking at any port the Liberals choose. In Bill C-48, oil tankers of a certain size will be prevented from travelling and from the loading and off-loading of crude at ports only off the northern coast of B.C.

This legislation, Bill C-86, would be a dramatic expansion, giving the Liberal cabinet the power to block oil exports from any port anywhere in Canada or to block oil tankers in general from entering Canadian waters. Places like the Arctic could lose access to the fuel tankers that keep power on during the winter. Offshore oil and gas development in Atlantic Canada could be blocked overnight. That is alarming in itself, and it gets worse.

This legislation authorizes a single minister to be able to make legally binding changes to these regulations for a year at a time and even up to three years, regarding “compulsory routes” and “prohibiting the operation, navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels or classes of vessels”. One minister with one stroke of a pen can shut down an entire industry with wide-ranging impacts.

This is a pattern. The Liberals repeatedly demonstrate their hostility to the oil and gas sector in Canada. The Prime Minister of course said that he wants to phase out the oil sands, and Canadians should believe him. He defended the use of tax dollars for summer jobs to stop the Trans Mountain expansion. The Liberals removed the tax credit for new exploration oil drilling at the very worst time.

Also, many Liberal MPs ran in the last election opposing the export of Canada's oil to the world. Since they formed government, the Liberals have used every tool at their disposal to kill energy sector jobs.

Canada is the only top 10 oil-producing country in the world, let alone in North America, to impose a carbon tax on itself. While there are significant exemptions for major industrial emitters, it will hike costs for operations across the value chain, and certainly for the 80% of Canadian service and supply companies that are small businesses. Moreover, individual contractors will still have to pay it.

The proposed clean fuel standards—which would be unprecedented globally because they would be applied to buildings and facilities, not just to transportation fuel—will cost integrated oil and gas companies as well as refining and petrochemical development in Canada hundreds of millions of dollars. Canada is literally the most environmentally and socially responsible producer of oil and gas in the world, oil and gas that the world will continue to demand for decades. We are falling dramatically behind the United States and other countries for regulatory efficiency and clarity.

The Liberals imposed the tanker ban, with no substantial economic, safety, or environmental assessments and no real consultation, and a ban on offshore drilling in the north against the wishes of the premier of the Northwest Territories.

The Prime Minister vetoed outright the northern gateway pipeline and then intervened to kill energy east with delays, rule changes and a last-minute double standard. Now, the Liberals' failures have driven Kinder Morgan out of Canada. Construction of the Trans Mountain expansion has never started in the two years since the Liberals approved it, and they have repeatedly kicked the can down the road for months. The consequence is that crude oil is now being shipped by rail and truck at record levels, negatively impacting other sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and retail.

The Liberals would add uncertainty and great expense for any resource project that has even a ditch on its property, by subjecting all water to the navigable waters regulatory regime in Bill C-68. Moreover, their “no more pipelines” Bill C-69 would block any future pipelines and therefore stop major oil and gas projects from being built in Canada.

Kinder Morgan is now going to take all of that $4.5 billion in Canadian tax dollars the Liberals spent on the existing pipeline and will use it to build pipelines in the United States, Canada's biggest energy competitor and customer. The consequences are that large companies are pulling out of Canada and investing in the U.S. or elsewhere.

Encana, a made in Canada success story, is selling Canadian assets to buy into projects in the United States. Gwyn Morgan, its founder, did not mince words. He said:

I’m deeply saddened that, as a result of the disastrous policies of the [Liberal] government, what was once the largest Canadian-headquartered energy producer now sees both its CEO and the core of its asset base located in the U.S.

It is estimated that the Liberal failure to get pipelines built is forcing Canadian oil to sell for $100 million dollars less a day than what it should be worth. That is $100 million dollars a day that is not providing for middle-class families, that is not fuelling small businesses, and not generating taxes to pay off the out-of-control Liberal deficit.

RBC recently reported that in 2008, taxes generated by oil and gas were worth $35 billion a year for provincial and federal governments. That is now down to almost $10 billion a year in 2016. That is more than $20 billion a year that could have gone to health care and education or to cover old age security costs, or be invested in building bridges and roads. Of course, the Liberals promised a deficit of only $10 billion a year and that the budget would be balanced by 2019, but none of that is anywhere in sight. They choose to spend recklessly: millions of dollars on perks like renovations for ministers' offices, a $5 million hockey rink on Parliament Hill that operated for a couple of months, or $26 million for vehicles. Never mind the billions of dollars spent outside Canada, building oil and gas pipelines in Asia with Canadian tax dollars or funding groups linked to anti-Semitism and terrorism.

Never has a government spent so much and achieved so little. The end result is Canada is trapped in a debt spiral. The ones who are going to pay for these deficits are millennials and their children, and it makes life less affordable today while federal government debt increases interest rates across the board. That poses significant risks to Canada and leaves us utterly unprepared for a global economic recession or worldwide factors that the government cannot control, unlike the Liberals' damaging policies. Future generations will find that their governments cannot afford services or programs they are counting on, and their governments will be in a trap of borrowing and hiking taxes. That is why Conservatives advocate balanced budgets, because it is the only responsible thing to do for Canada's children and grandchildren.

The out-sized contributions of the energy sector to the whole country's economy and to government revenue is also why the future of energy development in Canada is one of the most important domestic economic questions facing all of us. That is what makes the Liberal layering of red tape and costs on Canadian energy so unconscionable, and the consequences so devastating for all of Canada.

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

I appreciate your analysis enormously. Bill C-68, of course, would prohibit the taking of whales and dolphins in the wild in Canadian waters, but it doesn't prohibit keeping them in captivity if they come from overseas or if they've been bred in captivity. The purpose of Bill S-203 is very clearly not to keep cetaceans in captivity in Canada. The amendment in Bill C-68, which we really welcomed, is totally consistent, but it applies, as you said, only to one part of the same topic. It doesn't accomplish the same ends. Taking this forward would be great.

If it had been known to Senator Wilfred Moore, the originator of this bill in the Senate, that the then Minister of Fisheries was on the verge of banning the taking of whales and dolphins in captivity, he would have left that section out of Bill S-203. However, it proceeded from the Senate in advance of when the minister put forward Bill C-68 for first reading.

It would certainly create unwanted complexities for the government to try to change that one section now that it's in the Senate, just as it would create unnecessary complications for Bill S-203 to try to remove that. The only real question is whether there is any incompatibility. There isn't. They work together toward one of the same purposes, but Bill S-203 is toward a rather different end and we'll have to see how it does in committee.

While I have the microphone, I'd just say that I consulted with senators Wilfred Moore and Murray Sinclair, who took the bill forward through the Senate. In terms of which committee you might direct it to, it appears most logical that it go to the fisheries committee. I just wanted to make that suggestion while that was under review.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

If C-68 and S-203 both passed, would they create a contradiction in law?

[David Groves, Committee Researcher]

I'm happy to discuss any of the bills that the committee has before it, but as Mr. Graham has mentioned, I'm going to focus my comments on one bill in particular, which is Bill S-203. It is my assessment that all three of these bills could be declared non-votable, but Bill S-203 I feel requires a bit more elaboration.

Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, ending the captivity of whales and dolphins, is a Senate public bill that seeks to accomplish three goals: one, to prohibit the keeping of a cetacean—which I have learned is a whale or a dolphin or other animals in that family—in captivity; two, to prohibit the catching of a cetacean so as to keep it in captivity; and three, to prohibit the import and export of a live cetacean.

In so doing, the bill would make amendments to the Criminal Code, to the Fisheries Act and to the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. Of note for the committee, it would amend the Fisheries Act by adding section 28.1, of which subsection 28.1(1) would read as follows:

Subject to subsection (2), no one shall move a live cetacean, including a whale, dolphin or porpoise, from its immediate vicinity with the intent to take it into captivity.

Proposed subsection 28.1(2) reads:

A person may move a live cetacean from its immediate vicinity when the cetacean is injured or in distress and is in need of assistance.

I have flagged this proposed section in particular because there is another bill before Parliament that would make a similar amendment to the Fisheries Act. This is Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. It's a government bill.

Bill C-68, which was passed by the House and is currently at second reading in the Senate, has a number of stated goals, one of which, as described in its summary, is to:

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

To achieve this goal, Bill C-68 would add section 23.1 to the Fisheries Act, which would read as follows:

23.1(1) Subject to subsection (2), no one shall fish for a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity.

(2) The Minister may, subject to any conditions that he or she may specify, authorize a person to fish for a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity if he or she is of the opinion that the circumstances so require, including when the cetacean is injured or in distress or is in need of care.

To summarize, Bill C-68 would prohibit the fishing of a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity. Bill S-203 would prohibit the moving of a live cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity. Both would achieve these goals by making amendments to the Fisheries Act.

Normally, this subcommittee evaluates public members' bills on four criteria that were established in a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which you're all familiar with. Standing Order 92(1)(a), however, states that when considering Senate public bills, such as Bill S-203, the only criterion is whether the bill “is similar to a bill voted on by the House in the same Parliament”.

As echoed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “the only ground on which such a bill can be designated non-votable is its similarity to a bill voted on by the House in the same Parliament.”

This is simply to say that while there may be some similarities between the issue before the committee today and issues that have arisen around private members' bills over the last year, Bill S-203 has not been assessed on the basis of those criteria that the committee was applying in those circumstances. This is a different test.

Per the standing order, the only question is whether Bill C-68 and Bill S-203 are similar enough that Bill S-203 should be declared non-votable.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a clear similarity between the bills. Both of them would amend the Fisheries Act to prohibit the capturing of a cetacean for the purposes of keeping it in captivity. It could, therefore, be argued that they are similar and thus that Bill S-203 should be declared non-votable.

However, there are differences. Preventing the capture of cetaceans is only one of three goals in Bill S-203, which also seeks to prohibit the keeping of cetaceans and the importing and exporting of cetaceans. These are unique to Bill S-203. Bill C-68 is only interested in the act of capturing a cetacean. Bill C-68 also makes a number of other changes to the Fisheries Act that have nothing to do with cetaceans, which are the sole focus of Bill S-203.

As such, it is my assessment that these bills are partially, rather than completely, similar. The bills overlap in one aspect, but not in all aspects.

In the past, assessments of how votable a bill is have been conducted with the purpose of this committee in mind, which I understand to be to provide members with the fullest opportunity possible to use their private members' time effectively, so that if a bill or a motion would have little or no effect because of similarity, members should be given the opportunity to replace it with something that would be meaningful.

In this case, it is my assessment that there is enough difference between these two bills that were Bill S-203 to advance and become law, it would have a distinct effect. Both bills prohibit capturing, and in this respect Bill S-203 would be redundant. However, Bill S-203 would go further in prohibiting the keeping of cetaceans and the importing or exporting as well. As such, the committee could decide that this bill should be declared not non-votable.

Having said that, this assessment is not binding on the subcommittee. I'm here for your assistance. The issue of whether a partial similarity between items is so substantial that a private member's item would have little or no distinct effect—in other words, the issue of how similar is too similar—is not apparent from the text of the Standing Orders. The standing order simply says “similar”, and my assessment is based on past decisions of the subcommittee and my understanding of the subcommittee's purpose. This is different enough to be declared not non-votable.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a quick question and I'll then toss it to my friend Mr. Badawey.

A lot of the provisions, as we heard from the last panel, have been consulted in the process of developing bills C-48, C-64, C-68 and C-55. Between this committee and the fisheries committee, we've done a deeper dive into it, clause-by-clause, recommendations, etc., but there was one example that helped me understand the nature of your concern. That was with respect to protecting the north Atlantic right whale. There was a slowdown and fishing bans in certain areas, and it was ultimately discovered that they had probably overreacted, that they could have taken a more refined approach to protecting that whale from ship collisions, in this case.

Based on what we've heard from you, would you be content if an interim order came down—as you mentioned, Ms. Simard, for a short period of time—that allowed for refinements to come forward that might mitigate what otherwise would be unnecessary impacts on your industry?

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

The complementary bills that are folded into this initiative—Bill C-48, the crude oil moratorium on the north coast, Bill C-64 regarding wrecked, abandoned and dilapidated vessels, and BillC-68 and Bill C-55, a couple that relate to the Fisheries Act and the Oceans Act—are they basically all enclosed, if you will, in divisions 22 and 23, or do they comprise what's going forward in this budget implementation bill that's of concern to this committee?

Elections Modernization Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a good day when we can stand in the House and talk about electoral reform. This piece of legislation is so important. The government says this is a critical piece of legislation that is significant and important to the government. It is so important that the Liberals have once again forced closure on debate.

Let me refresh the memories of those who are paying attention and those in the gallery. It is a packed gallery today on a Friday, which I am glad to see. I know there are many Canadians listening in to this riveting debate and this speech is going to be another one of those riveting speeches.

In 2015, the member for Papineau was campaigning on the Liberal plan for real change. He said that under their government, they would be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. We have seen how that is. He also said that they would let the debate reign and then he targeted the former administration and how closure was used and how unacceptable that was and that Prime Minister Harper was silencing Canadians and those they elected to be their voice. Here we sit, and over 50 times closure has been enacted on legislation. Why? Because if the Liberals do not like what they are hearing, then they just pick up their toys and run off to another sandbox, which is sad.

I have said this before, but on a piece of legislation that is so important, I would remind my colleagues across the way and the Prime Minister that the House does not belong to him. It does not belong to those of us who are here. It belongs to the electors, those who elected the 338 members of Parliament to be their voices. When the Prime Minister and his team enact closure, he is essentially saying to Canadians and those who elected the opposition that their voices do not matter. That is shameful.

The government would like us to believe that the electoral changes that were implemented by Prime Minister Harper and his team in the last administration somehow targeted some of our most marginalized Canadians, that they were unfair, and that they were just another way for the Conservatives to attack Canadian democracy. The 2015 election had the highest voter turnout. The changes that our previous administration enacted increased the number of acceptable forms of identification, making it easier for those who might not have a driver's licence or a passport. The changes made it easier for people to vote and say that they are Canadian. We hope all Canadians and members in the House believe that we need to make sure that who is voting is who should be voting. Only Canadians have a say as to who we are electing to govern this beautiful country of ours.

It is important that those who are sitting in the House are here representing Canadians. They are not backed by, let us say, foreign funds. It is really interesting that we listen to talking points time and time again. The gentleman from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook stands and is very animated. I love listening to his speeches and love that he ties it back to his community. I have to take a moment to remind everyone that it was his family that received a lucrative surf clam quota from the former fisheries minister.

Open and transparent? What is transparent is that if people have Liberal connections, they get the quota. If people have Liberal connections, they get the appointment. For those who are connected to the Liberal Party in any way, and it might be a foreign entity, Liberal legislation is geared to helping them out, whether it be Bill C-68, Bill C-69, Bill C-55, or what we are now seeing, Bill C-76.

In 2015, a total of 114 third parties poured $6 million into influencing the election outcome, and many of those third parties were funded by U.S.-based Tides Foundation. That should strike fear in every Canadian.

If I seem a little more animated than I normally am, it is because there was an organization called Leadnow. In 2015, Tides Foundation donated $1.5 million U.S. to Canadian third parties, such as Leadnow. Leadnow actually, right after the election in 2016, won an international award. Canadians can go to their website, www.leadnow.ca. I cannot guarantee that the report will be on there after this debate, but it is on there now and the pictures are on there. It proudly boasts how it organized and funded, dollars going into Canada, the third-party groups. I know some of my colleagues across the way are quickly going to their iPads and iPhones to check this out right now.

There is a picture of Leadnow receiving an international award for defeating Stephen Harper. It proudly boasts that this is how it did it. It had hundreds and hundreds of paid volunteers. “Paid volunteers” is an oxymoron. It sounds like they are in the military, except if they were in the military under this Liberal government, they would be asked to do more but would not necessarily be paid for what they did. Their sleeping bags would be taken away, as well as their rucksacks. They would be given used aircraft.

These paid volunteers went all over the place to 29 target ridings, ones where they thought Conservatives would be the most vulnerable. They hammered the ridings with all of their media, all of the fliers. They went to universities and all of these groups, and they said that we have to get out the dirty Cons, and this is the way to do it. There was Fair Vote, www.fairvote.ca and www.votetogether.ca/. They always use the .ca to make it look like they are Canadian companies. It was all funded by U.S.-based companies.

My riding was one of those ridings they targeted. They succeeded in 25 of those 29 ridings, but they did not take my riding. I challenge them to come back.

For those who are listening, this is very real. It is not that we are trying to be divisive or to sow the seeds of fear. This is real. Canadians should pay attention to where that money is coming from, whether it is Greenpeace, WWF, or the Tides Foundation, all of whom are based on making the planet a better place.

Many of the people who are those organizations' senior offices take up senior positions in the government. What did Gerald Butts do previously? He was president and CEO of WWF, the World Wildlife Foundation. Where do they get the core funding? It is the Tides Foundation, which is calling the shots for the guys across the way, and probably setting all the policy objectives in some of our most senior cabinet ministers' offices, all tied to foreign-funded groups with an agenda.

What we see with this bill right here is payback. What we see with Bill C-68 is payback. What we see with Bill C-69 is payback. What we see with Bill C-55 is payback.

I have heard fishermen and fishing industry organizations say they cannot get a meeting with the minister unless they go through an NGO. That is shameful.

Going back to this bill for my last 10 seconds, the only people who matter, the people who matter the most, are those who elect us here. They should be Canadians. We stand here for Canadians. Canadians should have a say on who votes and who represents them. They should also have a say in the debate.

[Brendan Marshall]

Why is that? We don't have confidence that the bill could be amended without undue risk from the package that's been proposed as is.

For example, let me draw your attention to another bill, Bill C-68. It had a well-intentioned amendment at the House of Commons committee, which, through poor drafting, has resulted in a potential to compromise the entire Fisheries Act.

So when we're—

[Ray Orb]

Of course, we have opposed the amendments, the changes to the legislation. Actually, both Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 affect fisheries and navigable waters. We feel that the changes are actually going to impede what municipalities need to do as far as work is concerned. The projects will be delayed. We have a lot of examples that we showed to the committee of how that would add costs and time delays. We've relayed those concerns. We understand that now the Senate will be looking at that bill. We're actually hoping there will be some amendments to that to make it easier for municipalities, not only in Saskatchewan but across the country, to do their work while still protecting the environment.

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Motion No. 190, the private member's motion brought forward by my colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville. I agree with some of his comments but have to disagree with others.

One of the aspects of his speech which I agree with is the fact that we are undervaluing a lot of these careers, whether they are in construction, agriculture, tourism or hospitality. We have to do a much better job of speaking with students when they are in high school, or even elementary school, and talk about the incredible opportunities available to them in these types of careers. Absolutely, one may be starting on the front lines as a dishwasher or a labourer, but there are opportunities to work up the ladder, be successful in that career and earn a very strong income. In concert with industry, as parliamentarians and parents, we need to do a much better job of ensuring that industry gets the word out to the schools and guidance counsellors. It needs to be part of the curriculum in order to ensure these careers are understood as the incredible opportunities that they are.

I grew up in a rural area, and the misperception when I was younger was that anyone who wanted to go into skilled trades was making a bad decision and it meant they could not make it in university or college. If they only knew the wages available in some of those skilled trades, the guidance counsellors may have given us different advice.

I want to talk about the scope of this study. It concerns me that it is so focused on Toronto and Hamilton. It highlights an issue with the Liberal government. It has become so urban-centric, so GTA-centric. I have spent the last several years travelling across the country focused mainly on agriculture, but I have spoken with many other industries and they are concerned with the inaccessibility of labour. It is a crisis out there. Some businesses have closed. I met with a greenhouse operator in B.C. just last week, who closed her vegetable greenhouse because she could not get the labour. Many of the other businesses we have spoken with are at risk of closing because they cannot access the labour.

The Liberal government has set a very high target. It wants $75 billion in additional agriculture exports by 2025. It is an aspirational goal but it can be done. Agriculture is ready. However, every tool that it has in order to reach that goal is being taken away. One of those critical pillars is access to labour. I would like to see this motion expanded to include other industries, sectors and certainly other parts of the country.

I appreciate my colleague's comments about why he focused this on the GTA, but to compare what is going on in the GTA to what is going on in rural Saskatchewan, Canada's north or the labour shortage in Quebec City is really difficult. There are so many different factors involved. I would like to see the scope of this motion expanded.

My colleague also spoke about some of the great accomplishments the Liberal government has had. I find it ironic that he is concerned about the labour shortage. He talks about the $180-billion infrastructure promise that the Liberal government made in 2015, yet only 6% of those funds have actually been committed to real projects. We cannot get any of these major infrastructure projects built because the money is not rolling out the door. The Trans Mountain pipeline is an infrastructure project which is on very shaky legs. It makes it hard to get Canadians back to work and get them encouraged about going into the skilled trades when they see none of these projects are going to happen. It is disconcerting.

We have to ensure there is a bright future. If we want to ensure young people understand the value of these jobs, they also have to see there is a career opportunity in these jobs, and that some of these opportunities will be there. Right now, I can sense their frustration. Why should they go into some of these skilled trades, such as pipefitting, welding or steel work, if we cannot get any of these infrastructure projects built? That is a critical piece of this. The government needs to start showing that it can get these projects done, get the money out the door and make this a priority. That is highlighted for rural communities, and is certainly what I have heard in my trips across rural Canada. Canadians are extremely frustrated that they see everything with the Liberal government is urban focused.

The map that came out last week in the Huffington Post or iPolitics showed where the vast majority of infrastructure dollars have been committed. The vast majority are in urban centres. I understand that this are where the mass part of the population is, but they cannot do that and neglect some of our rural areas at the same time. That is why I think it is important that we expand the scope of this motion and this study at the HUMA committee, of which I am a very proud member.

We have to look at some of the other issues that are part of this: higher taxes, punitive regulations, surrendering our sovereignty as part of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, not being able to remove steel and aluminum tariffs and not being able to get a softwood lumber agreement. All of these have an impact on attracting Canadians to these types of careers. They need to understand that are there is opportunity and a future there. Right now, with the pace this is going, Canadians see the writing on the wall. There is not a future in some of these careers, because the jobs simply will not be there long term. That is extremely disconcerting.

Let us take a look at Bill C-68 and Bill C-69. Regardless of what happens with Trans Mountain, it is very clear that if these pieces of legislation go through, we will never have another major infrastructure project built in this country, whether it is a pipeline, a mining operation or another resource extraction initiative. It is going to be very difficult to get these projects built.

When I speak to some of our stakeholders in agriculture, construction and hospitality and tourism, there is no question that their inability to access labour is much beyond a motion at a committee. It is a crisis. They need action on this quickly.

I am going to support this study, because I think we can get some really good recommendations out of it. It is still worthwhile going through that process. I hope we get some tangible recommendations from the study.

Again, we have had businesses close, and others are at risk of closing. We heard it at the agriculture committee yesterday. Some of the farmers and ranchers were talking about the mental stress they are under. One of the reasons they cited for that mental stress was the inability to access labour for their businesses. They are taking on much too much. They are working hard, long hours. It is difficult navigating the temporary foreign worker and seasonal ag worker programs. They said, almost unanimously, that over the last three years, under the Liberal government, being able to navigate these programs has become almost unattainable.

My hon. colleague talked a little bit about the temporary foreign worker program. We have to find a permanent solution to what is a permanent problem. Just tweaking the temporary foreign worker program or making some adjustments to that program is not good enough. We have to have bold changes when it comes to accessing labour.

Exhausting what resources we have right now to deal with illegal border crossers is not the way to do it. We need to put our focus on processing the applications of legitimate immigrants who are going to be coming to Canada and having a significant, positive impact on our economic development. These are people who are going to be filling job vacancies in skilled labour areas where we desperately need those jobs filled. That has to be another part of this discussion. Where do we put our focus in immigration? How do they access that system? How do our stakeholders access that system? How do they get through that process?

We have to build a pathway to Canada. I hope this is going to be part of that. Again, we need bold changes. I really look forward to working with our stakeholders across Canada as part of this study to come up with a permanent solution to a permanent problem to address the labour crisis that is happening right now across Canada.

[Sergio Marchi]

Yes, I was going to say, lighten the load.

To an earlier question, I didn't say that we advocated deletion. First of all, we're amalgamating all the regulatory initiatives impacting our industry from among 14 governments, and it's proving to be quite the job.

Second, Tim was right in mentioning a number of bills and instruments to which we have offered amendments. We're not saying, don't do Bill C-68. What we're saying on the fisheries bill, for example, is, don't impose the killing of one fish rather than an entire school of fish to be the new threshold.

Regulatory lightening is certainly one. Second is increasing our productivity in measure to the gap that's always been there with the United States, as a way to manage and bridge that gap.

Accessible Canada Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-81, or as I call it, another Liberal feel good bill that is short on details, does not note how it will actually help the disabled, and yet somehow manages to detail how it will grow the bureaucracy, but that is just a working title.

This situation with the delay in getting to this bill kind of reminds me of an old Seinfeld episode where Newman and Elaine steal someone's dog. It takes the police a while to catch them. When Newman is confronted by the police, he asks, “What took you so long?” That is what I would like to ask the government.

We will support this bill in order to get it to committee, where hopefully we will get the Liberals to actually work on concrete measures to help improve the lives of the disabled. I have heard that the bill may go to the government operations committee, on which I sit. We would welcome that if it does come to us. We are going to suggest and support amendments to ensure that it actually helps the disabled, and is not just a make-work project for bureaucrats.

The establishment of this bill was in the first minister's mandate letter in 2015. Ironically, the current Minister of Public Services was the original Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, tasked with this legislation three years ago. Back then, her mandate read:

Lead an engagement process with provinces, territories, municipalities, and stakeholders that will lead to the passage of a Canadians with Disabilities Act. In this work, you will be supported by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

Work with the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to deliver on our commitment to support the construction of recreational infrastructure that allows more children access to sport and recreation.

It is a bit ironic that the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities at the time was the MP for Edmonton Mill Woods. In West Edmonton, my riding, we have been looking to build a new recreation centre specifically as outlined in the mandate letter. Unfortunately, our minister, the senior minister for the Liberals in Edmonton, Alberta, has been completely absent on this issue. We have not received a single penny.

Recently, Huffington Post put out this big article and a map showing how the Liberals, in the summer, plastered most of eastern Canada with cheques: $43 billion. They showed how much was actually delivered to Edmonton: not one penny. Some $43 billion went to various Liberal ridings and not one penny was delivered by the Liberals to Edmonton. We will get to more on that issue later.

It has taken three years to get to introducing the bill that actually just punts the work down the road over the next six years. From the mandate letter to maybe actually achieving goals is going to be nine years.

The famed Liberal mandate tracker says on this issue that it is under way and on track. Regarding the development of a national disabilities act, it says the result anticipated is for federal accessibility legislation that promotes equality and opportunity, increases inclusion and participation of Canadians who have disabilities, with the outcome being that building on extensive nine-month in-person and online consultation with Canadians, the government has tabled the bill.

In three years since the mandate letter, the Liberals managed to consult for nine months. That makes me ask what they have done for the other two years and three months. It is funny that the current minister probably thought she could just transfer to another department and escape the mandate, yet here it is back with her at public services to fulfill.

Now, as for being under way and on track, it has taken three years to get to it being under way and on track. It has a bit of funding over six more years, and they say that it is on track.

I want to look at a few other things from the Liberal mandate tracker that are also under way and on track.

There is the review of Canada's environmental assessment project: under way and on track. Another refers to environmental assessment processes that are fair to all parties, rely on scientific evidence, respect the rights of indigenous people and protect the environment for generations to come. Here we have the Liberals failing on Trans Mountain. Their Bill C-68 is also known as the bill to ensure that a pipeline will never be built in Canada again. It says “rely on scientific evidence”, but this bill actually puts the final word and the political decision-making with the minister, not basing it on science. However, it is under way and on track.

Another is to establish new performance standards for government services, and measure and report on performance: under way and on track. The result is to be government services that better meet the needs of Canadians.

Every single government has to put out a departmental plan. In that plan, it lists all of its goals and expected results. Fully one-third of the entire departmental plan from every Liberal ministry does not actually have goals set. They all say what they are spending and what they hope to achieve in a roundabout way, but there are no actual goals set. Here we have that it is on track, but fully one-third of their programs do not have any results showing as a goal.

Here is another one that is under way and on track. Sure, committees can introduce effective opioid treatments and programs, but we have an opioid crisis across the country. The much reviled by the Liberals President Trump has actually declared it a national emergency in the United States, but the government cannot do that here, yet it is on track.

Another one under way and on track is to eliminate all long-term drinking water advisories in public systems on reserves. It is a great goal. The result anticipated is to continue progress in eliminating long-term drinking water advisories. Since this mandate came out, we have had 35 new communities that have been put on the boil water advisory. The Liberals sit there and say that they have done this, this and this, but they have actually added 35 new communities. However, it is under way and on track.

Another one is to help veterans by establishing lifelong pensions ensuring they will have access to financial advice and support. We have seen the current government fail miserably on that, but it is under way and on track.

It says that promoting economic development and creating jobs for indigenous people is under way and on track. The result anticipated is higher employment rates for indigenous people. In the government operations committee we recently studied small business procurement and how we have set-asides for indigenous businesses. We are required to set aside a certain amount of business through the government for indigenous-led businesses. The government had someone come up and say that they are fulfilling every role and succeeding massively. However, every single witness we have had from the indigenous community, Métis, Cree, it does not matter, from Alberta and Quebec, every single witness said that the government is not even following its own laws, yet here it says it is under way and on track.

It says that to implement an infrastructure strategy that improves public transport is under way and on track. The result anticipated is that Canadians spend less time in traffic. We have heard the Parliamentary Budget Officer say that he cannot even find the infrastructure money that has been established in the budget. He has begged the government to produce an infrastructure strategy, which the government has not done, yet somehow the Liberals say it is under way and on track. I will note that the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, when he was the infrastructure minister, managed to get some work done on public transport in Alberta. He got ashtrays for the bus stops in Edmonton and so I thank him.

It says that modernizing the National Energy Board is under way and on track. We have seen the government belittle, bad-mouth and discredit the NEB, yet it says it is on track to modernize it. Bad-mouthing and discrediting it is not modernizing it.

My favourite from the Liberal mandate checker has to be the budget: to balance the budget by 2019-20 is under way with challenges. Now, it is not going to be balanced, and the most recent update we heard from finance was 2050. Here is the funny thing: Every single finance minister from the provinces across Canada has set a date when they will balance their budget. In Alberta, where we have the financially challenged and mathematically challenged NDP spending us into bankruptcy, it has actually set a date for when it will balance the budget. Even with Kathleen Wynne's Liberals, the finance minister had set a date when they would balance the budget. Of course, it turns out it was all incorrect information, but they set a date to balance the budget. Who has not set a date to balance the budget? Well, it is the finance minister from this government. Every single other one but the finance minister has, but I digress.

Ensuring Canadians who are living with disabilities are allowed to live with equal opportunities by eliminating systematic barriers is a great cause. We all support it. My office works with a great many in Edmonton West on this issue. I want to read a letter from one of them. His name is Timothy Parnett. He is a gentleman who was hurt in a car accident years ago and is confined to a wheelchair with limited movement in his arms and legs.

He writes, “I run the advocacy group called Mightywheels.ca. This organization was created to address accessibility within the community. Our mission is simple: Mightywheels.ca wants to bring attention to poor infrastructure and problem areas in the community that you live in. Mightywheels is located in Edmonton, Alberta. Edmonton has grown at a rapid pace within the past few decades, so much so that the city struggles to keep up with the demand of reconstruction of aider communities, where the accessibility conditions are severely lacking, even deplorable to a certain extent. 1 am hoping to raise awareness for the struggles that people with wheels or mobility issues face every day.”

He goes on to say that he has a website that is “geared to help people who face social inequality, the main issue we currently address is accessibility for all people: we focus on the barriers that cause inaccessibility: these would be things like parents pushing baby strollers, people with mobility issues or impairments, or people who use walking aids or wheelchairs like myself.” He writes:

Here is one gentleman confined to a wheelchair with no resources who has put in a simple email better outcomes than what are in Bill C-81. He finished by saying, “My Mightywheels website is to give hope to everyone who has an issue with accessibility. l am very passionate with my website and l am hoping that people will be enlightened and educate. Most of all, l am hoping people will see and hear my advocacy. This is not just for me, but for all the people who have issues with mobility. l am a firm believer that together we can do it one step at time.”

I had a coffee with Tim at West Edmonton Mall. We chatted about his accident and his difficulties in life and what he wanted to achieve. He wants to inspire people to succeed. I am going to consider it a failure if the next time I see him I have to say it is a great idea but to hold on for the next six years because this legislation is going to take that long.

It reminds me of an interview when the Prime Minister told a desperate unemployed oil sands worker in Alberta to just hang in there. That was over two years ago. Since then the Liberals have killed energy east and northern gateway, and have botched Trans Mountain. I guess we are going to have to tell those workers to just hang in there a bit more.

It also reminds me of the injured veteran at the Edmonton town hall who had lost a leg. Pleading for help, he was told by the Prime Minister that veterans are asking for more than the government could give. Ten million dollars for an ice rink on Parliament Hill is not too much to ask for and $10 million for Omar Khadr is not too much to ask for, but it is for a veteran.

I want to go back to the mandate letters. The next minister for disabilities was the member for Calgary Centre. His mandate letter stated, “Develop and introduce new federal accessibility legislation. You will build on the significant consultations that have already taken place involving provinces, territories”, etc. By then, the consultations were going to have to be done.

Did the minister get it done? Of course he did not. Part of his mandate letter also read that he was expected to live up to the highest ethical standards. Instead, he is under investigation by the Ethics Commissioner for using House of Commons resources for a family member's election.

We are now over to our third minister for the file. She too will build on the significant consultations that have already taken place. Hers too should be an ambitious legislation. Six years is not ambitious unless it is the Minister of Finance balancing the budget when 20 years would be ambitious, but in his case apparently it is going to be 30.

What I am getting at is that we do not need six years of added bureaucracy. We need a truly ambitious plan to help the disabled. Provinces have plans. Ontario has the Ontarians With Disabilities Act. This is not new ground that we are breaking here. It has been done before.

The previous Conservative government took the disabilities file seriously. We did not pass off the issues from minister to minister. We actually got stuff done, like introducing the landmark registered disability savings plan, which helps parents and grandparents with children with severe disabilities to contribute to the children's financial security. From mandate letter to actually getting it done, it was three months, not three years to get to a program where six years down the road we might have something done, three years from mandate letter to actually getting to legislation and getting the program done.

We invested $30 million into the opportunities fund to help persons with disabilities gain employment. We supported caregivers and recognized their enormous contribution through tax incentives. There was over $200 million for labour market agreements for persons with disabilities to assist provinces in approving the employment situation of Canadians with disabilities, and millions of dollars for the ready, willing and able initiative of the Canadian Association for Community Living to connect persons with developmental disabilities with jobs, and millions to support the expansion of vocational training programs for persons with autism spectrum disorder, and on and on.

I want to swing back to the registered disability savings plan. Since we introduced the plan, it has helped 105,000 Canadians save for the future. This is the outcomes-based work that we need from the current government. Conservatives are not in power anymore, but the members on this side are continuing to work for the disabled.

My seatmate, the member for Calgary Shepard, has introduced Bill C-399, the fairness for persons with disabilities act. It aims to reduce the threshold for the number of hours needed for an activity to be eligible for a tax credit. Medical food and medical formula would also qualify under the disability tax credit.

Our member for Carleton has introduced Bill C-395, the opportunity for workers with disabilities act, which is an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

His legislation would amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to ensure that persons with disabilities do not lose more through taxation and the reduction in benefits than they would gain as a result of working. His bill would enforce Ottawa to measure the impact of every thousand dollars a disabled person earns in wages against the value of their lost benefits. It would force the federal government to adjust its tax and benefits program so a disabled person would always be financially better off working than not working.

What has the Liberal government done besides passing this file from minister to minister to minister? It sicced the CRA on disabled people. It targeted people living with type 1 diabetes. As a diabetes sufferer stated, “It's not like I can snap a finger and this disease turns off.” The government was quick to go after people who suffered from diabetes, but slow to work on its mandate.

Who else did the Liberals target in their tax grab? They targeted people suffering from autism and severe mental health disorders. Autism Canada says it is hearing too many stories of people who have had the disability tax credit, sometimes for decades, for their children with autism taken away.

It is funny to note that I did not see in any of the Liberal mandate letters ministers being told to harass people with disabilities and to do a tax grab on them. They seem to have acted quickly on it, though. It is too bad they did not have it in their mandate letters, because this would be one issue they could actually mark as completed instead of marking it as “under way with challenges”.

We have a lot of questions on this legislation. We do support it like our colleagues in the NDP and other parties. We want it to get to committee so that we can get some teeth into the measures currently in it and help disabled people.

We do have some questions for the minister, though. When will the new regulations come into effect? The six-year time frame would suggest that the entire process is going to take six years to get done between now and the time help will be given to the disabled. How much is it going to cost federal workplaces and private businesses? What will the new standard be? Why will we be voting on legislation when we do not know the regulations that will come out of it? Is it going to be properly defined to avoid a flood of human rights complaints?

I want to go back to the comment about voting on legislation when we do not even know what the regulations will be. We saw the government do this recently with the estimates, in what we called vote 40, the slush fund. The government asked us to give it $7.4 billion and that it would tell us later what it would be spent on. When we asked further, we were told that it was presumptuous to expect opposition members to understand what the money would be used for until it was given to it.

We have another situation here. What is the $290 million going to be used for? Can the Liberals give us a breakdown of how it is going to be spent? Is it going to be spent on changing our buildings and updating them, or is it all going to be spent on bureaucracy? Have estimates been done on the cost to the private sector across the country? If the bill were passed today, what would the changes be, asides from spending lots of money on bureaucrats? Is it going toward hiring more public servants to examine which regulations we should have?

I note that in the 10-page slide deck or briefing document the government sent out, it provided more information on the bureaucracy going after people and penalizing them, etc., than it did on how the bill would help the average disabled person. We are worried about that.

Is the government going to build a bureaucracy that will create paperwork and go after people? It has not put anything in the bill specifying how it is going to physically and pragmatically help the disabled. What will the outcome be? We do not know. We do know that there will be a lot more bureaucrats going after people.

The $290 million will not even scratch the surface of what it is going to cost the federal government and the federally regulated private sectors to catch up to the new standards.

We have a lot of issues with this legislation, but we do support it. We support the work that we have done in the past toward helping disabled individuals. We continue to do so with our private members' bills, such as the one put forward by the member for Calgary Shepard and the member for Carleton. Both have produced bills that would show tangible results for the disabled without the resources the government has, whether it be easier access to the disability credit for those who are suffering from autism, diabetes, or mental health disorders, or as my friend from Carleton has put in his bill, that would encourage the disabled to get back to work. His bill would not punish someone by taking away benefits because they had a job. Nothing is better for the dignity of Canadians than having a job.

We support getting the bill to committee. We want to improve the lives of those living with disabilities, but we are worried about the lack of government ambition toward getting it done.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, following routine proceedings on Wednesday, June 20, 2018:

(a) Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act, be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(b) Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other Acts, be deemed concurred in at the report stage on division and deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(c) Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, be deemed read a third time and passed;

(d) Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be deemed read a third time and passed on division;

(e) Ways and Means No. 24 be deemed adopted on division, and that the Bill standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Finance entitled, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting, be deemed read a first time;

(f) the motion respecting Senate Amendments to Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Justice, be deemed adopted on division;

(g) the motion respecting Senate Amendments to Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Democratic Institutions, be deemed adopted on division;

(h) the 64th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled, Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment between Members, presented to the House on Monday June 4, 2018, be concurred in;

(i) the following motion be deemed adopted on division: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2) and in accordance with subsection 79.1(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-1, the House approve the appointment of Yves Giroux as Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years”; and

(j) the House shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 17, 2018, provided that, for the purposes of any Standing Order, it shall be deemed to have been adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28 and be deemed to have sat on Thursday, June 21 and Friday, June 22, 2018.

Impact Assessment Act

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap brings up a great point. I meant to bring it up, but I got so excited about all the other topics.

Bill C-69 and Bill C-68 are fluff pieces that kind of weighed into the 2015 campaign promises to the environmental groups. Fishermen groups have come to my office to tell me that when the Conservatives were in power, they could get in to see a minister, and now they need to go through an environmental group to see a minister. I have also heard that sitting around the table to develop this policy are more environmental groups than the actual stakeholders whom this is going to affect the most. We also know who is calling the shots at the highest level of government. It is Gerald Butts, who was the president and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund prior to coming to his current office and calling the shots.

Bill C-69 represents another fluff piece of legislation that both sides have said does not go far enough. I have said it before: Canadians and industry deserve a champion, and they are going to get one in 2019.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague from Calgary Midnapore for a very heartfelt intervention. I think I have just scrapped my entire speech because of what our colleague has mentioned.

It brought me back to growing up in the Cariboo and what our thoughts and dreams were as kids. I was one of the those kids who wanted to be a hockey player and to move on. However, the reality was, we were probably going to become a logger or a farmer, because that is what we did, and that is what we do very well in the Cariboo.

Bill C-69 bring us back to yet another failed election promise of the Liberals and to some of what we have mentioned throughout this House over recent days, weeks, and months. When the member for Papineau was campaigning in 2015, he talked about letting debate reign, yet here we sit.

This is the 44th time allocation that has been imposed on this House, meaning that the members of Parliament on the opposition side, and the Canadians who elected them, have not had the full opportunity to present their feelings about what the government is doing, whether it is on Bill C-69, Bill C-59, Bill C-71, or Bill C-68.

Thank goodness that the Standing Orders dictate that private members' bills cannot be time allocated, and our late colleague, Senator Enverga's private member's bill, Bill S-218, has had the full breadth of comments and support.

Bill C-69 seeks to reverse the 2012 changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I will bring us back again to the promise from the member for Papineau, or one of the Liberals, who said that the government would undertake a full review of laws, policies, and operational practices when it comes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

There are a number of people, groups, and organizations that have serious concerns over what Bill C-69 proposes. Our hon. colleague has mentioned, and it has been mentioned before, that most notably the legislation says it intends to decrease the timelines for both major and minor projects. Unfortunately, there are a myriad of ministerial and Governor in Council exemptions that can be exercised to slow down approvals.

What Bill C-69 represents is not a further clarification of the rules and regulations so that project proponents and those who are trying to enforce the act know where they stand, but rather it muddies the waters. What we have heard time and again, what the committee heard time and again, was that it was a wait and see. There was a lot of concern, and indeed those very groups, the environmental groups, that the Liberals campaigned to and got their vote are now saying that it does not meet the standards.

We have seen this over and over again with the government. It likes to say it has consulted with Canadians, and its Liberal members stand with their hand on their heart and talk about how important consultation is. Yet we know, time and again, as it is with the cannabis legislation, the Liberals are rushing legislation through without fully looking at some of the concerns that have been brought forward by the groups, the organizations, and the stakeholders who are going to be most impacted.

Let us talk about the Arctic surf clam in my file. I cannot stand up and do a speech nowadays without bringing up this injustice. The minister was given the authority and the discretion to go in and implement policy, without anybody checking how this would impact the stakeholders, and without the minister consulting about how that policy would impact those on the ground, the stakeholders, whose livelihoods truly depend on the Arctic surf clam fishery. These are some of the concerns that we have.

When the member for Papineau was campaigning, he said that omnibus bills were done for, and yet here we are again debating another 400-page piece of legislation.

He also talked about maybe having a small deficit of $10 billion. We now know that it will not be our children but our grandchildren who will see a balanced budget, because of the Liberal government's spending.

Bill C-69 represents more broken promises, and it does nothing to give confidence to industry. We know at this time that foreign investment is fleeing our nation at record levels. The CEO from Suncor recently spoke to Bill C-69 and said that it had absolutely put a nail in the coffin of Canadian investment in industry.

The government would like everyone to believe that it knows best and that the Ottawa-developed policies have the best intentions for Canadians, yet the Liberals are not listening when Canadians are speaking. They are not allowing members of Parliament to stand and bring the voices of Canadians to Parliament.

It would not be one of my speeches if I did not remind the House and Canadians that the House does not belong to me, and it sure as heck does not belong to those on the government side. It belongs to Canadians. All 338 members of Parliament and the Canadians who elected them deserve to have a say and to have their voices heard. When the government is forcing time allocation on pieces of legislation that fundamentally are going to have an impact on Canadians' lives, Canadians deserve to have a say.

Industry is shaken at the government's lack of consultation and lack of understanding on how we are moving forward. A good friend of mine, the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, asked our colleague from Calgary Midnapore about the industry's lack of confidence. Is it the carbon tax and the fact that the government refuses to tell Canadians how much it is going to be? Is it Bill C-69, the regulatory environment, that is shaking the confidence of the industry? Is it other legislation that is shaking the confidence of industry, or is it all of the above?

I would offer one more. The Prime Minister, in one of his earliest speeches to the world, spoke about how Canada was going to be known more for its resourcefulness than for its natural resources. The Liberals have waged war against our energy sector from day one. He said he wished the government could phase out the energy sector sooner and apologized for it.

Canadians and the energy sector, our natural resource industry, deserve a champion. The Minister of Natural Resources has said that it is about time our forestry producers and our energy producers got in line with what the world is doing in terms of technology and sustainable harvesting.

Whether it is our softwood lumber producers, our oil and gas producers, our fishermen on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, or our farmers, Canada has some of the best, if not the best, in terms of technology and harvesting. They are leading the way. They just need a champion. Guess what? They will have that in 2019, when the Conservatives regain the right side of the House.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have asked my colleague from Calgary Midnapore questions on a number of the packages that are contained in this bill. It also is relevant to Bill C-68 and the Fisheries Act. We noted that in our speeches last week as well. My colleague has talked about the number of businesses that have left Canada because of some of these regulations that are too onerous for them to be here and continue to work in the oil industry. One number we have heard is that $88 billion has left, and 110,000 jobs out of Alberta. I wonder if the member could expand on that.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will finish debating the last opposition day motion in this supply cycle. Then, we will debate the main estimates.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-68 on fisheries.

Next week will be a a busy one. Priority will be given to the following bills: Bill C-45 on cannabis, Bill C-59 on national security, Bill C-64 on abandoned vessels, Bill C-69 on environmental assessments, and Bill C-71 on firearms.

Fisheries Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-68.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 59.

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Impact Assessment Act

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand this evening to debate Bill C-69. I would like to say a number of things at the outset. The most obvious one is that the Liberals broke their promise with the bill. It has nothing to do with the wording of the bill and everything to do with the size of it.

First, the government said it would not have omnibus legislation and, as my colleagues mentioned earlier this evening, this is a 370-page bill. It cannot be put in any other context than it is an omnibus bill.

The second broken promise is that the bill is not very environmentally supportive by its very voluminous weight. It could have helped, in spite of its size, if it really would improve our environment, but this bill fails to do that.

A number of things have been said about the bill this evening and I will come back to those. However, a whole host of events has taken place around the rhetoric the government has put in this bill. The Liberals talk about trying to improve the environment, to create more jobs, and to improve those jobs, but they have ended up killing two pipelines already. One was the northern gateway pipeline across northern British Columbia to get oil in Alberta over to the west coast. The other one was the eastern access line to move oil to the New Brunswick area for refining purposes in that part of Canada.

Before I elaborate on that, I should inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Edmonton West. I know he will have much to say about the situation taking place in Alberta.

My perspective comes from the small amount of oil in southwest Manitoba, which happens to all be in my constituency. This is a very important issue to the communities, maybe not to Winnipeg as much, though it is impacted because a lot of income comes out of that area from this oil, and to the people who live in those communities and on the farms in that region as well. A great deal of work is being done by the oil industry in the southwest region, from trucking to the building of lines to the building of batteries to the moving oil from the wells to the batteries to the tracks to the loading facilities. We also have a major pipeline running right through the middle of my constituency, which moves the oil east and down through the United States.

There are thousands of jobs in my little southwest corner of Manitoba because of this industry. That is why it is so important to have certainty in this industry. It impacts the lives of individuals on farms as well. I went through the downturn in the farm economy, particularly BSE in 2003, droughts in 2003, and flooding in 2005, 2011, and 2014. Therefore, off-farm jobs in the oil industry have been a stabilizing factor in many of the family operations in southwest Manitoba.

It is pretty important to ensure there are sound rules so investors in the economy, not just in my area but more particularly in Alberta, Saskatchewan and, to a certain extent in Newfoundland, have the assurance they can make investments and know they will get returns from those investments.

I will refer to my colleague from Carleton when this debate started. He had a good economics lesson, I thought it was Economics 101, about whether the government learned anything from the lesson he was trying to teach about how important it was to have a sound investment process. We know that comes with great difficulty in Canada right now, and there is a lot of concern about it. As he pointed out, and as we all know, the country's debt is three times higher than it was supposed to be this year.

One thing I did not know, and it is worth repeating, is there are overpayments in Ontario's hydro of $176 billion over the last 30 years. That is a tremendous amount of money, when we consider that is a quarter of Canada's debt. The other number we need to bear in mind is that we have already lost $88 billion worth of investment in our oil industry. It has moved out of the country. It has gone south, as my colleague from Calgary Shepard just indicated. Thousands of jobs have gone south, 101,000 jobs in Alberta alone.

There is a little more drilling going on right now in our area of southwest Manitoba, but the bill would not help that economy survive. Bill C-69, this omnibus legislation, and the amount of regulations in it would not make it easier to grow our economy, which puts people to work.

I was the environment critic for seven of the 14 years I was in the Manitoba legislature. I want to put a few things into perspective. When we look at a situation where infrastructure and investment is required, the government always talks about how we can have both, the economy and the environment. That is not new. It is certainly not foreign to anybody in the House or to any Canadian for that matter.

This is about ensuring that Canadians know that the environment and the economy have gone hand in hand probably since oil was found in Canada in the late 1940s, early 1950s. Anyone who does not abide by those rules of trying to ensure the environment is kept as pristine as we possibly can is not paying attention. My colleagues have already stated tonight that we have the cleanest rules for dealing with environmental packages of anywhere in the world, particularly in our oil industry.

Rules have been brought, and not just in Bill C-69 or Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act. We know full that the efforts in Bill C-69 will not help the economy in any way. They certainly will not make jobs.

As I said, I was asked to become the environment shadow minister in Manitoba when I was first elected in 1999. It was either conservation or the environment. As the representative for Arthur-Virden, the constituency receives water from all of eastern Saskatchewan, southeastern Saskatchewan as well as northeastern Saskatchewan, and all of it comes into the Souris River, coming down the Assiniboine, and even through the Qu'Appelle in central Saskatchewan.

We know the impacts of what the environment can do to our province. The current provincial government is spending its infrastructure dollars rather responsibly. It is using them to protect cities like Brandon and Winnipeg particularly, Portage la Prairie, and the shorelines of Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg. This is responsible management. Why? It is because the provincial government is spending the money on infrastructure to prevent flooding, instead of paying billions out after the fact in flood damages and devastation.

The Liberals need to heed that example and respect investments, instead of killing investment opportunities like the eastern access and northern gateway. These are important issues.

I could go on about a lot of other shortfalls in the bill. Changes to the National Energy Board is just one of them. It may have needed tweaking, but the government decided it knew best and threw out the baby with the bathwater.

My colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, certainly has more experience, having a master's in biology, and he has certainly hit the nail on the head with respect to the Fisheries Act and Bill C-68. I have spoken to him about this bill as well.

I just want to wrap up by saying that I will not be supporting Bill C-69 for a number of reasons outlined, particularly by my colleague from Abbotsford today, as well—

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

moved that 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, be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I wish to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.

I am very pleased to once again address the House in support of Bill C-69. This is a key priority of our government. With the bill, we are keeping our promise to put in place better rules to protect our environment and build a stronger economy. It reflects our view that the economy and the environment must go hand in hand and that Canada works best when Canadians work together.

I am going to speak about why our government introduced the bill, and why there is a clear need for better rules to protect our environment and govern how decisions about resource development are made. I will talk about how the bill's balanced approach addresses the priorities of indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and how it delivers what Canadians expect.

I will also describe how our better rules will benefit all Canadians, how they will lead to a cleaner environment for our children, more investment as good projects go ahead, and more jobs and economic opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

We made a commitment when we formed government to regain public trust and help get Canada's resources to market. We committed to put in place new, fair processes that would ensure major project approvals are based on science and indigenous knowledge, that serve the public interest, and that allow good projects to proceed.

Why is this so important? Madam Speaker, $500 billion in major resource projects are being planned across Canada over the next decade. We need rules and processes in place that will allow these projects to move forward. Under the previous system, people lost confidence in Canada's environmental assessment processes.

Since participation in the review of major projects was limited, some Canadians were not able to contribute their knowledge and expertise.

The decision-making process was opaque, and Canadians began to fear that decisions on projects were being made based on political considerations, not on science and evidence.

Furthermore, after amendments were made to the Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act, Canadians discovered that major protections had been lost, leaving Canada's fish, waterways, and communities at risk.

The changes made by the previous government eroded public trust and without public trust, it became very difficult for good projects to move forward. Weaker rules hurt both our environment and our economy.

All these changes eroded public trust, and without public trust, it became very difficult for good projects to move forward. Weaker rules hurt both our environment and our economy. If Canada wants to capitalize on the next wave of resource development, we need better rules that reflect Canadians' priorities and concerns, provide certainty, and foster the competitiveness of proponents operating in Canada, while respecting our responsibility to protect the environment.

Knowing this, we introduced interim principles in 2016 to guide our government in reviewing major projects until we could put the better rules in place.

To rebuild trust in the environmental assessment process, our government launched a 14-month review involving two expert panels and two parliamentary committees. Input from provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, companies, environmental groups, and Canadians from across the country informed a discussion paper released in June 2017 and, ultimately, helped shape the approach set out in this bill. What we heard through those panels and committees is that Canadians want a modern environmental assessment and regulatory system that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures that good projects go ahead in a timely way to create new jobs and economic opportunities for the middle class. We have also heard from industry about the importance of a clear and predictable process.

Bill C-69 would put in place the better rules that Canadians and companies expect. Thanks to indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians who contributed their knowledge and perspectives, this bill would help rebuild public trust through key improvements that include decisions that are transparent and guided by robust science and indigenous knowledge; project reviews that consider a wide range of positive and negative impacts on the economy, health, indigenous rights, and communities, in addition to the environment; more timely and predictable review processes; measures to advance reconciliation and partnership with indigenous peoples; reduced duplication and red tape through a one project-one review approach; and through amendments to the current Navigation Protection Act, restored protection for every navigable waterway in Canada. It also complements Bill C-68, which proposes changes to the Fisheries Act to ensure it provides strong and meaningful protection for our fish and waters.

As I said, we made a commitment to restore public trust in Canada's environmental assessment system, to restore the protections that were lost, and to make sure that Canadians can trust the review process and its results.

It is essential that we ensure that all decisions are transparent and serve the public interest in order to restore trust. That is exactly what Bill C-69 would accomplish.

Under the previous system, Canadians had no idea how decisions were made. Under our new rules, Canadians can rest assured that all major project reviews are done fairly and based on evidence, that all decisions serve the public interest, and that good projects will go ahead.

Bill C-69 would clarify that project approval would be based on the impact assessment report. Decisions would also have to fully consider the factors that informed the review, as well as key public interest factors, including the project's contribution to sustainability and impacts on indigenous rights. That means all final decisions would need to have a clear basis in facts and evidence.

That alone is a major advance over the previous system, but even this important step is not enough to restore trust if Canadians are not informed about how final decisions have been made. To build that trust whenever a final decision is made on a project, a public statement of the rationale for that decision would be issued. That statement would clearly demonstrate to Canadians how the assessment report formed the basis for the decision and how factors like sustainability were taken into account.

To make good decisions, we need good processes that take into account a broad range of considerations. Bill C-69 provides clarity on the factors that would guide project reviews. We know that the impacts of major projects go beyond the environment alone. Projects also affect Canada's economy, our health, and our communities. They can also affect indigenous peoples and their rights.

Our government also recognizes that not all effects of major projects are negative. They also have positive impacts, like creating well-paying jobs for local communities. That is why under our new rules, both positive and negative consequences, economic, environmental, social, and health, would be taken into account. At the same time, tailored guidelines for project reviews would ensure they focus on factors relevant to the specific project.

These improvements will help improve the decision-making process and enhance public trust. Indigenous people, businesses, and the general public will know ahead of time what factors will guide project reviews. These reviews and the resulting assessment reports will the provide the basis for the final decisions.

Public decision statements will provide Canadians with the assurance that key factors were properly taken into consideration and that all decisions serve the public interest.

Without the support and partnership of indigenous peoples, there is no way to move forward with major resource projects. This is not optional. It is integral to ensuring that indigenous peoples, and all Canadians, can benefit from increased jobs and investment.

That is why Bill C-69 fully reflects our government's commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. This has been a focus of our government from the very beginning. We have taken important steps to put that commitment into action.

For example, we announced our full support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, we are working in partnership with indigenous peoples to develop a new recognition and implementation of rights framework, and we are making major new investments in education, health, infrastructure, and indigenous communities.

This bill puts our commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People at the forefront, in the preambles of impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act.

It also states that, when exercising their powers under the impact assessment act, the government, the minister, the agency, and federal authorities must respect the government’s commitments with regard to the rights of the indigenous peoples of Canada.

The new Canadian energy regulator's mandate will specify that it is to exercise its powers and perform its duties in the same manner.

Indigenous peoples, as well as stakeholders and the public, would have meaningful opportunities to participate in project reviews from the start and throughout the process. Recognizing the important contributions that indigenous knowledge makes to project reviews, our bill would make it mandatory to consider this knowledge alongside science and other evidence in every assessment, and would require transparency about how it was taken into account and used. At the same time, it would provide strong protection for the confidentiality of indigenous knowledge across all parts of the bill.

I have said that our better rules are designed to help good projects move forward to get Canada's resources to market. Companies have told us what they need to make sure that happens: clear, timely, and predictable processes that provide certainty at every stage.

Under our proposed legislation, one agency, the proposed impact assessment agency of Canada, would be the federal lead for all major project reviews. This would mean more consistent, more predictable reviews for all projects. At the same time, the agency would work closely with regulatory bodies so that their valuable expertise could continue to inform assessments.

A revised project list would provide clarity for companies, indigenous communities, environmental groups, municipalities, and all citizens on how our new rules would apply. We have consulted with Canadians on the criteria that would guide that revised list, and we will be consulting again in the fall on the proposed list itself.

Our bill would require a new early planning and engagement phase before an impact assessment could begin. This new phase would help companies identify and address issues early on. It would result in a clear set of products to guide the impact assessment. These would include tailored impact statement guidelines that are scoped to reflect the scale and complexity of the project, a co-operation plan, an indigenous engagement and partnership plan, a public participation plan, and a permitting plan.

While a broad set of factors would be considered in early planning, the tailored guidelines would reflect only those that are relevant to the specific project. Following early planning, proponents would be notified if a project is likely to have unacceptable impacts. This would not stop the process. Instead, it would allow the company to make an informed decision about whether, or how, to go forward with the project in the impact assessment process.

As I have said, companies would have a clear understanding of what would be taken into account in the review itself, including positive and negative effects on the environment, the economy, health, and communities. Companies could also be certain about how final decisions are made. They would be based on the assessment report, and on consideration of key public interest factors, including the project's contribution to sustainability. This would be clearly demonstrated through public decision statements.

To provide the timely decisions and reviews companies expect, Bill C-69 sets out clear time limits for each stage of the process, including the new early planning phase. That includes 300 days for reviews carried out by a review panel with input from a life cycle regulator. When justified, more complex projects may take up to 600 days. This is a major improvement over the 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the CEAA, which allowed up to 120 days for all reviews carried out by review panels.

This bill will also reduce red tape and prevent duplication through opportunities to collaborate with the provinces. It provides for joint assessments in which a single assessment process can meet the requirements of several levels of government. The bill also provides for substitution should a process carried out by another level of government satisfy the federal government's requirements.

Bill C-69 will facilitate a smooth transition toward the new impact assessment system. The bill would set objective criteria to determine which projects will continue to be reviewed under the 2012 CEAA, give companies the option to go through the new process, and confirm that nobody will ever be sent back to square one.

This bill would also provide certainty and help restore public trust by providing opportunities for public participation at every stage of the review process.

When it comes to resource development, public trust and support are essential for projects to move forward. That will not happen if Canadians are not able to take part in project reviews. Bill C-69 would remove the “standing test” imposed by CEAA 2012, so that a broader range of Canadians could contribute their knowledge and perspectives.

With the new early planning and engagement phase, Canadians would be able to make their voices heard from the beginning.

Bill C-69 would provide for the public and for indigenous peoples to participate in a meaningful manner, and would ensure that they have the information and tools they need and the ability to share their thoughts and expertise.

The bill would strike a balance between allowing for meaningful participation and the need for assessments to be completed in a timely manner.

Canadians want projects to be approved based on scientific facts and indigenous knowledge. Our government is committed to adopting policies based on evidence, and Bill C-69 is proof of that.

This bill includes a clear commitment to implementing the act in a way that respects the principles of scientific integrity, honesty, objectivity, rigour, and accuracy. This is perfectly in line with our strong commitment to science and shows that we intend to implement this act.

Bill C-69 also provides for regional and strategic assessments. These studies would inform project reviews by looking at crosscutting issues and cumulative impacts, those that go beyond any one project. To ensure they can play an important role in our impact assessment system, these reviews would benefit from the best available advice and fully take into account indigenous knowledge. We are committed to moving forward with these assessments, beginning with a strategic assessment on climate change.

As we transition to the new system, we will invest up to just over $1 billion over five years to support the proposed new impact assessment regime and Canadian energy regulator; increased scientific capacity in federal departments and agencies; changes required to protect water, fish and navigation; and increased indigenous and public participation.

I am extremely proud of our government's work on this bill. It is the result of extensive public engagement and fulfills the commitment we made when we formed government: to rebuild public trust and get Canada's resources to market sustainably.

I want to acknowledge that many people have contributed to the development of this bill. Of course, I want to recognize the indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians who participated in our 14-month review process, as well as those who have continued to engage after we introduced the bill.

I also want to recognize the members of this House who have contributed to debate on Bill C-69 and its further development. In particular I want to express my appreciation for the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Their efforts in hearing from witnesses and amending the bill have resulted in important changes that have strengthened the legislation.

Throughout this process, the government and the standing committee worked on adopting a balanced approach that addresses the priorities of indigenous peoples, the industry, environmental groups, and other stakeholders. I think that, together, we succeeded.

Through this balanced approach, our better rules will protect Canada's environment, help good projects move forward, and recognize and uphold the rights of indigenous peoples. I think all of us in the House can support that.

Fisheries Act

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be speaking in the House of Commons this evening as we continue debate on Bill C-68. I am sure there will be more commentary as the night proceeds into the middle of the night and then late night, perhaps even early morning. Who knows in this place. It is an honour to serve the constituents of Parry Sound—Muskoka, regardless of the hour of the day. I am sure all colleagues feel the same about their ridings.

We are debating Bill C-68, which aspires to protect our oceans and fisheries. I believe all members of the chamber would want to do this. The issue is whether it does something meaningful in that regard. The answer is a resounding no.

As my colleague from Calgary just mentioned, there were extensive changes to the Fisheries Act under the previous government to ensure our fisheries were protected, and yet at the same time, it was much more user friendly for Canadians. It was important for economic development and it was also ridding the previous legislation of a nuisance factor, where every ditch all of a sudden became a protected area for fish that were too numerous to count.

Clearly, it was overreach in the pre-existing legislation, which the legislation of the previous Conservative government sought to remedy. Now we find ourselves again, with the Liberal government now in its third year, regurgitating legislation simply because there were changes made under the previous Conservative government. I am sure there is no ill will on the opposite side, but I tend to wonder whether the Liberals are simply trying to reinvent the wheel and put their own stamp on legislative priorities.

What happens with legislation like this is that it makes the situation worse for economic development. It makes it worse in trying to balance protecting fish habitat and at the same time moving forward in our communities. That is what we have with Bill C-68.

There are a number of things here. The bill seems to undermine transparency and due process by allowing the minister to withhold critical information from interested proponents. It goes against the Prime Minister's oft stated commitment in national and international fora to openness and transparency.

Let us talk about that for a few minutes. This is a constant theme of the government, that it is more open, more transparent, that the Liberals are the ones who cornered the market on openness and transparency. However, when we look at the record of the government, it is far from that.

In its 2015 platform, the Liberals said that they would fix the Access to Information Act. There was delay upon delay, and finally the President of the Treasury Board stood in his place and said that the government would have a two-pronged approach, that it would pick the fruit that it could pick first, and then it would leave the more difficult issues until later. That was denounced by the Information Commissioner, who had been waiting all these years for changes to the Access to Information Act. It was basically a big disaster for the government because it was not following through on its promises.

There has been a lack of transparency to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and that is important. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is the person who works for the House, for Parliament, in analyzing the budgetary priorities of the government of the day. I will admit, when we were in government, and I was president of the Treasury Board, it was not exactly pleasant in this place for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine and be a pair of eyes over our shoulders.

It is not the most pleasant thing for politicians or bureaucrats, but at the same time, it is necessary. It is necessary for the proper functioning of this place to have that oversight. Because the executive has so much power under our parliamentary system, it is good to have that pair of eyes reporting to Parliament and reporting to the public on issues about budgetary priorities and the true cost of things.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been complaining about the lack of information given by the Liberal government. I know that governing is hard. I was there. What I find offensive, perhaps, disconcerting certainly, is when the government and Liberal politicians promise openness and transparency and deliver precisely the opposite, to the detriment of Canadians, and certainly the opposite of what they promised while campaigning in 2015.

In Bill C-68, there is a provision for advisory panels, but no guidance, no limitation, on how they would be used. What are the rights of citizens when we have these advisory panels? What are the property rights of citizens when we have these advisory panels? How do we balance these advisory panels with local interests and local knowledge? The bill is silent. I wish I knew the answer to that before I voted on this bill, but the answer is not forthcoming from the government of the day.

As I mentioned and the previous speaker from Calgary mentioned, there were amendments on these issues back in 2012 that received royal assent and came into force in November 2013. There was a proper balance between protecting fish and fish habitat and measuring the economic and social value so that fish and fish habitat that were at risk would get the protection they needed. However, this was not the case in every case. Not every fish in our environment needs protection. I hope this is not a politically incorrect thing to say.

In some places in our country, I would say to the audience watching television, there are a multitude of fish, and there are protections for them, but we do not need the uber-protections of the federal government deciding that it knows better than local people how to protect the fish in their environment. That is why it was important to have that balance.

Now that balance is gone, and alas, we are in a situation of debating this lamentable bill, which is just another way for the Liberal government to show the world how wonderful it is and how it understands fish habitat and the environment. However, what we are going to get is the national government deciding on fish in a ditch. This is ludicrous. This is the old, oft-used Shakespearean phrase, “The law is an ass.”

On this side of the House, we want to stand for common sense. We want to protect the fish environments that need to be protected, but we are not here just to create laws for the sake of creating laws. I know that the Canadian Electricity Association has said that this bill is two steps back. It is concerned that we are back to the pre-2012 provisions. In practical terms, this makes life tougher for its members.

On this side of the House, we will continue, as Conservatives, to represent and work with the fishers, the farmers, and the industry groups to make sure that their concerns are heard and to make sure that fish are protected but that our economy can move forward. That is why I am a Conservative, and that is why I oppose this bill.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that foreign investment has been fleeing and will continue to flee Canada at an alarming rate. I have seen this first-hand in my dear hometown of Calgary, Alberta, where we have seen the exit of organizations and of corporations such as Murphy Oil, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, and I can go on and on with respect to the foreign investment that has fled. That is even prior to the installation and royal assent of such damaging legislation such as Bill C-68, which we are discussing today, and Bill C-69. The government has to take responsibility for the investment that is fleeing Canada and ruining the lives of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been entertaining listening to Conservatives talk about Bill C-68. On the one hand, the New Democratic friends say that the government should be doing more. On the other hand, the Conservatives' mentality is that any legislation on the environment is bad. We actually just heard that from the member.

It is much like the pipeline. TMX is going to happen. The previous Harper government failed at getting a pipeline to the market on the coast, but this government has not failed. Would the member not acknowledge that the economy and environment do in fact go hand in hand? We can see that with respect to the success of this legislation and the pipeline, which finally will be built, and not because of Stephen Harper but because we have a government that understands this

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, tonight I would like to focus my attention on the detrimental effects Bill C-68 would have on development. Before I do so, I want to point out to those listening at home that the government has once again moved time allocation.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they absolutely railed at the thought. They used every tactic in the book to disrupt and to stall debate. Now, however, it seems that every time the Liberal government House leader has a chance, she moves time allocation in an effort to limit our free speech.

This bill is completely unnecessary and, as the House has heard from my colleagues, this matter was studied in depth at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. In fact, it was the minister himself, in 2016, who asked the committee to examine the lost protections in the Fisheries Act.

After months of debate, do members know how many witnesses testified on lost protections? It was none. Zero. Not a single one. Now the Liberals have brought forward this unnecessary legislation, which is already expected to cost close to $300 million to implement. I want to clarify that as part of our previous government's economic action plan of 2012 and in support of the responsible resource development plan, changes to the Fisheries Act were introduced and received royal assent in November of 2013.

The legislative changes we, on this side of the House, made to the fisheries protection provisions of the act supported a shift from managing impacts to all fish habitats to focusing on the act's regulatory regime on managing threats to the sustainability and ongoing productivity of Canada's commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries.

Prior to these sensible amendments, all fish, and consequently all potential fish habitat, regardless of economic or social value, were covered under the Fisheries Act. This created a system that was impossible to manage, and created impediments to the most minor work on ditches, flood prevention etc. This creates an incredible amount of red tape for towns and municipalities, and means completely unnecessary hardship for Canadians trying to simply go about their business, and protect their property, a fundamental Canadian right.

The Liberals' approach to the legislative, regulatory, and policy framework governing infrastructure projects would cause a competitive disadvantage for all Canadian companies and would be felt by local governments across the country. I would also like to point out that the Liberal strategy of layering broad policy considerations into environmental regulations, such as Bill C-68 and Bill C-69, would lead to a marked decrease in investment and competitiveness for Canada's energy sector, as though it could possibly get any worse. This threatens the sector's sustainability and its contribution to Canada's future social, economic, and development objectives.

What the Liberals have done is put forward a piece of legislation with a bunch of “fill in the blanks” or “to be considered” slots, and asked Canadians to trust them. Unfortunately for business, this approach does not work and only serves to undermine industry.

In relation to the authorizations pursuant to the Fisheries Act, it is uncertain as to the types of projects that would require approval and potentially trigger an impact assessment pursuant to Bill C-69. Depending on forthcoming codes of practices and regulations, there could also be the need for additional approvals for low-impact activities, and the result would be a longer process with no different outcome than is achieved under the current legislation.

The unknown of the project specifics that would trigger approvals pursuant to the Fisheries Act is most concerning since it has a strong likelihood to impact all project development, not just those projects requiring assessment by the proposed impact assessment agency.

Former Liberal cabinet minister, the Hon. Sergio Marchi, who is now the president and CEO of the Canadian Electricity Association, has made it clear that he sees Bill C-68 as a missed opportunity. In its press release, the CEA stated:

...Bill C-68 represents one step forward but two steps back.

CEA is particularly concerned that the government has chosen to return to pre-2012 provisions of the Fisheries Act that address ‘activity other than fishing that results in the death of fish, and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat’. In practical terms, this means that virtually any action, without prior authorization, could be construed as being in contravention of this Act. Consequently, the reinstatement of these measures will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities, and unduly delay and/or discourage investment in energy projects that directly support Canada’s clean growth agenda and realize its climate change objectives.

Bill C-68 is a missed opportunity for the federal government to anchor the Fisheries Act on a reasonable, population-based approach rather than focusing on individual fish, and to clearly define fisheries management objectives.

Regarding criteria for project designation, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans heard from the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and were told of a number of alternative measures that could be used to lessen any environmental impact. Unfortunately, it seems any suggestions fell on deaf ears as the committee refused all 20 amendments put forward by my colleagues.

Pembina is a Calgary-based pipeline corporation that has provided transportation and midstream services to North America's industry for over 60 years. Sixty years is not a small amount of time in the span of Canadian history. In fact, it has one of the best integrated pipeline systems in the entire world and transport hydrocarbon liquids, natural gas, and natural gas products all over Alberta.

In its brief to the committee, it highlighted that pipeline associated watercourse crossing construction practices and technology had in fact come a long way over the last few decades. These processes are state-of-the-art, and horizontal directional drilling is a perfect example of a technology that is widely used and eliminates environmental impacts of a pipeline crossing waterways.

I will not go into the complete detail on the briefing submitted by Pembina, but I will say that this bill is unnecessary. It would create more bureaucratic red tape and would only serve to hinder development. In fact, the legislation is so very ambiguous that Pembina cautions that the Liberal government is virtually ensuring future conflict among indigenous communities because it has not considered the complexity of overlapping traditional territories.

On this side of the House, we support the protection of our oceans and fisheries. Our previous changes to the Fisheries Act were enacted to support transparency in the decision-making process and provide a level of certainty to those invested in the act.

The Liberals have done the exact opposite with Bill C-68. As usual, what they say is not actually what they do. They have said that they are restoring harmful alteration or disruption or the destruction of fish habitat. However, they sidestep any obligation to uphold the HADD regulations in the legislation by providing the minister with the ability to exempt certain provisions.

I want to reiterate also that Bill C-68 seems to undermine transparency and due process by allowing the minister to withhold critical information from interested proponents, and this goes against the Prime Minister's commitment to openness and transparency.

There is no way the Conservative Party of Canada will support this burdensome bill that serves no purpose other than to check off an election promise from the Liberals' 2015 red book.

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Opposition Motion—Leadership on Climate Change and Clean Energy

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the environmental programs we see do not have to be a windmill or solar power panels we see outside buildings. In fact, they can actually be about energy efficiency and the things we do on a day-to-day level to ensure that we actually save energy and use the good types of energy.

For instance, our government is ensuring that we are a model for sustainability by greening our government. We are on track to reduce the government's own greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and by 80% by 2050. Even when I was in the Canadian Armed Forces, there were many times, 20 years ago, when someone would leave the door open. We would be heating the outdoors, because someone thought it was too hot, and we were not able to actually turn down the heat. The government today is actually reviewing a lot of the policies on how we conduct ourselves in our day-to-day operations to see if there are energy savings. It is listening to people on the ground, asking civil servants, and even our military personnel, what we can do to ensure that we can meet that target. That takes a lot of effort, because it is going to be an effort by all Canadians to ensure that we actually get there.

I am proud of our government. Not only are we committed to those agreements but we are intent on actually trying to achieve those targets. It is not simply empty rhetoric. It is actually something we hold in our hearts to be true that we will get there if we work day in and day out, and we are doing that.

We are passing a number of bills that are repairing the damage from the decade of darkness. We are engaging with our international counterparts to ensure that we are going to be meeting those targets. For instance, we are changing legislation through Bill C-69 and Bill C-68. We have also introduced Bill C-74, and the list goes on.

Opposition Motion—Global Climate Change and Clean Energy Leadership

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Mill Woods.

I am very pleased to stand in the House today to discuss the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I appreciate the call for Canada to be a global climate change leader. I agree, and Canada is. However, this motion fails in a number of areas, including its failure to recognize the actions the government has taken in ensuring that the environment and the economy go together as we build a clean energy economy. Our government has been steadfast in its belief that a strong economy and a clean environment go hand in hand. The NDP motion completely ignores the historic investments that the government has made through successive federal budgets that specifically address Canada's environment, coastlines, waterways, and wildlife, as well as the introduction of government legislation such as Bill C-69, Bill C-68, Bill C-57, and Bill C-74, which would further strengthen our ability to protect the environment and grow the economy in sustainable ways.

Today, I will highlight the global market for clean technologies and the enormous opportunity Canadians are already taking advantage of that is estimated to be in the trillions of dollars, with demand only increasing, and at an incredibly rapid pace.

This is an area I personally know very well, having spent the past almost 20 years as a chief executive officer and senior executive in the clean technology and renewable sector. The clean technology industry presents significant opportunities for Canadian businesses from all sectors of the economy. That is why investing in clean technology is a key component of our government's approach to promoting sustainable growth and to addressing key environmental challenges.

Our government also recognizes that clean technology is a source of good, well-paying jobs for Canadians. Therefore, when it comes to clean technology, Canada has the opportunity to be a true global leader, creating good, well-paying jobs for Canadians, while helping to meet our climate change and other important environmental goals.

Clean technologies are central to Canada’s low-carbon, globally competitive economy that provides high-quality jobs and opportunities for our middle class and those working hard to join it.

Clean technologies are by definition innovative technologies. Our government understands that innovation is a key driver of economic success. That is why we developed an innovation skills plan that will assist in making Canada a world-leading centre for innovation.

Today, clean technology already employs over 170,000 Canadians, and we sell about $26 billion annually in goods and services. Of that $26 billion, about $8 billion is exported.

Clearly, there is a strong appetite for Canadian innovation, but we have only just scratched the surface and there is so much more room to grow. That is why our government set aside more than $2.3 billion for clean technology in budget 2017. For the record, that is Canada's largest-ever public investment in this field. Prior to making this historic investment, we worked closely with industry to develop a comprehensive strategy that will successfully accelerate the development of the sector.

This $2.3 billion will support clean technology research, development, demonstration, and adoption and the scaling up of our businesses.

We know that access to financing fuels the growth of companies and provides the capital needed to hire new staff, develop products, and support sales at home and abroad, which is why we have set aside $1.4 billion in new financing for clean-tech providers. This is in addition to the $21.9 billion investment in green infrastructure, which will create jobs and position Canada for the low-carbon economy of the future.

We have also allocated $400 million to recapitalize Sustainable Development Technology Canada. This fund is helping our Canadian businesses develop world-class expertise in clean technology engineering, design, marketing, and management. To date, the fund has invested $989 million in 381 Canadian companies, supporting projects across the entire country. The funding has helped these companies develop and demonstrate new clean technologies that promote sustainable development, including those that address environmental issues, such as climate change, air quality, clean water, and clean soil.

There is also the Business Development Bank of Canada with its $700 million commitment to help clean technology producers scale up and expand globally. Since mid-January, I am pleased to say that four investments worth $40 million have been made. Through our participation in mission innovation, the Government of Canada will work with the international community to double federal investment in clean energy research and development over five years.

These are very significant and substantive investments, and we will drive for strong results. The government will carefully monitor the results of its investments both in terms of economic growth and jobs, as well as the environment.

Through a new clean-tech growth hub within Innovation Canada, the government will streamline client services, improve federal program coordination, enable tracking and reporting of clean technology results across government, and connect stakeholders to international markets. The clean growth hub is the government's focal point for all federal government supporting clean technology. Since launching in mid-January, the hub has served over 450 companies. This one-stop shop is a major innovative win for government that industry is already recognizing as a key step forward.

The 2017 Global Cleantech Innovation Index, which investigates where entrepreneurial companies are most likely to emerge over the next 10 years, ranked Canada fourth, up from seventh in 2014. Further, in January of this year, the Cleantech Group released a Global Cleantech 100 list. The list recognizes the clean-tech companies that are most likely to have significant market impact over the next five to 10 years.

Under the Harper government, Canada's share of the global clean-tech market shrunk by half. In partnership with the clean-tech industry, we have successfully turned this around. This year, a record 13 Canadian clean technology firms comprised the top 100. All the winning companies are clients of the Canadian trade commissioner service, and seven of the 13 companies are Export Development Canada customers.

We know that is only a small sampling of the innovative clean technology companies that are doing amazing work every day across the country to create economic growth, and solve our most pressing environmental challenges.

For example, in Montreal, GHGSat has developed the technology to monitor industrial greenhouse gas emissions using satellite technology. They launched their first satellite in 2016. In my own province of British Columbia, Carbon Engineering is developing a process to turn carbon dioxide in the air into a clean fuel. I could go on and on, speaking about all of the fantastic and innovative clean technology companies working across the country in so many industries and sectors of the Canadian economy.

In order to ensure their continued success, we will continue to collaborate with all stakeholders and jurisdictions across Canada to meet our climate change commitments and bring innovative and competitive clean technologies to market.

We have developed strong international linkages that promote Canadian technology as solutions to global challenges and attract private sector investment. This government is focused on scaling our great Canadian clean technology success stories, and in the process, helping to solve the world's most pressing environmental challenges.

As we move forward, the Government of Canada will continue to be a strong partner for clean technology producers. Our government is incredibly proud and impressed by the innovative work being done by the entrepreneurial women and men working in this sphere and we will continue to support them and their work, and with their success, generate future wealth for Canadians, while safeguarding the environment for future generations.

Report Stage

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to debate this very important bill, Bill C-68, which deals with changes to the Fisheries Act. I will point out that in general, the government's legislative agenda is floundering. It has clammed up. Liberals are trolling the bottom. They are trying desperately to get through as much legislation as they can, and they are doing it under repeated time allocation. I looked hard, and there are no pearls in this one. The government is putting forward these changes to the Fisheries Act in defiance of good sense.

Now, this bill is very important in my riding. Why do I say that? I represent a riding in Alberta, and there are not a lot of people who earn their living by fishing in Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. However, the framework that existed before 2012 with respect to fisheries protection and navigable waters protection is quite perverse. Members have spoken about this already. It is the idea that it was pretty easy to get almost anything designated as fish habitat. If my kids are out playing in the yard one day, they dig a hole, it rains, and it fills up with water, maybe that is a fish habitat. All of a sudden, that requires all kinds of processes, consultations, and changes. That obviously does not make any sense.

More seriously, there were issues with farmers, people who were building ditches for drainage, very simple normal activities. Things would fill up with water and all of a sudden get designated as fish habitat, which would invoke all kinds of different protections, regulations, and red tape from the federal government.

I do not think it is rocket science or even fish science to say that we should be thinking more rationally and strategically about how we protect our fish stocks. Rather than having this sort of proliferation of designation of fish habitat—and navigable waters was another issue that was drawing in similar kinds of over-regulation—we would try to be strategic about protecting fish stocks. We would think about what those critical points of protection were. We would have strong regulations in those cases, and, at the same time, we would not be protecting things in the wrong way.

On this side of the House, we favour rational, effective, and, as much as possible, surgical regulation; that is, regulation that does the thing it is intended to do, and the repeal of regulation that does not do what it is intended to do, that is not connected to a clear, rational objective. That is why, for instance, when Conservatives were in government, every time we introduced a new regulation, we developed a structure so that there would have to be a corresponding removal of regulation. Any time that ministers wanted to bring in new regulations, they also had to think about removing other regulations. That is a good approach, because sometimes government fails to think about repealing old, irrelevant regulations, trying to tighten up and smarten the rules. Again, it is not about not having those protections in place; it is about ensuring that those protections are rational and effective, and actually associated with the objectives that the regulation is in fact intended to serve.

In 2012, the previous government brought forward changes that shifted the focus from protecting fairly arbitrarily defined fish habitat to actually protecting and preserving our fish stocks. That was a good approach. It was widely supported by civil society. It was not supported by some voices, but, generally speaking, those who saw the practical problems and the practical need for improvement supported our approach. Some parties in this House waved the flag and said that fewer waterways were protected. We were effectively protecting vital waterways and assuring that the farmer's ditch, that hole that my kids dug in the backyard, did not get designated as a waterway. There was an appropriate level of protection for places where fish actually live, and there was no merit in applying those regulations beyond their usefulness.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has sort of drunk their own bathwater when it comes to these talking points. They have bought into these lines about how they need to go back to the old regulatory system, which piled on unnecessary red tape and made it harder to do any kind of development, but with no discernible objective.

I did want to say if one wants to talk about what actually is harmful to fish and what is harmful to waterways, let us talk about the decision by the former Liberal mayor of Montreal to dump raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway, and the approval he received from the environment minister to do that. Raw sewage and the environment do not go hand in hand. However, the government wants to make it more difficult to do science-based development. It wants to make life harder for the energy sector. It put all kinds of barriers in the way of energy development and pipeline development. It wants to make it harder for municipalities to develop by putting unnecessary regulatory burdens in front of them, unless one is a well-connected, former Liberal MP who is the mayor of Montreal. Then if one wants to dump raw sewage in there, go for it.

How did the fish feel when that happened? Do fish feel? I do not know, but it was not good for their health, is the point.

I know members across the way are excited about this point but they cannot get around it. Our approach was one that actually protected fish habitat, that actually sought to protect fish stocks. It was science-based, it was consistent, and it was safe and effective.

My constituents often ask me about the double standards they see from the government. On the one hand, it talks about the environment. On the other hand, the government's approach to environmental policy is totally disconnected from reality, such as the piling of hurdles on the energy east pipeline. Again, there was Denis Coderre's strong opposition to the energy east pipeline because there might be some spill, allegedly. That was his line associated with that. At the same time, the government was not thinking about the impact on the fish from raw sewage. This is a floundering legislative agenda, indeed. Someone has heard me repeat that joke. However, they are hearing it for the first time. That is good.

There are a few other provisions in this bill that I want to touch on, in the time that I have left. The bill raises transparency concerns and due process concerns. For one thing it allows the minister to withhold critical information from interested proponents. We have heard a lot of discussion from the government about transparency, about sunny ways, and about how sunlight is the best disinfectant. However, we actually see in reality a consistent refusal to apply this lofty talk on transparency in practice. We see that happening and that certainly is disappointing. Again, we see cases of that in this particular piece of legislation.

This bill, as I said, piles on additional unnecessary regulations. It fails the test of being surgical and focused on achieving any clear, discernible result. This bill allows also for the establishment of advisory panels. These have former Liberal politicians and soon to be former Liberal politicians salivating, I am sure, about the opportunities of joining advisory panels for which they will be, no doubt, richly remunerated. However, there is no clarity around the guidance they will be required to give or the limitations on the use of these panels, or the conditions that they will be subject to.

The government, in creating more opportunities for patronage appointments, is not thinking about the fish. It is only thinking about the well-connected Liberal insiders. At the time of clam scam, one would think that it would want to avoid even the appearance of this kind of problem. Alas, it has not.

There are many concerns that we have with the bill: the problems for development, the troubling mechanisms, and other points I have not had time to get to. In any event, I will be opposing the bill.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with a story. I will roll back to pre-2012.

My community of Abbotsford is the foremost farming community in the province of British Columbia. Somewhere in the order of 20% of all farm-gate revenues emanate from our community. Much of that is from two beautiful areas with A1-quality soil, Sumas Prairie and Matsqui Prairie, where there are all kinds of different farming operations under way.

I used to be a city councillor in Abbotsford. One of our farmers, who I will call Henry, was one of the pillars of our community. He was one of the originals in our community, one of the pioneers. He had farmed Sumas Prairie all his life. One day, he came into my office in a real fit of anger. He related to me that he had been on his land cleaning ditches that he himself had dug. A couple of years later, of course, those ditches were filling in with leaves, twigs, and other debris. He wanted to clear them so that his property could drain properly. Anyone who knows Sumas Prairie knows that it is an area that needs to be properly drained. It is a former lake bed, and it needs to be managed properly. However, Henry was in my office very upset, because as he was cleaning his ditch, a fisheries officer had approached him. By the way, he was a fisheries officer with a gun. He had accosted Henry and said, “Sir, don't you dare touch that ditch anymore. You're harming fish habitat.”

Of course, Henry said that this was a ditch he dug for drainage purposes, and there were no fish in this ditch. “It is fish habitat we are protecting”, said the fisheries officer, “and Mr. Farmer, you're not entitled to do anything with that ditch of yours.”

We heard this from farmers across Abbotsford. My colleague, the member for Langley—Aldergrove, who served on city council with me, can verify those facts. Of course, city council had no power. This was federal legislation under which these officers were acting. That is why our former Conservative government, in 2012, stepped up to the plate and addressed this problem. We removed the focus on what at that time was fish habitat, and we replaced it with a focus on protecting fish, because that is what it is all about.

In light of the situation I just described, our government first of all looked at what is called the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, or HADD. We said that HADD was the wrong standard to apply. What we should be applying is any activity that results in serious harm to fish, not fish habitat, that are part of a commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fishery or to the fish that support such a fishery. That is the way the new legislation read, and it was warmly received.

My colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the leader of the Green Party, suggested that Canadian municipalities did not support our 2012 amendments at all. That is patently false. What we should do is ask those of us who were in municipal government at that time, or in the years leading up to it, and we can tell members exactly why this legislation was introduced, and we had the strong support of municipalities across Canada.

Another one of the challenges of the legislation we have before us, which is a big step backwards, is the use of what is called the precautionary principle, which is basically better safe than sorry. The precautionary principle sounds great. We should always be safe rather than sorry. The problem is that it does not work in real life.

I refer the House to an article written in 2011 by Jonathan Adler, in which he talks about the better safe than sorry approach, the precautionary principle. He says, “We all accept this as a commonsense maxim. But can it also guide public policy? [Some people] think so, and argue that formalizing a more 'precautionary' approach to...health and environmental...will better safeguard human well-being and the world around us.”

He goes on to say:

If only it were that easy. Simply put, the precautionary principle is not a sound basis for public policy. At the broadest level of generality, the principle is unobjectionable, but it provides no meaningful guidance to pressing policy questions. In a public policy context, “better safe than sorry” is a fairly vacuous instruction.

Taken literally, the precautionary principle is either wholly arbitrary or incoherent. In its stronger formulation, the principle actually has the potential to do harm.

He goes on to say, “Efforts to impose the principle through regulatory policy”, which is what our friends are doing here, but they are doing it in legislation, “inevitably accommodate competing concerns or become a Trojan Horse for other ideological crusades.”

The problem with the precautionary principle is that it becomes a Trojan Horse for ideological crusades. Let me give the House a great example.

We have a government here that has been beholden to the environmental movement. In fact, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, Gerald Butts, used to lead the World Wildlife Fund in Canada. Think about it. When we have a precautionary principle, it is people that have influence in government that are able to, unnecessarily through their influence, direct decisions in a way that suits their interests. If we have an ideological predilection in a certain direction, like Mr. Butts does, imagine how quickly we would find ourselves in a situation where it is speculation and ideology that replace true science as a basis for making decisions.

This legislation would establish remunerated advisory panels. When Liberals establish advisory panels, especially ones that are remunerated, they are used basically to allow insiders and friends to benefit from government.

Look at the surf clam issue in Newfoundland where the fisheries minister intervened. He provided special gifts to his friends by taking a surf clam licence away from one company that had pioneered the surf clam business in Newfoundland and giving it to another company that had connections to insiders in government and to friends and family.

What was the end result? This new company, which did not even exist and is still not incorporated, had no boat. Imagine that. It had no boat, but was awarded this licence, thereby depriving the people of Grand Banks, Newfoundland, of their opportunity to benefit, to have livelihoods, to have income from this business.

This is what happens when legislation like Bill C-68, which would amend the Fisheries Act, is twisted in a way that benefits the Liberal government, insiders, and friends of the government.

Canada as a country can do better.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on Bill C-68 tonight. The comment that was made earlier this evening from one of my colleagues across the floor was that he was happy that a member from the west coast or a coastal riding was getting up and speaking about this. I am not picking on him for any reason, but I think it highlights one of the issues we are having with this bill. There seems to be a lack of knowledge or scope when it comes to our friends in the Liberal government not understanding the ramifications and implications that the decisions they are making with this bill will have on every region of the country. That is why we are seeing many of the rural members of Parliament from the Conservative side getting up to speak to this bill, because it will have very real and profound consequences on our rural communities.

I want to back things up prior to 2012, when these changes to the Navigable Waters Act and the Fisheries Act were made by the previous Conservative government. I recall I was a journalist at that time in a small community newspaper throughout southern Alberta. I remember covering numerous council and town hall meetings hosted by rural municipalities that were having significant issues when when it came to dealing with culverts, small bridges, drainage ditches, seasonal waterways, and irrigation canals, and the hoops, bureaucracy, and red tape they had to go through to try to complete some of those projects.

Prior to 2012, municipalities had to go through labour-intensive regulatory requirements when it came to areas of what was then called “navigable waters”. They were forced to endure lengthy delays, because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was inundated with thousands of applications from municipalities that were waiting for it to come and make decisions on their projects, not to mention the length of those delays. It proved extremely costly to these municipalities that were having to endure these very long wait times. I would think many of us who have rural municipalities in our ridings understand that many of these municipalities are extremely small. They simply do not have the financial or staffing resources to be able to handle the workload and amount of paperwork that comes along with a Department of Fisheries and Oceans assessment. Therefore, our rural municipalities were coming to the previous Conservative government with these problems and issues with respect to managing their own lands. That is when the previous Conservative government came up with these changes to try to reduce some of that regulatory burden. We wanted to turn the focus to ensuring that the protections in that legislation focused on the most critical fish and fish habitat in navigable waters. At the same time, we wanted to take some of that regulatory burden off some of the waterways that probably never had fish habitat and would never have fish habitat, but were still under the same regime and regulatory layers of bureaucracy that any river, stream, ocean, or lake would come under, when we were just talking about drainage ditches and irrigation canals, for example.

When we talk about some of the changes that were made, I think we need to highlight that the act maintained a very strong regulatory regime and protected very important fish habitat, but it had more of a practical scope. It reduced that administrative burden on not only municipalities, but also the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It had now freed up a lot of its time and resources to focus on the most important cases and waterways without having to deal with very minor projects for municipalities. However, it also empowered municipalities to be the environmental stewards of their own waterways. When it comes to those types of projects and waterways, who would be better to be the stewards of those lands than the municipalities, the councils, and their staff, who are on the ground each and every day? They know the history. They have that local knowledge. They know whether it is fish habitat. They know if it is a seasonal waterway. Certainly, they know that better than a bureaucrat in Ottawa. Therefore, I think it was a win-win situation for the municipalities, as well as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Now we are faced with these changes in Bill C-68, which would expand the definition of fish habitat, expanding it even wider and more broad than it was prior to 2012. That is very disconcerting in the fact that it was burdensome and difficult to deal with and almost impossible to enforce prior to 2012. How difficult will this be when not only we restore it to the previous definition, but have even expanded that definition to a much wider scope. It has re-engaged a lot of those same regulations, but it also introduces something that is new, which is designated projects. This will include any projects within a category that could impact any waterway, whether it has a specific impact on a known fish habitat or not.

What is even more concerning for our stakeholders, municipalities, farmers, and ranchers is the fact that there is no definition on what a designated project is. This is really a larger narrative that we have seen from the Liberal government. It rushed through this legislation without doing all the homework and all the background work first so that it tabled a complete document that everyone could understand exactly where they stood. The legislation is very clear. The rules and regulations are very clear. There are still some very large holes in it with which stakeholders are very concerned.

The other issue, which is a large narrative with some of the Liberal legislation we have seen, is the minister would have more expanded and broader powers. This is very similar to what we have seen with Bill C-69.

We now have proponents in the energy sector that are divesting themselves of the energy sector because they do not feel there is a clear path to success. If they do apply for a project, whether it is pipeline, a mine, a forestry initiative, LNG, they could go through the regulatory process, through every environmental review, could pass all of those things, but at several steps during the process, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would have the authority to step in and tell them to go back to the beginning. The minister could cut it off right there and tell them the project was not in the public interest or it was not something that could be supported. That would be the end of that project.

There is no clear definition of how to reach success or if there is a definitive pathway that people would know their projects would not succeed. We cannot have those types of projects at the whim of one person. That is very similar to what we see in Bill C-68 where the minister would have similar powers.

This is a crippling burden for municipalities that do not have the resources or the infrastructure to deal with these things. Imagine the burden and the impact it will have on farmers and ranchers who absolutely do not have the wherewithal to handle some of these issues.

Prior to 2012, a farmer in northern Alberta explained to me that he had a spring run-off area that went through his field. He would put a couple of 2x4s down during the spring so he could drive his machinery over it when he sprayed or seeded. However, Fisheries and Oceans came to him before 2012 and said that it was a waterway because it could float a canoe or a kayak. Certainly it could for about two weeks in the spring, but the rest of the time it was dry. He had to build a bridge over that seasonal spring runoff area. We are not talking about a river for the last pirate of Saskatchewan to float down the plain. This was simply a spring run-off. He was very concerned that he would have to go back to this. This will very burdensome to him.

Again, this goes back to the narrative that the Liberal government implements knee-jerk legislation, without doing the due diligence, without having an idea of what the ramifications will be and the unintended consequences, or doing the economic impact analysis of these decisions and what they will have on other sectors.

This is again another attack on rural Canadians. It is not science-based, front of package labelling, food guide, carbon tax. These changes will impact our rural communities, farmers, and ranchers who are struggling just to stay in business. Now there is a potential trade war with the United States.

For farmers and ranchers in rural municipalities, their livelihoods depend on healthy waterways, lakes, rivers, streams, aquifers. No one would take better care of these waterways than those who are on the ground, rural Canadians, farmers, and ranchers.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard referenced a number of times in this place that municipalities across Canada were upset with the Fisheries Act, and that is why the Harper government acted to change it.

I just want to reference this again. I mentioned it earlier in debate. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities dealt with this issue in 2012. They brought before the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' annual general meeting a motion to urge former prime minister Harper to protect habitat and to take those sections out of Bill C-38 that weakened habitat protections. The motion was brought forward by a British Columbian, and former Conservative minister of fisheries, the hon. Tom Siddon, who happened to be an elected official within his own area of British Columbia. It was brought to the floor of the FCM, where it passed.

Where municipalities have weighed in on this issue, they have called for the protection of fish habitat. There is no question that there can be times when there are conflicts for some rural municipalities, but those issues have been largely dealt with in Bill C-68. It certainly has the support of municipalities across the country.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak tonight to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, and there are some consequences.

In the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to strengthen the role of parliamentary committees. The Prime Minister promised Canadians that committees would be independent, giving them the ability to better scrutinize legislation and “provide reliable, non-partisan research” through their reporting to Parliament. Two years after the election, the same Liberals introduced Bill C-68, legislation that would bring in a number of changes to the Fisheries Act without considering a single expert's advice from stakeholders or the committee study of the bill.

The proposed changes ignore some of the major findings from a report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that was presented to the House in February 2017. On September 19, 2016, the fisheries committee agreed to the following motion, which stated:

...review and study the scope of application of the Fisheries Act, and specifically the serious harm to fish prohibition; how the prohibition is implemented to protect fish and fish habitat; the capacity of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to deliver on fish and fish habitat protection through project review, monitoring, and enforcement; the definitions of serious harm to fish and commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries; the use of regulatory authorities under the Fisheries Act; and other related provisions of the act, and provide its recommendations in a report to the House....

The committee convened 10 meetings in Ottawa from October 31 to December 12, 2016, before presenting the report to the House of Commons in February 2017. Overall, the committee heard testimony from 50 different witnesses during the study and received over 188 submitted briefing notes. It was a comprehensive and fact-based study with experts from almost every province putting forward policy suggestions. If the government were truly committed to strengthening the role of parliamentary committees, this study should have formed the basis for Bill C-68 with all of that consultation.

The Liberals essentially ignored the committee's report, including one of its most important recommendations, which stated:

Any revision of the Fisheries Act should review and refine the previous definition of HADD [the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat] due to the previous definition’s vulnerability to being applied in an inconsistent manner and the limiting effect it had on government agencies in their management of fisheries and habitats in the interest of fish productivity.

Following hours of testimony from the 50 witnesses and briefing notes from more than 180 associations, groups, and individuals, it was agreed that a return to HADD was not ideal, and that, should the government return to HADD, it would need to be refined and reviewed. Bill C-68 ignores this recommendation and introduces a return to HADD.

HADD is referred to in proposed subsection 35(1) of the legislation, which states, “No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.” Essentially, this means that any sort of development that could be harmful to, alter, disrupt, or destroy any fish habitat could be stopped or not approved by the government, taking us back to one of the major issues we have seen, especially with municipalities and the concerns they had when they tried to make any type of alterations. They would have to go to DFO and the provincial governments to make sure they were satisfying conditions that they knew, on the ground, were not necessary. It added costs.

I had the opportunity earlier to question the member for Cape Breton—Canso about the concerns municipalities had. He indicated that they are getting so much money that they really do not care whether or not that is the case. Of course, I think they would question just how quickly that money is coming out, but the concerns they have are still there. Going back to a system that does not respect the rights of communities and municipalities, and the concerns about agriculture and different groups that some members discussed earlier, it is no wonder we are having trouble getting different types of projects off the ground. This is a major concern, and hopefully I will have a chance to discuss that later.

As the committee report noted, this section was applied inconsistently and it was unclear. The concern is always that developers are often bogged down in these battles over the vague guidelines. For example, there was no clearly defined outline of what constituted a fish habitat, or what was seen to be harmful, in the previous version of the act. There was no clear path forward, and HADD became an obstacle to development, growth, and investment within the industry. It was becoming a consistent roadblock for projects and growth.

We need to listen to expert advice, instead of politically motivated advice. In the debate over the bill's provisions, stakeholders have been flagging this proposed change as problematic. The reinstatement of these measures will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities, and undue delay. This can very well discourage investment at a time when Canadians and Canadian businesses need it the most. The key component here is certainly.

A few months ago, I had an opportunity to be with the trade committee in southeast Asia, and in some of the discussions we had with fund managers, we wondered how we could, in good conscience, tell people to come to Canada and invest. That is shameful when we think of the tens of billions in project dollars that have already left, and the fact that people are starting to say that Canada is not a place for an investment dollar. It is not as though an oil and gas project is not going to be developed. Otherwise, it will be developed, but it will be developed somewhere else in competition with us. For those who suggest that this is going to help with greenhouse gases and so on, this just changes it from an opportunity for us to use our natural resources, to some other place taking advantage of that.

Certainly, the same situation has occurred with the Kinder Morgan discussion, in which the government used $4.5 billion to purchase a 65-year-old pipeline, and gave that company the opportunity to go someplace else to build pipelines to bring someone else's product into eastern Canada. How is that ever going to change anything?

That is the major concern I have, and people see this as one of the major issues with government overreach, which is certainly the case here.

Let me be clear: Conservatives wholeheartedly support the protection of our oceans and fisheries. Our previous changes to the act brought a fine balance between encouraging growth in the industry and responsible conservation. Our previous changes to the act also enacted provisions that provided transparency in the decision-making process, and provided a level of certainty to those invested in the act. Unlike the Liberals, Conservatives listen to the people on the ground, instead of importing ideas and policies from Liberal insiders, foreign interest groups, and radical eco-activists. As Conservatives, we take our cues from Canadians, and we understand the importance of finding the right balance.

It was for this specific reason that in 2012, our former Conservative government removed HADD and replaced it with the following:

35 (1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.

This definition was much clearer, and was more universally accepted because it struck the important balance required between development and conservation.

There are also changes within this bill that would undermine transparency and due process by allowing the ministers to withhold critical information from interested proponents. How is that transparent?

Another change I am worried about is the fact that the bill would allow the minister to establish an advisory panel with taxpayer-funded members and panellists, but does not set the guidelines or limitations for its use. Without any guidelines, these panels may be subject to abuse, especially if they are established by politically motivated individuals.

On behalf of the many Canadians and industry experts against the new changes, I join my Conservative colleagues in urging the Liberal government to listen to expert advice and reverse this senseless change, revisit the return of HADD, and amend the legislation to ensure that economic development and environmental protection go hand in hand and not head to head.

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

Mr. Speaker, in those nine years from 2006 to 2015, when we were in government, there was consultation. There were these changes, and there was a coast to coast tour on salmon. We started on the west coast and ended on the east coast. There is a problem with salmon. It has not developed over one year. It has been over many years. The previous Conservative Parliament was committed to trying to find those answers. Those answers are not only one issue. It is the whole issue of how we are protecting the environment and enhancing the environment.

Unfortunately, Bill C-68 will not solve that problem through rhetoric, because it is not science-based. I believe everyone on this side is committed to doing whatever is necessary to enhance the environment for the salmon, but it is a problem that may take many years of commitment from all sides to find the solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister shall consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, include provisions respecting the consideration and protection of Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, and authorize the making of agreements with Indigenous governing bodies to further the purpose of the Fisheries Act;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand this evening to speak to the bill.

I will take a bit of a different approach because I am from Saskatchewan. As has been mentioned, our lakes are beautiful. We have wonderful fish and all kinds of animal life. It is very pristine and beautiful. We are also a major agricultural source within the country, as well as natural resources.

The Conservative Party of Canada supports the protection of our oceans and fisheries. Our previous changes to the Fisheries Act were enacted to support transparency in the decision-making process and to provide a level of certainty to those who had an investment in this. It is important to note that we were very robust in our expectations in determining whether environmental conditions were being met. However, we worked with the natural resource and the agricultural communities.

The term “the environment and the economy go hand in hand” does not belong to the current government. Back in 2009, that is the exact term I used to express Conservative values when I was running in for nomination. There is no question that on this side of the floor, the environment and the economy are both important, which is why our prime minister understood that Canada's role on this issue had to include a global look at the world. Canada has a responsibility in relation to the rest of the world, not just for the environment but for our economy as well. That is where our ability to work with the environment exists. Some people cannot afford to make a living. More and more we find ourselves in a situation, where investment is running out of the country as fast as it can. We are losing jobs. We cannot compete with the United States. We cannot afford to do a lot of the things that we want to do as a country to ensure our economy is strong while at the same time our environment is strong.

When I was a brand new member of Parliament two and a half years ago, one of the first visits to my office was a young man from an environmental engineers group. I could not say exactly which group it was as I was in a bit of a daze. However, we had an amazing conversation. He said, knowing what was coming from the the government and the likelihood of changes to this very act, that what we had was very good. It was very robust, very challenging, there were huge expectations, and it provided a level of certainty.

We kept hearing how the government just rushed these things through. I did not appreciate what he said to me at the time, but I do now. Certainty enabled resource producers to know the parameters under which they would be working. They hired environmental engineers like himself to ensure they did absolutely everything they could to be prepared to be to meet the requirements for their new projects. His perspective was that certainty made all the difference in the environment and the economy being able to go hand in hand.

That is the case in my riding where we have potash development at this very moment. There is a circumstance there where habitat would be be influenced by the productivity. I have a news flash. It does not matter what we do, whether it is build a house, build a downtown store, put in a new farm building, or whatever, we impact our environment. However, the concept of offsets, which the Saskatchewan Mining Association referred to in its brief, is very important.

It said that it had worked previously with Fisheries and Oceans Canada on the topic of habitat banking, resulting in the 2012 publication “Fish Habitat Banking in Canada: Opportunities and Challenges”. As such, it said that it supported the addition of proponent-led habitat banking into the amended act. Why? The current government would say that it is because it is this evil group that wants to destroy our environment, which is ridiculous. The truth of the matter is that it wants to be responsible. I know it spent millions of dollars in securing other land as the habitat that would be protected to ensure that its business could grow and people all across our province and our country could be employed. We need that balance. I do not see that balance at all with the government.

With Bill C-68, the Liberals have added additional layers of regulatory uncertainty.

We have heard a lot tonight about the impacts on the farmers and how that will deter them in a lot of ways. My fellow member, I believe the member for Foothills, spoke to this issue a while back. He talked about how fish would be found because of floodwaters or whatever and all of a sudden these drainage areas would have to be made into bedding areas for fish, and how difficult that would be for the farming community. The member across the floor, I believe it was a member from Prince Edward Island, said that he was sure that would be dealt with at committee, that it was common sense. That is not what I am hearing from the government at all. The member from across the floor said that it was common sense to enable the Prairies and places where this was overreach to be considered in the bill. Apparently, that will not be the case.

The Liberals have said that they are restoring the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat prohibition, yet they have sidestepped any obligation to uphold the HADD regulations in the legislation by providing the minister with the ability to exempt certain provisions. How will they decide which ones they will exempt and which ones they will not? That is a dangerous place to be. We know Canadians look at what is done in the House and know what politics do. We have already heard tonight about the circumstances where this is being abused. I even wonder about the water systems that will be put in our first nations, which are under water advisories. This is a really good thing. It needs to be done. I have small communities all over my riding that need that as well. What kind of advanced research was done on the implications of putting those systems in? We need to have fairness across the board.

I want to mention one more thing. We are having trouble getting this pipeline built, yet today there was an announcement that stated, “Voisey's Bay Underground Mine Construction To Begin This Summer”. This is in Labrador. Obviously, it is a priority to make that happen. It states:

Three former Liberal premiers were on hand for the official announcement this morning...[and the] agreement was signed.

The project is expected to result in 1,700 jobs...$69-million in tax revenue for the province.

It is an ore mine. However, somehow we cannot get this pipeline built to the coast to enable our provinces, which have wonderful resources, to make a difference in the Canadian economy, and to do it in an environmentally-friendly way. I am very proud of my province. We have a lot to show and teach the government about good environmental standards.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting discussion and there have been some good speeches this evening.

I will start by saying there are two pieces of federal legislation aimed at protecting the quality of Canada's fresh water. These laws implement Ottawa's clearly stated constitutional jurisdiction and responsibility in two specific areas: navigation and the fishery. I am speaking of the Navigation Protection Act, formerly the Navigable Waters Protection Act and soon to be renamed the Canadian navigable waters act by virtue of Bill C-69, which passed at report stage today and is on its way to passing at third reading. The second piece of legislation, of course, is the Fisheries Act. These two laws are really the basis of federal water policy. Often water policy comes more out of provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government has something to say about water policy, and it is through those two main pieces of legislation.

Navigation and fishing were key aspects of life at the time of Confederation and remain significant today in our diversified modern economy. This is no doubt the reason that jurisdiction for both navigation and the fishery were given to the central government, this plus the fact that, as Pierre Trudeau famously said, “Fish swim,” which means they cross provincial boundaries, as do marine vessels for that matter.

Based on the speeches I have heard here and on what I know to be the Conservative narrative, it is fair to say the Conservative opposition does not see these two laws broadly as environmental laws. This is despite the fact that both laws govern and protect the aquatic environments on which vessels traverse and in which fish live. The Navigation Protection Act and the Fisheries Act are part of a grouping of four federal laws that are the basis of federal environmental policy in Canada, a grouping that includes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is being renamed the impact assessment act under Bill C-69, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has just gone through its five-year legislative review at the environment committee under the very able stewardship of the member for King—Vaughan.

It was the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Fisheries Act that the Harper government targeted for revamping in order to restrict their scope and significance for the environment. The Harper government amended the Navigable Waters Protection Act twice, including at one point changing its name to the Navigation Protection Act. The first time it restricted the act's scope was in a 2009 omnibus budget bill, and the second time in a 2012 omnibus budget bill.

I know members find it hard to believe that the Conservative government would ever do that, but yes it did use omnibus budget bills and they were not necessarily encompassing only financial matters. The 2012 omnibus budget bill by the Conservative government removed broad Fisheries Act protections for all fish habitats, stipulating that the act would from then on only prohibit “serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or that support such a fishery”.

Incidentally, Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative government used the 2009 omnibus budget bill, if I am not mistaken, to also weaken the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is why the government had to bring in Bill C-69 to strengthen environmental assessment in Canada and to regain the trust of Canadians regarding the federal government's commitment to protecting the environment.

I know the Conservatives are unhappy with government budget bills when they have too many pages, and call them omnibus bills, but there is no comparison—Madam Speaker, you will recall, you were in the House—to the blatant manner in which the previous government stretched the meaning of budget bill to effectively cover everything from banks to canoes and sailboats to trout, shellfish, and crustaceans. That is what the Liberal platform objected to: the Harper government's semantic elasticity with regard to the notion of a budget bill.

Bill C-68 rolls back the changes the Harper government made to the Fisheries Act. As has been mentioned by others, the bill protects all fish and fish habitat. The definition of “serious harm to fish” is also being removed.

Those carrying out projects would be generally responsible for avoiding harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat. However, when proponents are unable to completely avoid harm to fish, an authorization permit with conditions may be issued by the minister to allow a project to proceed without contravening the act. I wonder if the opposition is critical of this ministerial discretion, given its criticism of ministerial decision-making power in Bill C-69.

It is important to note the distinction in Bill C-68 between designated projects and routine projects. I have not heard that distinction mentioned on the other side. Designated projects would always require ministerial approval. These are of course expected to be large-scale projects. Currently, under the bill the previous Conservative government was responsible for, projects requiring authorization are determined on a case-by-case basis, which adds complexity and uncertainty for business.

As for routine smaller projects, published codes of practice would provide advice to proponents on how to avoid project impacts on fish or fish habitat. Although the regulations defining designated projects have not been created, I imagine irrigation canals or flood canals on farms would not be considered major, large-scale projects, like dams. I believe they would be considered routine projects, and farmers could just avail themselves of a guide of best practice and do the best job they possibly could. There is a bit of fearmongering on the other side about what the impact of the bill would be on farmers, who are indeed very much the backbone of a large part of the Canadian economy.

Laws are all well and good, but enforcement is always the key. The government will invest $384.2 million to ensure the capacity to enforce the Fisheries Act. Among other things, this money would go toward increasing the number of front-line fishery habitat officers.

Also worth mentioning, Bill C-68 would empower cabinet to make regulations for the rebuilding of fish stocks. It would also empower the minister to make regulations for the purposes of the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity. Again, I am curious to know whether the opposition objects to ministerial discretion in these cases.

Significantly, the bill requires that the government consider the rights of indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge when making decisions about fish habitats. This supports the government's priority on reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples.

Finally, Bill C-68 would ban the capturing of whales, dolphins, and porpoises for the purpose of keeping them in captivity. This should be welcomed by those who hold to the protection of marine wildlife. They are people like the beluga specialist, Dr. Pierre Béland, who is the world's most well-known expert on the beluga whale, and who was actually involved in an aqua-hacking conference in Toronto this past weekend. Aqua hacking is a process by which we look for solutions to problems, like pollution affecting our waterways.

Lastly, it is worth noting that extensive consultation was undertaken to arrive at the measures we are debating today. There have been two rounds of online public consultations, and over 100 meetings with partners, stakeholders, and indigenous groups. In 2016, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to review the previous government's changes to the act. This review resulted in 32 recommendations, which helped shape Bill C-68. This is on top of all the debate that took place in 2012 around changes to the act undertaken within the context of a rather egregious so-called budget omnibus bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct something in the present tense about Bill C-68 and correct some revisionist history. The hon. John Crosbie, fisheries minister at the time, closed down the cod fishery after it was gone. It was officially gone. National Sea Products and Fishery Products International could not find any fish, and at that point, there was a cod moratorium. The minister of fisheries at the time ignored the pleas from inshore fishermen that the fishery was going to collapse.

I would go to the present tense, and what needs correcting is the idea that the precautionary approach has been put on a high pedestal in Bill C-68. I would refer the member to the language in proposed section 2.5. That list of considerations he read out are not mandatory conditions of action. It says, “the Minister may consider, among other things”, then that long list is there. It is hardly tying the minister's hands, and it does not make sure that every decision is guided by the precautionary approach. This is good legislation, and it is about time we passed it. I do agree that it should not be passed under time allocation.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I see that the debate is slowing tonight. I thought I had a few more minutes to prepare, but I am happy to speak about my concerns in relation to Bill C-68.

A number of my colleagues have raised the troubling situation that we are debating a fisheries bill. It has some provisions related to fish habitat. There have been some great comments, including from an NDP member who has some experience as a biologist. That is when our debates here are at their best. Unfortunately, this debate is also under a cloud, considering that the Ethics Commissioner has now added the fisheries minister to the list of ministers of the Liberal government whose actions are going to be examined. It is with respect to the awarding of a fishing-related licence. It is unfortunate, because that is a cloud hanging over this debate.

I have heard on several occasions many members of the Liberal Party suggesting that in a previous government, fisheries management and fisheries licences did not take into consideration aboriginal treaty rights and aboriginal participation in both the traditional fishery and the commercial fishery, despite the fact that evidence shows that this is not true. If we look at some of the press releases and media advisories in relation to fishery licence competitions or proposals and requests for groups to bid, the consultation with and participation of first nations communities was part of that. It is unfortunate that some members, including the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, are making suggestions that are not supported by a cursory examination of what was happening in the last government, and that concerns me.

Bill C-68 is before the House under the cloud of yet another minister being examined for ethical conduct with the awarding of a fisheries licence to a group of proponents that did not have a boat but had a number of connections, both deep and familial, to the Liberal government. That seemed to eclipse consideration of any experience actually on the sea.

As someone who did fisheries patrols with our navy and with our air force on the Flemish Cap, I am proud of our heritage fishing and the fishers engaged in the practice. It is a hard living. As my colleague from British Columbia, our friend the fisheries critic, has highlighted the tremendous work of Canadians, they should know that any group has the ability to bid for these licences, because it is a monopoly. This is a serious power the government has, and now the fisheries minister is the third minister to be examined for how he has used that power.

The first minister to be examined was actually the Prime Minister, the first in both ways. He is the first minister. The finding of his investigation, as we know, was guilty. There is one outstanding investigation involving the finance minister, and now there is the fisheries minister. We cannot forget that in considering this legislation.

There are also two other big parts of Bill C-68 that should concern Canadians. Not only do we already think there is a cozy relationship, with some of the most recent fisheries proponents who were awarded a contract by the minister having close Liberal ties, but the government is enshrining that in Bill C-68 with paid advisory boards to advise the minister. Why is that?

The minister has a department that has done that quite well for over a century, in combination with consultations with stakeholders, industry groups, unions, and first nations. Why this new advisory board needs to be employed and paid and staffed is beyond me. It reminds us of the Liberal approach of surrounding themselves with more friends to tell them that they are doing a great job. They are not, and we are going to hear from the Ethics Commissioner on that.

The minister will have the ability to withhold critical information from bid proponents. Considering everything that has gone on, that should concern Canadians as well.

I am going to speak for the third time, with the remainder of my time, about ideological creep, once again, with the Liberal government enshrining directly the precautionary principle into legislation with very little to no debate. I have raised this before on the Oceans Act and the classification of marine protected areas and its basis. I raised it a few weeks ago with respect to the Federal Sustainable Development Act, and here we are today with the Fisheries Act, another very strategic placement of the precautionary principle.

In proposed section 2.5, “Considerations for decision making”, the first consideration is listed as “(a) the application of a precautionary approach”. That is listed along with a number of grounds. The precautionary approach and the precautionary principle are the same thing.

What is also listed in the considerations for decision-making? This is the government that, when in opposition, used to always talk about science-based and evidence-based decision-making. What does it list in decision factors the minister can take into consideration? The precautionary approach is proposed subsection 2.5 (a). The third consideration, 2.5 (c), is “scientific information”. I guess it is going to have to look at that. Proposed subsection 2.5(d) is “indigenous knowledge”; 2.5 (e) is “community knowledge”; 2.5(g) is “social, economic, and cultural factors”; and 2.5 (i) is “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”.

This is about fisheries and decisions related to fisheries. Beyond science, beyond the people who fish, and beyond our first nations, that should be the factor in decision-making. There is the creeping edge of the precautionary principle, and now we have intersectionality, another political measure, being inserted into this. I am astounded.

Any time there was a decision made in relation to advancing projects related to resource development or other things, the Conservatives were accused of ideological underpinnings driving to support business and tear down environmental considerations. That was not the truth. Certainly we wanted certainty for proponents, but this is now the third bill on which I am talking about a direct ideological approach being embedded in legislation that is not even rooted in science.

I have said before that the precautionary principle being the guiding force has been criticized roundly, in fact, by one of President Obama's most senior advisers, the White House chair of regulatory affairs, Professor Cass Sunstein. He wrote, which I have quoted a few times, “the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent.” Why is that? It is because it allows people to make decisions based on a hunch, based on a concern, based on a “we had better act”, or as some people have described it, better safe than sorry.

What was talked about when this principle was first advanced, back at the Rio climate conference? It was suggested at that point that it could only be considered when there was serious or irreversible harm demonstrated before precaution might come in. Now the government, through many pieces of legislation, without much serious scrutiny, I might add, apart from the Conservatives raising it from time to time, is embedding the precautionary principle and a list of cultural, social, and other factors where it can make decisions related to the sustainability of fisheries. It is preposterous, and it should concern people. It is giving the Liberals enough wiggle room to do whatever they want based on how they feel.

Where does this come from? One of the big groups pushing for the precautionary principle to govern and actually supersede science was the World Wildlife Fund. We certainly know where its former head is working now. He is the PMO lead. It should concern Canadians that those approaches and those things advocated for are now being systematically put into legislation without any serious discussion, and directly contrary to what science suggests. They are not even putting in an approach that irreversible harm should be the standard before this approach is used.

Liberals are, by stealth, providing an ideological approach to make decisions without scientific certainty. When it comes to our fisheries, we should be proud that under a Conservative government, John Crosbie, we remember, made a tough decision about the cod fishery, based on science, in the face of people protesting and threatening harm, because it was based on science, not on a hunch and not on ideology.

This is the third bill. Canadians should wake up to how ideological and unscientific the government is.

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

Madam Speaker, I always welcome young women to this place, and especially young women with grit and determination, like the young member for Lethbridge. I regret that I disagree with everything she said this evening about Bill C-68.

I do not know if she is aware, but in 2012, the national organization representing municipalities in this country, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, urged the Harper government to remove the sections from Bill C-38 that would weaken the protection of fish habitat. By the way, the motion that was brought forward on the floor of the FCM convention came from none other than a former Conservative fisheries minister, the hon. Tom Siddon, who also joined in an open letter denouncing the weakening of fish habitat protection, which was also signed by another former Conservative fisheries minister, the hon. John Fraser. Bill C-38 was an egregious attack on the fisheries resource.

The fisheries resource and agriculture resource need not be in conflict, and in Bill C-68 they are not.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lethbridge for laying out how terrible Bill C-68 is, and in particular, how it will unfairly impact our municipalities, especially those in rural Canada.

When I was first elected back in 2004, one of the things I heard from my municipalities over and over again was that they had to deal with the fish police from DFO, and how that slowed down their ability to clean ditches, replace culverts, and provide proper drainage on agricultural lands. What we are doing here is going to duplicate what the provinces already do at home.

I want to thank my hon. colleague for standing up for rural Canada, and standing up for farmers and ranchers, and for all the hard work she does in working alongside the municipalities in her region, because this legislation is terrible.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening with some serious concerns with respect to Bill C-68. While one might think that fisheries legislation would impact only our coastal communities, in actuality this legislation would increase costs for every single town, city, and rural municipality across this country from coast to coast.

That is why it is unfortunate that the Liberals have once again moved time allocation on this very complex and important piece of legislation. By refusing to give us the time necessary to debate this bill, they are, in essence, muzzling Canadians across Canada by refusing to give them a voice through us as members of Parliament who have been elected to represent them in this place. The Liberals have shut down debate on a major overhaul of our Fisheries Act, which will have a huge impact on farmers and municipalities across Canada, as well as on our natural resource development sector. The Liberals have consistently refused to listen to stakeholders, and now they are refusing to listen to parliamentarians. By way of doing that, they are refusing to listen to Canadians.

The Liberals have reintroduced an incredibly onerous provision of the Fisheries Act. This is the blanket prohibition on any work that could cause the death of any fish. As the explanation document on the Department of Fisheries' website spells out, “Fish habitat means water frequented by fish and any other areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas.” According to this, fish do not even need to be present in order for this act to apply, which of course is problematic.

I live in Lethbridge, southern Alberta. There is no ocean or a commercial fishery within close proximity. However, my region relies extensively on water management through a system of irrigation channels, reservoirs, and catchment areas. This legislation means that a farmer who so much as changes a ditch on his or her property that is somehow connected to a waterway will be impacted by this legislation. These farmers would have to apply for a permit in order to make any changes to their land. Therefore, the penalties are beyond onerous. The federal government could charge someone up to five years after the work has already taken place.

Family farms are not extravagant operations that can afford a full-time environmentalist or compliance officer within their operation. Therefore, if farmers have to apply for permits every time they take a tractor out to dig a ditch or deepen a slough, we can imagine how difficult it would be for those individuals or those operations to follow this legislation. They will have to worry about whether or not some activist animal rights group will come after them and attack them for taking their tractor out and digging a ditch on their own property in order to accomplish something that is necessary within their operation.

Farmers are among the strongest conservationists on the planet. They are among the people in Canada who advocate and act, a key word here, most strongly in favour of the environment. These are women and men who are doing a whole lot of good for our country, yet the legislation that is before the House would actually punish them. It demonizes them, and that is not fair.

This was an unprecedented year for flooding in both British Columbia and the Maritimes. Large municipalities and small rural communities alike are now realizing the need to significantly invest in flood prevention works. Whether that is as simple as building a higher dike or building dry channels to redirect flood waters at peak times, these works will now cost significantly more money to complete because municipalities are now going to have to hire an army of lawyers, consultants, environmentalists, and so forth, in order to uphold this legislation.

Testimony from Manitoba Hydro provided to the fisheries committee clearly stated that the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act enhanced and broadened the act's protections for fish and fish habitat by adding the word “activities”. In describing the true effect of the 2012 changes to the act, which this bill is trying to reverse, Gary Swanson of Manitoba Hydro stated:

[T]he addition of the word “activities” in the prohibition against serious harm to fish arguably represents greater protection for fisheries, as do the addition of requirements for reporting all incidents of serious harm, the duty to intervene to address impacts, the extension in the time limitation for laying of charges from two to five years, and the establishment of contravening conditions of licence as an offence.

Let us put that in simple terms, shall we? There is much less certainty as to what this act applies to, which means it is great for lawyers but really bad for small businesses. It means it is great for environmentalists, but it is really bad for municipalities. It is really bad for Canadians, period.

Now the result will be a bureaucratic gridlock as thousands of permits are filed for. However, then it will end up being known that those permits actually are not even required. There will be this process that is incredibly onerous.

The previous Conservative government simplified this legislation because the complete prohibition of any potential harm to any body of water that might possibly host a fish was just simply unworkable. The Conservative approach focused on protecting commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. That approach focused on reducing significant harm to fish populations where they actually lived. That allowed for a proper balance between protecting fish in our waterways and ensuring that small businesses had the legal certainty to carry on their work and run a profitable business.

Proposed section 8 of this bill also sets out the establishment of fees for quotas, and proposed section 14 would establish the setting of fees for conferral. What does that mean? It means more fees that Canadians will have to pay for permits and authorizations.

Section 14 of this bill proposes powers for the creation of fees for regulatory processes with no parameters for who might be charged and how much they might be charged. It means higher costs for everyone, for them, for us, for every single Canadian. It means less money in the pockets of Canadian families because it means increased taxation. Municipalities will have to raise their taxes in order to apply for the permits that they require to do the work that needs to be done. As a result, small businesses will have to raise their prices because they will have to apply for permits, go through bureaucratic bodies, jump through hoops, and cut through red tape, in order to do their projects. This is on top of all the tax increases that the Liberal government has already placed on Canadian families, which is to say nothing of the carbon tax that is still to come.

The government has repeatedly stated that this bill is necessary to restore so-called lost protections. My colleague, the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, has submitted an Order Paper question, asking the government for proof of harm resulting from these so-called lost protections a number of times now. In its response to this Order Paper question, the government said that it cannot produce any proof because the department does not have the resources or the mandate to make such determinations. This is very interesting. This bill is the solution to a problem that has not been proven to actually exist, at the government's own admission. It is ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous.

The minister claimed that there were face-to-face consultations when he appeared at the committee on November 2, 2016. An Order Paper question response, dated March 22, 2017, contradicted this by stating that no face-to-face consultations had taken place. In this place, in the House of Commons, we are not allowed to call something a lie or call someone a liar. I will say that the minister certainly told an untruth.

Furthermore, we have concerns with the bill's proposals for the establishment of advisory panels. There is no accountability. There is a blank cheque being signed over, and what will they accomplish?

In conclusion, this legislation overreaches from even the pre-2012 version of the legislation. It includes the ability for indigenous groups to provide secret testimony directly to the minister that cannot be challenged by the person applying for the permit. It also creates a host of paid positions, to which the Liberal minister can appoint his friends with very little actual work required, and no accountability mechanism in place. Combined with the changes to the environmental assessment legislation, it effectively means the end of natural resource development in Canada. On top of that, it adds legal uncertainty to every Canadian, from logger to farmer to miner, about whether or not they are in compliance with the law.

I stand today in this place totally opposed to this legislation because it is bad for Canadians.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-68, especially after having come back from committee. I know that my colleagues on committee did an outstanding job. They brought forward some thoughtful amendments, and I believe we have a good piece of legislation. During the review of Bill C-68, my colleagues in committee heard from many different witnesses and experts. I would like to take the time to talk about what they heard, and the concrete steps they proposed to help further improve this legislation for the benefit of all Canadians.

The changes proposed in Bill C-68 support several government priorities and key themes: partnering with indigenous peoples, supporting planning and integrated management, enhancing regulation and enforcement, improving partnership and collaboration, and monitoring and reporting back to Canadians. Canadians want to know what is taking place within the fishery. This bill includes the reintroduction of the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat, as well as the prohibition against causing the death of fish by means other than fishing. There are measures to allow for better management of large and small projects that may be harmful to fish or fish habitat, through a new permitting scheme for big projects, and codes of practice for smaller ones.

The amendments would enable the regulatory authorities that would allow for establishing a list of designated projects comprised of works, undertakings, and activities for which a permit will always be required. We have been engaging and will continue to engage with indigenous peoples, provinces, territories, and stakeholders to ensure that we capture the right kinds of projects on the designated project list. Habitat loss and degradation, and changes to fish passage and water flow, are all contributing to the decline of freshwater and marine habitats in this country. It is imperative that Canada restore degraded fish habitats, and that is why the proposed changes in the Fisheries Act include consideration of restoration as part of the project decision-making.

This bill is motivated by the need to restore the public's trust in government, which was lost through the changes made in 2012. In order to re-establish that trust, access to information on the government's activities related to the protection of fish and fish habitat, as well as the project information and decisions, is essential. We listened. We proposed, through Bill C-68 measures, to establish a public registry which will enable transparency and access. This registry would allow Canadians to see whether their government is meeting its obligations, and allow them to hold the government accountable for decision-making with regard to fish and fish habitat. The addition of new purpose and consideration provisions would clearly guide the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard when making decisions and providing a framework for proper management and control of the fisheries for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution.

Fisheries resources and aquatic habitats have important social, cultural, and economic significance for many indigenous people. Respect for the rights of indigenous peoples in Canada, taking into account their unique interests and aspirations in fisheries-related economic opportunities and the protection of fish and fish habitat, is one way in which we are showing our commitment to renewing our relationships with indigenous people.

We listened to Canadians on the need for modern safeguards. That is why we have proposed changes to the act that would provide new fisheries management order power to establish targeted fisheries management measures for 45-day increments, where there is a threat to the proper management and control of fisheries, or to the conservation and protection of fish. This would help to address time-sensitive emerging issues when a fishery is under way and targeted measures are required. This tool might be used to assist in our current protection of the North Atlantic right whale. Proposed changes to the act include a new ministerial authority to make regulations to establish long-term spatial restrictions to fisheries activities under the act, specifically for the purpose of conserving and protecting marine biodiversity.

This will support our international commitment to protect at least 10% of the marine and coastal areas by 2020. Proposed changes also include authority to make regulations respecting the rebuilding of fish stocks.

As I mentioned earlier, our government reached out to Canadians in developing the bill. We listened to the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and provided direction for the restoration and recovery of fish habitat and stocks. We are pleased that the standing committee has offered amendments during its clause-by-clause review to improve the bill in this regard. We listened to environmental groups, and the committee proposed provisions aimed at implementing measures to promote the sustainability of major fish stocks.

We also heard from Canadians on other important issues. We have proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act that would prohibit fishing for a whale when the intent is to take it into captivity, unless circumstances so require, such as when the whale is injured, in distress, or in need of care.

In addition, in keeping with modernizing the act in line with other federal environmental law, changes are being proposed to the Fisheries Act to authorize the use of alternative measures agreements. Alternative measures agreements are designed to effectively address contraventions of the act without the need to engage in costly and arduous court processes. Alternative measures agreements are a formally recognized resolution process designed to address offending behaviour. The process focuses on redressing the damage and addressing the root causes of the contravention. Alternative measures agreements provide a cost-effective alternative to the criminal justice system and have been shown to reduce recidivism.

We have been clear on our commitment to make inshore independence more effective. That was a considerable issue in the last Parliament, and I have heard about this issue from Port Morien to Port Hood, all the way down to Little Dover. Proposed changes provide specific authority in the Fisheries Act to develop regulations supporting the independence of inshore commercial licence holders and enshrine into legislation the ability to make regulations regarding owner-operator and fleet separation policies in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

Through Bill C-68, the Government of Canada is honouring its promise to Canadians. By restoring lost protections and providing modern safeguards, the government is delivering on its promise, as set out in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. Since the introduction of this bill, we have heard support from a broad range of Canadians for these amendments, which will return Canada to the forefront of protection of our rivers, coasts, and fish for generations to come.

I mentioned the hard work of the committee and how its efforts have made a good bill even better. The committee heard about the importance of water flow for fish habitat from the environmental NGO community, members across the aisle, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, as well as the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. The government supported the associated amendments put forward in committee. We believe they will contribute to the effective management of fish habitat.

In Bill C-68, we strengthened the federal government's legal obligations when major fish stocks are in trouble. The committee built on this by proposing the inclusion of requirements, under the legislation, that the minister sustainably manage or rebuild fish stocks that are prescribed in regulations. Of course, we realize that this may not always be possible for environmental reasons, or because of the adverse economic effects some measures may impose on communities.

Again, I want to thank the committee. This is a good bill made better by the amendments that were proposed by the committee. I look forward to questions from members.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak tonight to Bill C-68, the new Fisheries Act. Although I grew up, and still live, far from the coast, my family has deep history in coastal fisheries. My mother's family, the Munns, once controlled the cod fishery of Labrador. My great uncle William Azariah Munn was what one might call a cod liver oil baron. Luckily, my mother hated the stuff so much that she did not force it on me and my siblings.

Getting back to the bill, the bill comes from a Liberal promise in the last election campaign when both the NDP and Liberals ran on platforms that included the repealing of Conservative legislation that gutted all of the environmental protections of federal legislation. We are very happy the Liberals have finally acted on this, although I am not sure why it took so long.

The bill would finally restore protection for all fish across Canada. When I say all fish, I would like to point out that under the previous Conservative legislation, all fish were not created equal. Only those fish that were part of a commercial or indigenous fishery were protected, and they were not protected as strongly as they were in the past. I am happy that some of our rarest and most vulnerable fish species, like the speckled dace of the Kettle River, are now protected in this manner once again.

In the past, the Fisheries Act was the strongest piece of legislation that actually protected habitat in Canada. As many here know, I was a biologist in my past life, and I spent a long time working on ecosystem recovery plans and species at risk. Time and again, my colleagues would point out that the only legislation, federal or provincial, that effectively protected habitat, was the Fisheries Act. As a biologist who worked on land, I was always a bit jealous of my fisheries colleagues since there was little or nothing that had the same power of protection for terrestrial habitats.

This habitat protection was at the core of earlier versions of the Fisheries Act. The Conservatives took this habitat protection out in 2012 through Bill C-38, one of their omnibus budget bills. This action resulted in a huge public outcry, and among the voices were four former fisheries ministers, including one of my constituents, Tom Siddon, a former Conservative fisheries minister. He wrote an open letter to the government, urging it to keep habitat protections in the act.

This new act is still deficient in a few ways regarding habitat. For instance, while it talks about the water in rivers and lakes as fish habitat, it does not discuss the amount of that water. That is clearly important. Increasingly, low water levels in our rivers and lakes are causing difficulties for fish. Many of our fish require good quantities of clean, cool water, and more and more often they are faced in late summer with low levels of warm water that can be lethal to fish, especially to salmonids.

This act also does not address the habitat conflict between wild salmon stocks and the practice of open-net salmon farms. We should be moving in an orderly fashion toward closed containment farms to isolate fish health issues caused by the farms that impact wild salmon stocks under the open-net regime.

Bill C-68 empowers the fisheries and oceans minister to make management orders prohibiting or limiting fishing to address a threat to the conservation and protection of fish. Of course, I am fully in favour of this power, but I wonder how often it would be used, despite the fact that it would likely be recommended on a regular basis by scientists.

Fish are consistently treated differently from terrestrial species in conservation actions. As an example, of all the fish species assessed as threatened or endangered in recent years by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, less than half have actually been placed on the Species at Risk Act schedules. If a terrestrial species is in trouble, it is generally added to the list as a matter of course. However, but if a fish is in trouble, it is out of luck. This attitude has to change.

As well, the bill would give a lot of discretion to the minister to make decisions based on opinion rather than on scientific evidence. This practice must be limited and only used in exceptional circumstances. I am always concerned when it is enshrined in legislation and seemingly encouraged, as it is here and in other recent legislation, such as Bill C-69 on environmental impact assessments.

I am happy there is a provision in this act to give the DFO more resources for enforcement. I hope some of those resources can be used to rebuild the DFO staff that used to be found throughout the British Columbia interior to promote fish habitat restoration and rebuilding fish stocks.

There are no DFO staff left at all in the Okanagan and Kootenay regions now, despite the fact that there are numerous aquatic stewardship societies across my riding that used to have a great relationship with DFO and its work, and which benefited from that work. Volunteer groups that are devoted to aquatic habitats on the Arrow Lakes, the Slocan Valley, Christina Lake, the Kettle River watershed, Osoyoos Lake, and Vaseux Lake would all benefit through a renewal of those staffing levels. They talk to me regularly about that, and that they miss that help.

I would like to close with a good-news story that shows what can happen when Canadians take fish conservation into their own hands, identify the problems and solutions, and then work hard to make good things happen. That story is the restoration of salmon populations in the Okanagan. This story involves many players and funding from the United States as well as Canada, but it is mainly a story of the Okanagan Nation Alliance, ONA, the first nations of the Okanagan, who came together to bring salmon back to the valley.

Salmon, or n’titxw, is one of the four food chiefs of the Okanagan peoples, and is central to their cultural and trade traditions. When I was a kid in the Okanagan, salmon were in very low numbers. The Okanagan is part of the Columbia system, and those fish had to climb over 11 dams to get back to the spawning grounds. Most of the Columbia River salmon runs died out, but a few sockeye came back to the Okanagan every year, though maybe a only a couple of thousand in some years. However, after years of work by the ONA and other groups, we often see runs of over 100,000 fish. The Okanagan River is once again red with sockeye in the autumn. The ONA has taken an ecosystem-collaborative restoration approach that combines cultural ceremonies and salmon feasts with technical restoration. They work collaboratively with provincial and federal authorities, and everyone in the region has benefited, with recreational fishery openings, an increase in licence revenues, and local salmon to the public. I enjoy the sockeye out of Osoyoos Lake every year now.

This approach has enabled the ONA to grow to one of the largest inland first nations fisheries organizations in Canada. It has 45 full-time staff, which is probably 10 times the staffing level of DFO in the interior of B.C. It has its own hatchery, biology lab, habitat restoration course, and courses that are even taken by DFO staff.

However, even though they have been working collaboratively with DFO, they have still identified some serious issues to me.

First, there is a need for a harvest sharing agreement between Canada and the U.S. There is no agreement in place to ensure minimum food fishery requirements for first nations, and there is no other place in the Pacific region where there is up to 150,000 salmon harvested between Canada and the U.S. that does not have such an agreement in place.

Second, ONA has asked for support for the Columbia River Treaty renewal and the importance of Canadian salmon. Okanagan salmon are the only Columbia River salmon returning to Canada, and they are directly affected by how Canada stores water in its treaty dams.

Third, it points out the need for support for ONA's salmon restoration in the upper Columbia, which is in the Kootenay region. There are no salmon there now. ONA submitted a proposal to DFO and asked the minister back in September 2017, but it has received no response.

Fourth, the ONA regrets to see the overall exclusion of first nations at the Columbia River Treaty table, which is something that is very important to them.

To conclude, we will be supporting Bill C-68, but there is clearly still a lot of work to be done to protect our fish and our fisheries.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-68 following the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans' review and analysis of this bill.

We thank the committee members for their careful study of this legislation and their thoughtful amendments. During this review of Bill C-68, my colleagues in committee heard from many different witnesses and experts. I would like to take this time to talk about what they heard. I would also like to share the concrete steps proposed to make improvements and move forward with this legislation.

From the environmental NGO community and members across the aisle in the Green Party and the NDP, the committee heard about the importance of water flow for fish habitat. The government supported the associated amendments put forward in committee.

The committee also heard from industry groups seeking amendments to the rules proposed for the processing of applications for habitat authorization during the transition from the current to the new legislation. In response, the committee adopted the amendment to provide clearer transition provisions.

The committee also heard about strengthening the federal government's legal obligations when major fish stocks are in trouble. This is why the committee proposed the inclusion of requirements, under the legislation, that the minister sustainably manage or rebuild fish stocks that are prescribed in regulation. However, the legislation would require that when such cases arose, Canadians would be informed and provided with a rationale. Our aim is to sustainably manage fisheries resources for the long-term benefit of Canadians.

As members know, in 2012, the previous government decided to change habitat protection without the support of or consultation with indigenous peoples, fishers, scientists, conservation groups, coastal communities, and the Canadian public. In contrast, our government has worked with all Canadians and has encouraged everyone to be part of this process. The proposed amendments to Bill C-68 are part of our government's broader review of environmental and regulatory processes under 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, which was reviewed by the committee.

The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development also adopted some important amendments, which have been reflected in Bill C-68. These include better protections for indigenous knowledge and clearer transition provisions that would ensure better business continuity.

The changes proposed in Bill C-68 would support several government priorities, such as partnering with indigenous peoples; supporting planning and integrated management; enhancing regulation and enforcement; improving partnership and collaboration; and, finally, monitoring and reporting back to Canadians. This is transparency.

This bill would include the reintroduction of the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat as well as the prohibition against causing the death of fish by means other than fishing. There are measures to allow for better management of large and small projects that may be harmful to fish and fish habitat through a new permitting scheme, for big projects, and codes of practice, for smaller ones.

The amendments would enable the regulatory authorities that would allow for establishing a list of designated projects, comprising works, undertakings, and activities for which a permit would always be required. We have been, and will continue to be, engaged with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, stakeholders, and others to capture the right kinds of projects on the designated project list.

Habitat loss and degradation and changes to fish passage and water flow are all contributing to the decline of freshwater and marine fish habitat in Canada. It is imperative that Canada restore degraded fish habitat. That is why we proposed changes to the Fisheries Act that would include the consideration of restoration as part of project decision-making.

The bill is motivated by the need to restore the public's trust in government, which was lost following decisions made in 2012.

In order to re-establish the trust of Canadians in government, access to information on the government's activities related to the protection of fish and fish habitat, as well as protecting information and decisions, is essential. We listened and we proposed, through Bill C-68, measures to establish the public registry, which will enable transparency and access. This registry will allow Canadians to see whether the government is meeting its obligations and allow them to hold the government accountable for decision-making with regard to fish and fish habitat.

The addition of new purpose and consideration provisions will more clearly guide the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard when making decisions and provide a framework for the proper management and control of fisheries, and for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution.

Fisheries' resources and aquatic habitats have important social, cultural, and economic significance for many indigenous peoples. Respect for the rights of the indigenous peoples of Canada, taking into account their unique interests and aspirations in fisheries-related economic opportunities and the protection of fish and fish habitat, is one way we are showing our commitment to renewing our relationship with indigenous peoples.

We listened to Canadians on the need for modern safeguards. That is why we have proposed changes to the Fisheries Act that provide a new fisheries management order power to establish targeted fisheries management measures for 45-day increments where there is a threat to the proper management and control of fisheries or to the conservation and protection of fish. This will help to address time-sensitive emerging issues when a fishery is under way and targeted measures are required.

Proposed changes to the Fisheries Act include a new ministerial authority to make regulations to establish long-term spatial restrictions to fishing activities under the act, specifically for the purpose of conserving and protecting marine biodiversity. This will support our international commitment to protect at least 10% of our marine and coastal areas by 2020. Proposed changes also include authority to make regulations respecting the rebuilding of fish stocks.

As I mentioned earlier, our government reached out to Canadians to help put the bill forward. We listened to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and provided direction for the restoration and recovery of fish habitat and stocks. We were pleased with the amendments of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans during its clause-by-clause review. We listened to environmental groups, and the committee proposed provisions aimed at implementing measures to promote the sustainability of the major fish stocks.

In addition, in keeping with modernizing the act in line with other federal environmental law, changes are being proposed to the Fisheries Act to authorize the use of alternative measures agreements.

Through Bill C-68, the Government of Canada is honouring its promise to Canadians. By restoring the lost protections and providing these modern safeguards, the government is delivering on its promise as set out in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Fisheries.

Since introducing this bill, we have heard support from a broad range of Canadians for these amendments that will return Canada back to the forefront when speaking about fish for generations to come.

I urge all hon. members on both sides of the House to join me in supporting this bill, which is so important.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. I would like to start by stating that the official opposition supports the protection of our oceans and fisheries. Our previous changes to the Fisheries Act in 2012 were enacted to support transparency in the decision-making process and to provide a level of certainty to those invested in that act. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is proposing amendments through Bill C-68 that add additional layers of regulatory uncertainty.

The hon. Sergio Marchi, president and CEO of the Canadian Electricity Association stated that while Canada's electricity sector remains committed to protecting and conserving our natural resources, Bill C-68 “represents one step forward but two steps back”. The Canadian Electricity Association's concerns centre on the government's shortsightedness in choosing to return to pre-2012 provisions of the Fisheries Act that address “activity other than fishing that results in the death of fish” and “the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction”, otherwise known as HADD, “of fish habitat”.

While the Liberals say they are restoring HADD they sidestep any obligation to uphold the HADD regulations in the legislation by providing the minister with the ability to exempt certain provisions. The CEA points out, and rightly so, that virtually any action without prior authorization could be construed as being in contravention of Bill C-68.

The Canadian nuclear agency shares these concerns. In its testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans it stated that the definition of fish habitat has been changed so that the term now means “water frequented by fish”, while retaining the “directly or indirectly” terminology. The Canadian Nuclear Association warned that this has the potential to include waters not designated to support fish, like tailing ponds, or drainage ditches, or waters not intended to be fish habitats, or where no fish are present at any time of the year. As such, it called on the government to revise the term “fish habitat” to exclude these structures.

The Canadian Electricity Association echoed the same sentiment, seeking amendments to provide greater certainty around the definition of fish and fish habitat, focusing on fish population conservation.

Ontario Power Generation agrees. In its written statement to the standing committee it recommended that exceptions, including intake canals and other structures that were constructed for the purpose of facility operations and not intended to be frequented by fish, should also be considered.

All of this is falling on deaf ears. Bill C-68 would also result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities and discourage yet more investment opportunities in energy projects, something the government seems to be quite good at.

The Canadian Nuclear Association in its submission to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans stated, “the concept of 'cumulative impact' is not only a key issue with respect to the environment, but also with respect to sustained investment in Canadian energy projects”.

The Canadian Nuclear Association's testimony continued, highlighting the plight of Canada's energy sector, advising that, “Right now, investment in Canada is facing significant challenges - including uncertainty caused by a suite of changes to federal and provincial regulatory policies, trade restrictions, corporate and individual tax rates”. This regulatory uncertainty is shared throughout industry.

The Canadian Electricity Association recommends that the minister be required to consult with any jurisdiction also exercising potentially duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting orders. Regulations are important. No one in any industry in Canada would refute the need for regulations. However, it makes no sense that a company has to go through the same regulatory conditions at every level of government simply to satisfy duplicate regulatory conditions. This costs time and money, and ultimately it costs investment opportunities.

This is at a time when the U.S. President's tariff action against Canadian steel and aluminum remains unfair and a serious threat to workers across the country who rely on this industry to put food on the table for their families, at a time when, according to Statistics Canada, the total foreign direct investment in Canadian oil and gas extraction slumped 7.4% in 2017, down to $162.2 billion.

That is due to a hasty retreat by international oil producers last year, including massive divestment by Royal Dutch Shell, about $9.3 billion, and ConocoPhillips, about $17.7 billion, totalling nearly $30 billion.

The government's carbon-tax scheme threatens to increase the cost of living for every Canadian, emphasized by the new report recently released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It found that the Liberal carbon tax will take $10 billion out of the Canadian economy by 2022, while other estimates argue that it could be as much as $35 billion per year, hurting jobs, workers, and families.

The current Liberal government is compelled to introduce bills like Bill C-68, which would add layers of regulatory ambiguity, adding massive uncertainty in an already turbulent investment climate. When will the government realize that investment opportunities are highly perishable prospects?

Bill C-68, like other bills, such as Bill C-69, appears to undermine transparency and due process by allowing the minister to withhold critical information from interested proponents, which runs contrary to the Prime Minister's promise of a more open and transparent government.

The act would require the minister to take into account indigenous knowledge and expertise when it was provided, and all decisions would have to take into account the possible impact on indigenous rights. However, that knowledge would be protected from being revealed publicly, or even to a project's proponents, without explicit permission from the indigenous community or the people who provided it.

The government has announced $284 million in new money to implement and enforce the new law through the hiring of new fisheries officers to enforce the act and educate people about it. There are, however, no timelines or details on when and how many officers would be hired. This bill would allow for the establishment of advisory panels and for members to be remunerated. However, there is no guidance or limitation on their use.

Bill C-68 would expand the reach of a prohibition against anything that alters or impacts fish habitat to all waters where fish exist. As the member for Cariboo—Prince George indicated earlier, the goal of the Fisheries Act is and should remain to protect and enhance Canada's fish stocks while avoiding any unnecessary negative economic impacts on industries that rely on access to Canadian land and water. In 2012, the Conservative government improved fisheries conservation, prioritized fish productivity, protected significant fisheries, and streamlined an overly bureaucratic process. The current government, though, through Bill C-68, would revert to rules that caused confusion, were difficult to enforce, and that negatively impacted farmers, communities, and resource development. The only real winners here would be regulatory lawyers, who would reap the rewards of Bill C-68.

I have no doubt that my colleagues across the way will question our commitment to the preservation of fish habitat. I have said before that we clearly support the protection of our fisheries and oceans. What the current government fails to understand is that they can protect the environment and have responsible resource development. It only makes sense to protect fish habitat if they want a robust fisheries economy, and that is what the current Fisheries Act does.

It is my hope that the government will continue consulting with industry on fish-habitat restoration plans moving forward. The government's knowledge and appreciation for the protection of fisheries is essential. We will continue to work closely with fishers, farmers, industry groups, and communities to ensure that their questions are heard.

I would rather be having a longer debate instead of being under time allocation, but this is the situation we are in. I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave a great speech. He had talking points. It was a speech that was probably written for him by the minister's office, but I have to commend him. It was well delivered.

The fisheries committee studied Bill C-68. There were well over 50 witnesses, as well as written submissions. Not one witness was able to produce any evidence of loss of fish or fish habitat due the changes that the Conservative government made to the Fisheries Act in 2012. Is my hon. colleague aware that not one witness was able to produce any shred of evidence that there was a loss of fish or fish habitat?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot take the vitality of our fisheries for granted. The fish and seafood sector is the heart and soul of many rural coastal and indigenous communities across Canada, and indeed of my riding of Bonavista—Burin—Trinity. Fisheries provide good middle-class jobs that draw on traditions stemming back hundreds of years. However, communities need support to meet the challenges of the 21st century. That is why I am proud to support Bill C-68, which would restore lost habitat protections and modernize safeguards to the Fisheries Act.

Our government committed to helping middle-class Canadians and to growing our economy so that more Canadians can join it. The fishing sector plays a key role in rural and coastal communities. In the end, 76,000 Canadians make their living directly from fishing and fishing-related activities. In 2016, Canada exported 87 species of fish, and our total exports grew by 5% between 2016 and 2017. The total export value was $6.9 billion.

Fisheries support important middle-class jobs. Most of them, including self-employed inshore and coastal fish harvesters, are part of the middle class. Fish harvesters, particularly in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, have told us time and time again that they need help to secure their continued independence, and they need support to protect the socio-cultural fabric of their communities.

In many of our communities, the fish and seafood sector is the primary economic driver, as well as the glue that holds people together. In other words, it not only puts food on the table, it also creates fodder for conversations around the table. In coastal communities, talk around the dinner table is about fundamental questions: Will the fisheries provide a living for generations to come, the way it has for us? Can we get a decent return on our investment?

Today we are acting for future generations. Bill C-68 would restore lost habitat protections and would provide for the making of modern regulations to help sustain the fisheries for many generations to come. While Bill C-68 covers many areas, I would like to focus on how it would impact the inshore and coastal fishery in eastern Canada.

Fishing remains one of the region's main industries. In 2016 alone, it generated $2.3 billion in landed value from inshore fleets. However, these impressive numbers cannot be taken for granted. Fish harvesters in Atlantic Canada and Quebec told us that to maintain an economically viable inshore fishery, licences need to be kept in the hands of independent, small boat owner-operators, and the fish harvesters need to be the ones making decisions about and receiving the benefit of their licences.

There are currently no legislative or regulatory requirements in place with respect to the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, along with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, has recommended that any revision to the Fisheries Act should include direction for the restoration and recovery of fish habitat and stocks. In addition, environmental groups have also called on the government to adopt measures aimed at rebuilding depleted fish stocks within the Fisheries Act.

That is why the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans recommended improvements to Bill C-68 to strengthen the provisions on the rebuilding of stocks so that the minister implements measures to maintain prescribed fish stocks at or above the level necessary to promote the sustainability of the stock, while taking account of the biology of the fish and the environmental conditions affecting the stock. If a prescribed fish stock does decline to a depleted level, the government will develop a plan to rebuild that stock.

The government realizes that maintaining a stock or rebuilding it to healthy levels may not always be possible for environmental reasons, or in some cases because of the adverse economic effects that some measures may impose on communities.

However, the legislation will require that when these cases arise, Canadians will be informed and provided with the reasons. The aim is to manage fishery resource sustainability for the long-term benefit of Canadians and to help ensure long-term stability of our fisheries for current and future generations. As the Prime Minister stated, we need the right balance between the environment and the economy.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has policies to help maintain a strong and independent inshore fleet. These policies aim to keep the benefits from the inshore fishery flowing to licence-holders and communities that are dependent on the resource. Successive governments have recognized that a licensing regime that supports independent inshore harvesters is crucial to the livelihoods of coastal communities that depend on the fisheries.

Bill C-68 would clarify the authority to make regulations that would support and strengthen owner-operator and fleet separation policies. In so doing, middle-class jobs in our coastal communities would be protected. Specifically, clarified authorities in the act would support the development of much-needed regulations relating to the inshore fisheries.

The department would work with stakeholders on the development of regulations that would seek to strengthen the independence of the inshore fish harvesters in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. The objective of the regulations would help individual inshore licence-holders keep greater control over their enterprises and livelihoods. The regulations could also provide for strengthened rules around how licences are issued. For example, the government could strengthen support for the fleet separation policy by prohibiting the issuance of inshore licences to certain types of corporations. Once regulations are in place, the department would take enforcement actions when there is non-compliance. Licence-holders could face severe consequences, even lose their privileges to hold a licence, if they were to contravene these rules.

Ultimately, the government, through Bill C-68, is acting to create a stable and predictable environment for greater transparency, co-management, sustainability, and accountability. As the bill moves through third reading and the Senate, the government will continue to reach out to all Canadians from all walks of life for their input. The government is earning the trust of all Canadians with respect to fisheries protection.

I am proud to put my full support behind the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act. I urge all hon. members to join with me so that we can ensure its speedy passage through the House.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-68—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleague across the way talked about open and transparent ways and about consulting with Canadians. One of the issues our fisheries committee found when we were studying this was that a lot of communities and a lot of Canadians feel that they have not been truly consulted. By shuttering debate and forcing time allocation, the minister is indeed saying that all the members of Parliament on this side of the House, and all the Canadians, the electors, who elected the opposition, really do not have a say, and their views really do not matter. They are shuttering debate and not allowing all the members of Parliament to have a say on this bill.

It is interesting that the minister talks about the commitment to openness and transparency, because what this bill would also do is undermine transparency and due process by allowing the minister to withhold critical information from interested proponents. It would also give the minister sole discretion to make policy without consultation, something similar to what we are seeing with the surf clams and how that is impacting the town of Grand Bank. Bill C-68 is just another bill that would give the minister the authority to go in and make policy without consulting Canadians, and that is wrong.

Would my hon. colleague across the way not admit that perhaps shuttering debate on a bill that is so fundamental, while talking about openness and transparency, might be just a bit too far-fetched?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Hochelaga for her questions.

I also thank the NDP for its support for Bill C-68. I had the opportunity to work with her colleague, the NDP critic. Some amendments were adopted by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, including very positive amendments proposed by the NDP. I think this is a good example of committee members working together. The suggestions made by witnesses and the examples we received from other administrations helped us strengthen and improve the bill. I am very proud of that. I thank the NDP for its important work in this regard.

The time allocation motion should come as no surprise because we made important commitments to Canadians during the 2015 election. We have worked closely with parliamentarians for several months. We conducted extensive public consultations. We held widespread consultations to get Canadians' suggestions on how we could modernize and improve the Fisheries Act.

We think the time has come for the House of Commons to vote on this important bill. What is more, we will have to wait for our colleagues in the Senate and work with them because they too need to study and debate this major bill. I hope we will be able to work with them in a very constructive manner in the fall, if the bill has reached that stage by then.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go all over again. I am going to bring the House back to 2015, when the member for Papineau was campaigning and said that if he were elected prime minister that debate would reign, that he would not enforce time allocation. Here we are, and I believe this is the 42nd time that we are seeing time allocation, and on such an important bill.

The Liberals are saying that they are restoring and fixing Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act, which is a historical piece of legislation, because they are undoing the harmful changes that our Conservative government did in 2012. They are putting back the HADD provisions, yet they sidestep any obligation to uphold the HADD regulations in this legislation by providing the minister with the ability to exempt certain provisions. We know that the Fisheries Act is vitally important. Why is the minister trying to once again limit the debate on such an important piece of legislation for Canadians?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and 15 minutes before the end of Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-68—Notice of time allocation motion

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Motions in amendment

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, a lengthy bill that would have a number of impacts on fisheries and fish stocks across Canada. The bill would also have wide-ranging implications for economic development for farmers, rural municipalities, and others.

I am from an Ontario riding. While members may not think there are a lot of fish in Ontario, we have a thriving fishing industry in the Great Lakes and also in many of our smaller communities. In fact, right down the road from my farm is a fish hatchery that supplies fingerlings across the world. Fish and fish habitat is important to all of us in Ontario as well.

It is my understanding that the fisheries and oceans committee conducted a full study of the 2012 changes made to the Fisheries Act, and conducted a full study of changes brought in by Bill C-68. I would like to focus most of my comments on the testimony heard during the committee's study of the 2012 changes.

The committee started its study in October 2016 and presented a report to the House in February 2017. The committee heard from 50 different witnesses during the study and received over 188 submitted briefing notes. It was a very comprehensive study, and it would have been a useful tool for the government to use when it was drafting this legislation.

The study looked directly at the changes that the previous government, our Conservative government, made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act, changes that significantly improved it.

One of the significant changes that was made in 2012 was a shift away from what was commonly referred to as HADD, which stands for “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat”. It is contained within subsection 35(1) of the bill where it is stated, “No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.” Essentially, this means that any sort of development that could be seen to be harmful to, altering, disrupting or destroying fish habitats would be subject to an immense amount of review and red tape, and could be stopped or completely prohibited.

It is unclear, however, about what constituted a fish habitat. It was found that the DFO applied this definition in a inconsistent manner, and others played fast and loose with this term and used it broadly to apply to waterways that really had no impact at all on fish stocks. The system was ineffective and was a nightmare for development. Worst of all, after all this red tape and bureaucratic interference, it had no measurable success in protecting or preserving fish populations.

The changes in 2012 brought in a much simpler and effective definition to ensure fish were protected but that reasonable projects could still move forward. The definition at that time was “No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.” This definition is much more effective and provides certainty and clarity for developers, for farmers, for fishermen, for first nations, and for others.

In the report from the fisheries and oceans committee, the third recommendation stated, “Any revision of the Fisheries Act should review and refine the previous definition of HADD due to the previous definition’s vulnerability to being applied in an inconsistent manner”. This is the heart of why HADD was changed in 2012. It was applied in such an inconsistent and subjective manner. The recommendation went on to say, “and the limiting effect it had on government agencies in their management of fisheries and habitats in the interest of fish productivity.”

I am confused as to why we are now seeing what looks to be a return to HADD in Bill C-68. It does not make any sense. The committee testimony is there in black and white, and it was heard time and again when the committee studied Bill C-68.

We all know that when the previous government brought in the 2012 changes, environmental associations and others threw their hands up in the air and screamed that these changes would be the death of all fish in Canada. However, the proof is just not there.

It is my fear here that the government is simply returning to the pre-2012 provisions to appease these groups.

One impact that is not always clear to many is the impact that farmers face due to the Fisheries Act, and it will be 10 times worse under a system that uses the HADD definition. When farmers are looking to expand their farm or develop their farmland, they can get caught up in reviews of their projects under the Fisheries Act. A return to HADD would make the lives of farmers much more difficult.

When testifying before the committee, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated that prior to 2012 there were “lengthy bureaucratic applications for permitting and authorizations”, but the 2012 changes “drastically improved the timeliness and cost of conducting regular maintenance and improvement of activities to their farm.”

That is so crucial, because farmers can get caught up in this red tape and actually be prevented from moving forward with improving their farmland or construction of buildings.

The CFA expanded on this by stating that:

It is CFA's position that a complete revert to reinstate all provisions of the Fisheries Act as they were would be unproductive, would re-establish the same problems for farmers, and would provide little improvement....

This was again reiterated during the study of Bill C-68 at the fisheries and oceans committee.

Farmers do not want to return to a pre-2012 system. In fact, no one but those who oppose development want a return to the pre-2012 system. The government should stop catering to these interest groups and abandon this plan.

It is not just farmers who have concerns, though. The Canadian Electricity Association has said that Bill C-68 is “one step forward but two steps back.”

They went on to state:

CEA is particularly concerned that the government has chosen to return to pre-2012 provisions of the Fisheries Act that address 'activity other than fishing that results in the death of fish, and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat. In practical terms, this means that virtually any action, without prior authorization, could be construed as being in contravention of this Act. Consequently, the reinstatement of these measures will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new...energy projects that directly support Canada's clean growth agenda and realize its climate change objectives.

To make a long story short, this is bad news for Canadian development and will have no positive impact on the protection of fish populations in Canada.

The government had an opportunity to make this legislation work when it was offered reasonable amendments during the committee clause-by-clause study. Unfortunately, again, as in so many instances when the Liberals talk about being open and amenable to amendments, when it comes to the actual committee work, committee members are always overpowered by the majority of Liberals on the committee, who refused the amendments.

As we have witnessed time and again, the Liberals do not care about rural Canadians or development. I only hope Canadians will listen to our message of positive change and send them packing next October.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech intently, particularly the story about the gun range. We heard similar stories about fields and drainage ditches and the like.

We know that industry wants certainty on their timelines and on their requirements. We also know that we have to start addressing cumulative effects, because we know that the effects of many small projects can be just as significant as the effect of one large project. To balance this, we have developed what we call codes of practice. Does the member opposite support the codes of practice as laid out in Bill C-68?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Victoria asked, and as the good book says, “Ask and you will receive”. We have a member from Alberta here, standing to represent another province in this great debate.

I hope members will indulge me while I quickly mention my friends and colleagues, Andrea Khanjin, Lindsey Park, and David Piccini, who won their seats this evening in the Ontario election. It was a pleasure serving with them in Ottawa and knowing them as friends. I am very proud of them tonight, and I want them to know that.

I rise to speak on Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act. For my whole life, from the Fraser River all the way to Ontario's Rideau Lakes, my passion for fish, fishing, and preserving and sustaining fish stocks is very important to me. I am passionate about preserving and sustaining fish and fish habitat, but I see little reason to support Bill C-68, a flawed bill that will over-regulate and would solve a problem that does not really exist.

Canada has strong protections in place to ensure the preservation of fish and fish habitats, but there is always room for improvement. However, the Liberal government has rejected any amendments from the committee, amendments that would ensure the best legislation for Canadians.

The government introduced Bill C-68, which introduces a number of changes to the Fisheries Act. However, it ignores some of the major findings from a report from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that was presented to the House of Commons in February 2017. On September 19, 2016, the fisheries committee, including Liberal members, agreed to the following motion. They would:

...review and study the scope of the application of the Fisheries Act, and specifically the serious harm to fish prohibition: how the prohibition is implemented to protect fish and fish habitat; the capacity of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to deliver on fish and fish habitat protection through project review, monitoring, and enforcement; the definitions of serious harm to fish and commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries; the use of regulatory authorities under the Fisheries Act; and other related provisions of the act, and provide its recommendations in a report to the House.

The committee convened 10 meetings in Ottawa, from October 31 to December 12 in 2016, before presenting this report to the House of Commons in February 2017. Overall, the committee heard from 50 different witnesses during the study and received over 188 submissions and briefing notes. It was a comprehensive study, which, if the government were truly committed to strengthening the role of committees in this Parliament, would have formed the basis for Bill C-68. However, Bill C-68 essentially ignores the committee's report, including one of the most important recommendations contained in the report. This recommendation stated:

Any revision of the Fisheries Act should review and refine the previous definition of HADD due to the previous definition’s vulnerability to being applied in an inconsistent manner and the limiting effect it had on government agencies in their management of fisheries and habitats in the interest of fish productivity.

Following testimony from 50 witnesses and briefing notes from more than 180 associations, groups, and individuals, it was agreed that a return to HADD was undesirable and that should the government return to HADD, it needed to be refined and further reviewed. However, Bill C-68 ignores the recommendation completely and introduces a return to HADD.

Now HADD is referred to in subsection 35(1) of the legislation, which states, “No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.” Essentially this means that any sort of development that is harmful, alters, disrupts, or destroys any fish habitat could be stopped or not approved by the government.

I have friends who have personally experienced the overzealous regulation of the Department of Fisheries in its enforcement of HADD. A dear friend of mine, who has played a senior role in the air cadets in western Canada, told me of how much trouble he had dealing with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans a number of years ago before the Conservatives made reforms. My friend needed to renovate a firing range for the air cadets. This was a public range that was used by private individuals and the air cadets to practice. He was required by new government regulations to renovate this range in order to make it live up to the codes that the government had set for it.

In the process of dealing with this one set of government regulations, he quickly ran afoul of another set of government regulations. Every spring, during the snow melt, a small stream would form and run straight through the range. For 10 months of the year, one could hardly tell that a stream existed. There was no water, as it would dry up. However, once DFO officials got involved, they discovered traces of a common fish that could have been in the stream. They immediately halted the renovations to the gun range, which had operated for decades, because of the possibility that a fish habitat existed on the range. It could only have been there for less than two months of the year, because that is the only time there was water.

Because they were not able to renovate the range because of these old DFO regulations the Conservatives had removed, they were unable to recertify the range. Effectively, they shut down the range, depriving air cadets and private individuals of a facility necessary for their training and improvement.

That is a personal story of how some regulations, although they are intended to do good things, can really impact the everyday activities of Canadians in a way that does not really achieve the accomplishment. That is why we need to review and make clear what HADD really means.

As the committee report noted, this section was applied inconsistently and was oftentimes very unclear. Developers were often bogged down in battles over what constituted fish development, and it was an inconsistent roadblock for projects. Therefore, in 2012, the Conservative government removed HADD provisions and replaced them with the following:

No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.

That is a very broad way of putting it. It captures a lot of the environmental effects, but it also introduces a certain level of judgment. There is a balance between the environment and the economy, and when we have that judgment, we just cannot have something that says that nothing will be done if it does any harm to fish. We need to look at whether it is a serious harm or not. When we introduce that level of judgment, it allows us to get to the best decisions.

This previous Conservative law had a very clear and more universally accepted interpretation. It was accepted, and it struck an important balance between development and conservation. I submit that this is the right balance.

The committee report we did together with the government recognized this by cautioning against a return to HADD provisions. However, although the Liberals want to talk a big game about empowering committees, they ignored this recommendation.

The consultation was done for the government. As I said earlier, there were more than 50 witnesses at the committee and more than 180 submissions. All the Liberals needed to do was read the report, and they would have seen in black and white that a return to HADD provisions was not favourable among stakeholders. Not one single individual or organization was able to present the committee with any scientific proof of harm that resulted from the elimination of HADD in the 2012 legislation. Therefore, I think we must assume that the 2012 legislation was working quite well.

The government refused to listen to a committee and rejected all the amendments. The government's approach to legislative, regulatory, and policy frameworks governing infrastructure projects, from a gun range to the way local farmers manage their property, will cause competitive disadvantages for Canadian companies across Canada and a massive regulatory headache for everyday Canadians.

We will not have a chance to make the necessary adjustments on this side of the House, but I urge our colleagues in the other place to take a long, serious look at Bill C-68 and make any necessary recommendations to this flawed legislation.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to be one of the British Columbians to whom my friend referred. It seems this is a fully British Columbian night.

I am proud to speak in support of Bill C-68. I want to salute the enormous work and contribution made by our fisheries critic, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. This bill goes a long way toward restoring lost protections to the Fisheries Act and introducing some modern safeguards.

We believe that the legislation to restore the HADD prohibition, which is the prohibition against harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction, should have been introduced immediately following the last federal election. Then we could have been working together to modernize the act from there. However, we did not see that from the Liberals. Therefore, the modernization that we could have supported earlier took a bit of time to get in place, and of course we still have to enact it. I believe that Bill C-68 is okay, although it could have been a lot better, for reasons I will explain.

We introduced a series of amendments to further strengthen the Fisheries Act. Although we were successful in seeing a couple of them pass, the ones that were defeated were also important, for reasons I will come to. They would have strengthened the act and had positive impacts on the health and sustainability of the fish populations and their habitats for generations to come.

Bill C-68 restores much of what was lost under the changes made by the previous Conservative government in 2012, and it introduces a number of positive provisions that we support. I would like to talk about those before I come to some of the deficiencies, in our view.

First, returning the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat, and its applicability to all native fish and fisheries, as well as the prohibition on causing death of fish by means other than fishing, were critical. The fact that they were restored is an excellent feature of this bill.

Second, including in the act key provisions to strengthen how it is interpreted is important, such as a purpose statement, along with considerations for decision-making and factors to inform the making of regulations under this bill that reflect key sustainability principles.

Third, the bill introduces provisions that address the rebuilding of depleted fish populations. We talked about that earlier.

Fourth, it would establish a public registry to support the assessment of cumulative effects and to enhance the transparency of decision-making.

Fifth, strengthening provisions with respect to ecologically significant areas would move us from concept to action, at last.

Sixth, there is greater recognition of indigenous rights and knowledge, particularly in light of the historic commitment of the House in Bill C-262 to enshrine the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Finally, the fact that there is going to be a statutorily mandated review every five years is also an important evergreen provision in this bill.

The bill was amended at committee. One of the important amendments was the rebuilding of fish stocks section, because the core function of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is to manage our fish populations for the long term so that we have a sustainable fishery. That is what this is all about. If they are not at a sustainable level, we will not be able to allocate the fish because we will not have the fish to allocate. That is obviously important. For the first time in 150 years, Bill C-68 recognizes the importance of rebuilding overfished stocks by creating a legal duty to develop plans aimed at moving stocks out of a critical zone. I think that this is really important, if, as I suggested earlier, regulations are actually made to do the work that is necessary.

These are welcome and long overdue. I think we have to be sober about the state of our fisheries. Since 1970, over half of the biomass of our fisheries has disappeared. By some estimates, only slightly more than one third of our stocks are still considered healthy in this country. At least 21 of Canada's fish stocks are in the critical zone, and our fishing industry is precariously balanced on the continued abundance of only a few species.

Therefore, these changes are important, and I salute the government for bringing them in. However, I also have to flag some concerns. First, the minister can make exceptions to these requirements under certain conditions. We have to make sure that this discretion to exempt fish stocks does not get abused. Second, the law only applies to what are defined as “major fish stocks”, a phrase that will only be defined in future regulations. This creates a situation in which the government could circumvent the intent of the legislation by dragging its heels indefinitely on adding fish stocks to the regulations, thereby not requiring sustainable management measures or a rebuilding plan. These concerns were raised by my colleague at the fisheries committee, and I want to put them on the record again this evening.

The NDP introduced a number of amendments to Bill C-68, 22 of them to be exact. A few of those improvements are still valid. First, the NDP submitted amendments to broaden the information base so that the public registry captures all projects, and to ensure compensation for the residual harm to fish habitat caused by small or low-risk projects. Those amendments, unfortunately, were defeated.

Second, explicit protection for environmental flows and fish passages was an issue, and we proposed amendments to strengthen those provisions for the free passage of fish and for securing the environmental flows needed to protect fish and fish habitat. I am happy to say they were passed at committee and are part of the bill.

Third, I have already alluded to the recognition of indigenous rights and knowledge. The committee heard testimony, for example, from Matt Thomas of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. New Democrats believe that reconciliation should be a part of all legislation. A true nation-to-nation relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples, consistent with our Constitution, should be fully embraced and reflected in the Fisheries Act. The amendments along those lines were defeated.

Fourth, on measures to increase transparency and accountability, the committee heard eloquent testimony from Linda Nowlan from West Coast Environmental Law, who made some great suggestions to increase transparency and accountability. The NDP made amendments to that effect, but they were all defeated.

Fifth, provisions to apply owner-operator and fleet separation policies to all coasts were proposed. Some of the most compelling testimony we heard was from young fishers from the west coast, and yet the section in the act talks about an independent inshore commercial fishery as being in “Atlantic Canada and Quebec”. Canada's New Democrats fully support putting owner-operator and fleet separation policies in the Fisheries Act, but we wonder why we did not do the same thing for our Pacific coast. First nations and independent fishermen on the west coast want the same policy as Atlantic Canada. New Democrats moved an amendment to open that door, but the door was closed and the amendment was defeated.

I want to make one further point before I conclude. We support the bill. We recognize the need to protect fish habitat, but I cannot let the opportunity go by of talking about the impact that the Kinder Morgan, now Government of Canada, tanker project will have, and the possibility of its destroying, with a devastating spill of diluted bitumen, the essential habitat and aquatic ecosystems that our fish depend on.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 would restore lost protections, including the HADD protections, and it would strengthen the role of indigenous communities.

When I was first made Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, one of the things I did in my first summer was make sure that I went out and visited as many indigenous communities as I could get to. Most indigenous communities had not had a parliamentary secretary or a minister of fisheries and oceans visit for maybe one or two generations, if at all.

This legislation would strengthen the role of indigenous communities. It would provide an increased role in decision-making, policy-making, and monitoring. It would go right alongside our investments in indigenous communities, including $250 million to give more indigenous communities access to the fisheries. That is going to cause generational changes that will be very positive for all Canadians, especially indigenous communities.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to any Capitals fans out there.

Today, we are discussing Bill C-68. It is interesting. For the last month or so, I have been answering these unsubstantiated claims in the House on the surf clam issue. In fact, the member opposite found a way to bring it up on a previous bill we were debating some 10 to 15 minutes ago.

I understand why the Conservatives do not want to talk about the improvements we are making to the Fisheries Act, because this is broadly supported by Canadians. The reason it is broadly supported by Canadians is because we consulted broadly, from coast to coast to coast. Canadians are proud of the fact that we are restoring protections, that we are installing modern safeguards, that we are taking steps to bring in hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of new marine protections to ensure those 72,000 jobs, those middle-class jobs that are provided in the fishing industry right across the country, grow to maybe 100,000 jobs or 150,000 jobs.

That is what this government is focused on, and that is what we will continue to focus on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to apologize to the House for my excitement. I am excited when we are talking about Bill C-68 and anything to do with fisheries. However, as our hon. colleague was speaking, a player who I coached in my community of Prince George, Brett Connolly, and his Washington Capitals just won the Stanley Cup. I am very happy for one of our players. He is a great kid.

I may not get a chance to congratulate him, but maybe our hon. colleagues could join me in actually wishing Brett Connolly and the Washington Capitals congratulations.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the amendments to the Fisheries Act.

For far too long we have taken our oceans for granted. This was demonstrated when, in 2012, the previous government decided to change the habitat protections without the support of, or proper engagement with, indigenous peoples, fishers and anglers, scientists, conservation groups, coastal communities, or the broader Canadian public.

By comparison, our government has listened to and worked with all Canadians and has encouraged everyone to be a part of this process. This bill is the result of that good work.

Bill C-68 has several key themes: partnership with indigenous peoples, supporting planning and integrated management, enhancing regulation and enforcement, improving partnership and collaboration, and monitoring and reporting back to Canadians.

During their review of Bill C-68, my colleagues at committee heard from many expert witnesses from right across the country. I would like to take this time to talk about what they heard and the concrete steps they proposed to help improve the legislation even further for the benefit of Canadians and the benefit of future generations.

From the environmental NGO community and members across the aisle, the committee heard about the importance of water flow for fish habitat. The government supported the associated amendments put forward at committee, and we believe they will contribute to the effective management of fish habitat.

The committee also heard from industry groups seeking amendments to the rules proposed for the processing of applications for habitat authorizations during the transition from the current legislation. In response, the committee adopted an amendment to provide for clearer transition provisions.

The committee also heard about strengthening the federal government's legal obligations when major fish stocks are in trouble. That is why the committee proposed the inclusion of requirements, under the legislation, that the minister sustainably manage or rebuild fish stocks that are prescribed in regulations. Legislation will require that when exceptions are made for environmental or socio-economic reasons, Canadians will be informed and will be provided with a rationale for those decisions. As with every decision, our aim is to sustainably manage fisheries resources for the long-term benefit of all Canadians.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee for their contributions to Bill C-68.Their previous study engaged Canadians right across the country and led to 32 recommendations, all of which are included in this legislation. Their further work after second reading has again contributed significantly to this bill, and Canadians will surely benefit from their diligence and their hard work.

This bill includes the re-introduction of the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, otherwise known as the HADD provisions, as well as the prohibition against the death of fish by means other than fishing. There are measures to allow for the better management of large and small projects that may be harmful to fish or fish habitat through a new permitting program for big projects and through codes of practice for smaller projects.

These amendments will enable the regulatory authorities that will allow for establishing a list of designated projects, consisting of works, undertakings, and activities for which a permit will always be required. Our goal is to streamline processes and provide greater certainty while protecting the environment, and we have engaged with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, and other stakeholders to make sure that we capture the right kind of projects under this designated project list.

Habitat loss and degradation and changes to fish passage and flow rates are all contributing to the decline of freshwater and marine fish habitats in Canada. It is imperative for Canada to restore degraded fish habitats. That is why amendments to the Fisheries Act include the consideration of restoration as a part of project decision-making.

One message that we heard clearly when we engaged Canadians in developing this bill was that much of the public trust in government was lost through the 2012 changes. Throughout the review of the changes to the Fisheries Act, a common message received was the need for improved access to information on the government's activities related to the protection of fish and fish habitat as well as access to project decisions and information. We listened and we introduced amendments to establish a public registry, which will enable transparency and open access. This registry will allow Canadians to see whether their government is meeting its obligations and to hold us accountable for federal decision-making with regard to the protection of our marine ecosystems. The new considerations under the amendments to the Fisheries Act seek to more clearly guide the responsibility of theMinister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard when making decisions.

The addition of new purpose and consideration provisions provide a framework for the proper management and control of fisheries, and for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution.

As we all know, fisheries resources and aquatic habitats have important social, cultural, and economic significance for many indigenous peoples. Respect for the rights of indigenous peoples of Canada, as well as taking into account their unique interest and aspirations in fisheries-related economic opportunities, and the protection of fish and fish habitat is one way we are showing our commitment to renewing relationships with indigenous peoples.

Amendments to the Fisheries Act include ministerial authority to make regulations to establish long-term spatial restrictions to fishing activities under the act, specifically for the purpose of conserving and protecting marine biodiversity and supporting our international commitment to protect at least 10% of our marine and coastal areas by 2020.

As I mentioned earlier, our government has reached out to Canadians in developing this bill. We listened to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and provided direction for the restoration and recovery of fish habitat and stocks.

We listened to environmental groups and adopted measures aimed at rebuilding depleted fish stocks by requiring decisions affecting a stock in the critical zone to consider whether measures are in place aimed at rebuilding the stock and when habitat degradation is a factor in the decline of the stock, whether measures will be in place to restore such habitat. We have presented in this bill the appropriate safeguards to sustain the health of our oceans and fisheries for our future generations.

We have also heard from Canadians on other important issues. We have proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act that would prohibit fishing for a cetacean, whales, when the intent is to take it into captivity unless circumstances so require, such as when the cetacean is injured, in distress, or is in need of care.

Over 72,000 Canadians make their living directly from fishing and fishing-related activities. Many are middle-class, self-employed, inshore harvesters. The minister has been clear on his commitment to make inshore independence more effective. Amendments speak to a specific authority in the Fisheries Act, rather than policy, to develop regulations supporting the independence of the inshore commercial licence-holders and will enshrine into legislation the ability to make regulations regarding the owner-operator and fleet separation policies in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

By restoring the lost protections and providing these modern safeguards, the government is delivering on its promise, as set out in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Since introduction of this bill, we have heard support from a broad range of Canadians for these amendments, which will return Canada to the forefront of protection of our rivers and coasts, and fish for generations to come. I urge all hon. members on both sides of the House to join with me in supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sit with the gentleman on the fisheries and oceans committee. I thought we did an awfully good job on Bill C-68. We went back and forth, we discussed amendments, we accepted some of each other's, and worked it right through. We were fixing years of neglect and cuts, cuts to science. Yes, it was easier for the DFO to administer the old act because the Conservatives gutted DFO's ability to do anything by cutting it back. It is pretty easy to follow the rules when there are only a few rules.

Does the member remember the testimony we heard from first nations, reflecting upon the fact that back in 2012-2013 it was very clear that the only voices the Conservatives heard in that consultation were the voices of industry, which showed in full measure in the bill they produced? Maybe the member can recall what we heard from indigenous people who felt totally shut out by that earlier process.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a fun day. This is the third time I have stood to speak on a piece of legislation today.

I do not know who they are, but there are people in the gallery who, for maybe an hour or so, have watched the festivities. All of us in the House should applaud the people in the gallery who are sitting through these festivities and thank them for paying attention to what we are doing. I am sorry it has not been riveting but very boring, but I thank them for being here. It is important.

Right now, we are talking about Bill C-68. Some of my colleagues across the way have said this is probably one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation we could debate this session, and perhaps even in the last decade. My comments will ring true from previous interventions on it. Bill C-68 is, from a policy perspective, another unnecessary piece of legislation aimed at making Canadians feel good, but without any basis in science. I already know what my colleagues are laughing at. It is the line I used, “unnecessary piece of legislation”. That was to elicit that response.

As part of the economic action plan in 2012 in support of the responsible resource development plan, the previous Conservative government put forward changes to the Fisheries Act geared to strengthening the act and removing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. I have sat in meetings at the fisheries committee time and time again, at which DFO officials talked about fish stocks. In successive governments, some of these officials from the department have appeared before, for example on the northern cod fishery, which we know is still at critical levels. Twenty-six years ago, it was identified as a critical fish stock. One of the things we have been challenged by, whether it is policy, a department, or management, is with how to grow our most critical fish stocks in Canada.

Back in 2012, as part of the economic action plan, the previous government decided it needed to do things a little differently. It needed to start thinking about removing some of the red tape and looking at ways to create more fish. Our changes supported a shift from managing impacts to all fish habitats. People will ask what that means. We heard previously that any body of water that a tube or some type of vessel could be floated on could be deemed a fish habitat, which means that a tailings pond or a pond on a construction site filled with rainwater could be deemed a fish habitat. The previous government focused on the regulatory regime and managing threats to the sustainability and ongoing productivity of Canada's commercial, recreational, and indigenous fisheries.

Instead of listening to experts in this process, the people who use our waterways and fish our rivers, the people who actually depend on our fisheries and waters to make a living, our indigenous peoples, the current government is turning a deaf ear to practicality and pushing forward through the use of time allocation, no less. As I said today, this is the 41st time it has moved time allocation. Again I go back to the Liberals' campaign promise that they would be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history and that they were going to let debate reign. What we have seen, instead, is that if they do not like the way things are happening, if they do not like the way the opposition is pressuring them, they just shut down the debate.

It has been probably two hours since I reminded Canadians who are listening and reminded colleagues across the way that the House does not belong me. It sure as heck does not belong to the folks across the way. This is not their House. This is Canadians' House. The 338 members of Parliament have been sent here by great Canadians to be the voices of those electors.

By shuttering debate on such an important piece of legislation as Bill C-68, what are the Liberals doing? They are saying to every opposition member of Parliament and all those Canadians who elected them that their point of view does not matter. The only ones that matters are the folks on the government side of the House.

Time and time again at committee, when we were studying the bill, we asked experts, academics, environmental groups, fishers, and industry whether the changes in 2012 really had damaging effects on our rivers, lakes, streams, and fish habitat. We asked for proof. How many witnesses came up with examples of lost protections or any examples of harmful alteration or disruption? There was not one witness who came forward with any evidence of that.

As a matter of fact, what we saw were the environmental groups, the usual suspects, who talked about how the Harper government members were ogres on the oceans and the environment. I beg to differ.

The Prime Minister, in the 2015 campaign, with his hand on his heart, said that our indigenous people were going to be our most important relationship. He said it not only then but before and all the way through this last little while, yet we have indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast that say that the consultation was a sham. It was not like the clam scam that we could talk about right now, and in my last discussion I did talk about that, where the minister arbitrarily took 25% of quota and allocated it to Liberal friends and families.

Bill C-68 is another feel-good piece of fluff to satisfy the environmental vote the Liberals were going after during the 2015 election. That was what they had to do. They were beholden and had to make sure that they followed through on their promise, but there was no evidence of any damage from the changes in 2012.

We asked industry at committee if any of those changes made it easier for projects to be approved. If we listen to the environmental groups and the Liberals, it was walk in one day, and an hour later, they had their permit and were tearing up everything. Industry made it clear to us that to move forward, it did not make it easier. As a matter of act, in some cases, it made it harder, but it was clearer.

Not only was it clearer for industry and stakeholders, it was also clearer for DFO to enforce. With that, I will rest.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There are 59 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-68. Motions Nos. 1 to 59 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the Table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 59 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Impact Assessment Act

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise here today to speak to Bill C-69, one of the most important attempts to modernize our environmental protection laws in Canada.

In large part, I think it was meant to deal with some of the actions of the Conservative government, which gutted a lot of our environmental protection laws in the previous Parliament through changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, et cetera. We dealt with fisheries in Bill C-68, but Bill C-69 is an answer to try to fix some of the other acts that were radically changed by the previous government.

I have to say, off the top, how disappointed I am that the government not only brought in this bill as an omnibus bill, a huge bill, well over 300 pages long, but it moved time allocation in the first debate after only two hours. It moved time allocation on the bill yesterday as well. This is a bill that really should get fulsome debate. I am disappointed that not only did the government move time allocation, but it took so long to bring in this bill.

The NDP originally asked the Speaker to rule this an omnibus bill so that we could deal with it separately. The government agreed that we could vote on the navigable waters section separately. We also asked that the bill be split up for committee study. The first section, on the impact assessment, is ideally suited for study by the environment committee. The central part, which deals with the National Energy Board and the Canadian energy regulator, belongs with the natural resources committee. The navigation protection section, obviously, should have gone to the transport committee.

That division of labour would have provided for a thorough and efficient study. Instead, the whole bill was thrust onto the environment committee, where, with impossible deadlines, many important witnesses could not testify. I was contacted early on by a consortium of Canadian scientists who had studied this and wanted to present evidence before the committee. This was not a single scientist; these were a lot of the important environment scientists in Canada. They were denied access to the committee simply because, I imagine, there were too many witnesses trying to testify before the committee in those tight timelines.

At committee, the NDP submitted over 100 amendments, none of which were accepted. Tellingly, the government submitted over 100 amendments of its own. This tells me that the legislation was clearly rushed into the House and should have been written with more care.

The Liberals are hashtagging this bill #BetterRules, but the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the legal experts who arguably know more about this subject than most Canadians and most politicians, has said that this legislation in neither better, nor rules.

I will quote from a briefing note prepared by Richard Lindgren of the Canadian Environmental Law Association:

[T]he IAA is not demonstrably “better” than CEAA 2012. To the contrary, the IAA replicates many of the same significant flaws and weaknesses found within the widely discredited CEAA 2012....

[T]he IAA does not establish a concise rules-based regime that provides clarity, consistency, and accountability during the information-gathering and decision-making process established under the Act. Instead, the key stages of the proposed impact assessment process are subject to considerable (if not excessive) discretion enjoyed by various decision-makers under the IAA.

At the most fundamental level, for example, it currently remains unclear which projects will actually be subject to the IAA.... [It] contains no benchmarks or criteria to provide direction on the type, scale, or potential effects of projects that should be designated under the new law.

I would like to spend a little while speaking more to the second part of the bill, the energy regulator section.

This section disbands the National Energy Board and creates a new but rather similar body called the Canadian energy regulator. The section opens with a preamble and a statement of purpose. Surprisingly, in this day and age of a brave new world of energy, neither makes reference to linkages between energy and climate. In fact, there is no mention at all of climate in this entire section.

Much of the public work of the old NEB was about regulating pipelines. One could easily come to the conclusion that this is a case of closing the barn door after the horses have left, since it seems unlikely that the new regulator will ever have to review an application for a major new oil pipeline.

The Minister of Natural Resources has risen countless times in this place declaring that the government has restored confidence in the energy regulation system, and that is why the Kinder Morgan pipeline can be built. Unfortunately, he is deeply misinformed.

A couple of months ago, I met with Dr. Monica Gattinger of the Positive Energy group at the University of Ottawa, who studies this very issue of public confidence in energy issues, and Nik Nanos, whose polling firm had asked Canadians about that confidence. Perhaps not surprisingly, Mr. Nanos found that public confidence in the Canadian energy regulation system was at an all-time low. If we thought it was low during the Harper government, it has continued to decline, and now only 2% of Canadians have strong confidence in the energy regulation system. That lack of confidence is shared by members of the public on both sides of the issue: it is lowest in both Alberta and British Columbia. It results in situations like the Kinder Morgan impasse. I should mention that the last time I heard the minister speak on this subject, he did admit that confidence was suddenly a problem in this area.

The Liberals promised during the last election to put the Kinder Morgan proposal through a new, stronger review system, but instead sent a three-member ministerial panel on a quick tour along the pipeline route, giving communities, first nations, governments, and the concerned public almost no advance warning to prepare their presentations. No record was made of the proceedings.

Despite the serious shortcomings of this process, the panel came up with six questions that it said the government would have to answer before making its decision about Kinder Morgan. I will mention only the first three.

First, can the construction of the Trans Mountain expansion be reconciled with Canada's climate commitments?

Second, how can pipeline projects be properly assessed in the absence of a comprehensive national energy strategy?

Third, how can the review of this pipeline project be squared with the government's commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

I would suggest that none of these questions was answered, even in part, before the government made its decision to approve the Kinder Morgan expansion, and none of them were answered before the government bought the pipeline, which was actually the old pipeline. This leaves a lot of questions about how the government is to regulate itself in getting that pipeline built.

Amazingly, none of those questions are properly answered in the legislation before us, which comes two years after the Kinder Morgan decision. After the government has accepted Bill C-262, which calls for government legislation to be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there is no mention of this in the body of Bill C-69. Only after much pressure did the government agree to put it in the preamble, where it would have no legal effect.

We need to restore the confidence of Canadians in our energy regulatory system and in our environmental impact processes. Without that confidence, it will be increasingly difficult for Canadian companies to develop our natural resources, which are at the heart of our national economy.

The Liberals continue to pretend they are doing good, but they are all talk and no action, or as we say in the west, all hat and no cattle. We need bold action to build a new regulatory system that gives voice to all concerned Canadians.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act.

Following this, we will turn to Bill C-75, the justice modernization act, and Bill C-59, the national security act.

If time permits, we shall start debate at report stage of Bill C-68, the fisheries act, and Bill C-64 on derelict vessels.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. Next Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday are allotted days. Also, pursuant to the Standing Orders, we will be voting on the main estimates Thursday evening.

Next week, priority will be given to the following bills: Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act; Bill C-59, an act respecting national security matters; Bill C-64, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act; Bill C-68 on fisheries; and Bill C-69 on environmental assessments.

We also know, however, that the other place should soon be voting on Bill C-45, the cannabis act. If a message is received notifying us of amendments, that will be given priority.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in relation to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Dr. Alan Drummond]

Clearly not. We've been very consistent since 1995 and the original Bill C-68. This is our third appearance before a committee where we've always continually and comprehensively suggested that there is a gun problem in Canada. It might not be a criminal problem, but there is certainly a gun problem in Canada.

That gun problem is suicide and it's mental health. I get tired of the Bell let's make a statement day, where we pay lip service to depression.

Here is something that the Government of Canada can actually do with respect to reducing the tragic consequences of significant depression. I believe there is at least a good starting point in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of people who are at risk particularly of suicide. Suicidality by guns in Canada is not an urban crime problem; it's a rural indigenous peoples problem with perfectly legal weapons, such as the family rifle and the family shotgun. The diversion of discussion here towards crime and towards an outlying scientific researcher is quite disturbing.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the protection of Canada's oceans and the sustainability of marine life are key priorities for our government. We also understand the importance of a safe, clean, and efficient marine transportation system that is environmentally responsible and that supports economic growth. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has reviewed the information provided by the Pacific Pilotage Authority, including an anchorage review, risk assessment, environmental review, and public consultation for the proposed anchorages.

Our government does understand that Canadians are deeply connected to our coastal areas and waterways and to the fish and fish habitat they support. That is why we introduced Bill C-68 after extensive consultations with Canadians. The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act would restore lost protections for fish and fish habitat while enhancing marine protection and habitat restoration. We will also strengthen the indigenous role in the review of projects monitoring and policy development. I sincerely hope that the member opposite will support this important and historic legislation.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague for the question.

It is my pleasure to rise today and discuss an issue that is so close to the city of Nanaimo, a place where I previously served as a city councillor, and as my wife reminded me this morning, where I was first elected over 19 years ago. How time flies.

The Government of Canada is committed to safe, clean, and efficient marine transportation that is environmentally responsible and that supports economic growth. Fisheries and Oceans Canada understands that the Pacific Pilotage Authority completed an anchorage review, risk assessment, environmental review, and public consultation for the proposed anchorages. After considering information submitted by the Pacific Pilotage Authority, Fisheries and Oceans Canada determined that adverse impacts to marine mammals, fish and fish habitat, and aquatic species at risk can be avoided through the application of appropriate project design and mitigation measures. Therefore, a Fisheries Act authorization is not required for this project.

Our government understands that Canadians are deeply connected to our coastal areas and waterways, and this is especially true on our beautiful Pacific coast. Canada needs a strong Fisheries Act to protect fish and their habitat for future generations. This is why our government has introduced Bill C-68, after extensive consultations with Canadians. The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act would restore lost protections for fish habitat, enhance marine protection and habitat restoration, and strengthen the indigenous role in the review of projects, monitoring, and policy development.

We heard from thousands of Canadians, including over 200 indigenous groups, who said they want strong, fair, and clear legislation that sustains our environment and protects our oceans and waterways. If passed into law, the proposed changes would recognize that decisions could be guided by the principles of sustainability, precaution, and ecosystem management, and there would be full transparency for projects with the introduction of a public registry. Canadians would have confidence that large and small projects that impact fish and fish habitat would be managed to enhance the protection of fish and ecosystems, while industry would be provided with certainty as to when development projects required approval.

In addition to the proposed legislation, our government introduced a $1.5 billion oceans protection plan to improve marine safety and responsible shipping while protecting Canada's marine environment. Measures under the oceans protection plan are working to protect our coasts while promoting safe and responsible commercial use, in collaboration with coastal and indigenous communities. The oceans protection plan is helping to create economic opportunities for Canadians today, including jobs for middle-class Canadians, while protecting our waters for the benefit of future generations.

Our government understands the importance of efficient and responsible marine transportation. This includes anchorages in and near Canada's busiest ports. A specific initiative under the oceans protection plan will work with coastal communities to respond to environmental, economic, cultural, safety, and security concerns about anchorages and to propose management options.

Ensuring the protection of Canada's oceans and the sustainability of marine life are key priorities for our government. We also recognize that a strong economy requires a healthy environment. For this reason, our government will invest more that $280 million to support the restoration of lost protections for fish and fish habitat. The proposed Fisheries Act will safeguard fish, protect the environment, and benefit our communities.

Finally, I can assure this House that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to working with Canadians to sustainably manage all coastal areas.

[Steve Torino]

As I said, I chaired the committee for ministers of justice from 1996 to 2006 for the Liberal government and for the next nine years for the Conservative government. Whether our policies were all accepted or not, our credibility was completely accepted, because we never told any stories. We based everything on StatsCan, on current events, and always told the truth, as our colleagues here do also.

I think that's the main item we should take a look at: the credibility of the witnesses who come and of the statements they make. The firearms community has proven itself since the beginning of Bill C-68. The daily check of our licences is probably proof of this more than anything else.

[Nicholas Winfield]

In Bill C-68, it's on page 31, and it's under “Definitions”, proposed section 42.01, and the “service area” definition is found there above proposed section 42.02. It's on page 31 of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting 103 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 16, 2018, Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

Carrying on with our clause-by-clause, we have Mr. Mark Waddell and Mr. Nick Winfield with us today from the department. Thank you for returning. We're glad to have you back.

(On clause 53)

We will pick up where we left off, on clause 53.

We have amendment LIB-14. Is there any discussion on the amendment?

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

Mr. Chair, I was required to be here due to a motion passed by this committee. Many members may have forgotten about that. Identical motions were passed in every committee. I had a moment to explain to the chair that, whereas in the normal parliamentary rules I would have the right to present amendments that were substantive at report stage, this committee passed a motion which says I can't do that because I have an opportunity to present the motions and amendments at clause-by-clause consideration in every committee.

While report stage can only happen once a day for any particular bill, clause-by-clause can happen simultaneously in many places. Today, I find myself called before the committees to deal with Bill C-68 in the fisheries committee, Bill C-69 in the environment committee, as well as Bill C-74 in the finance committee, all at the same time, all in the same day, so I have to apologize that I've been in and out.

I need to plead with individual members to consider that if you're asked to pass a similar motion—for those of us who are re-elected in the next election—this motion imposes an extremely arduous and unfair process on members of smaller parties. While I would have liked to speak to this to support the evidence of the Canadian Labour Congress that the way the bill is functioning will unfairly reduce the Canadian worker benefit entitlement, I accept the chair's ruling that it's out of order for the reasons the chair has stated.

I did want to put on the record that I may not be here for one of my subsequent amendments because of the pressures of clause-by-clause in a simultaneous committee.

I hope this process of putting members through this through the motions passed by every committee will be reconsidered, because it's extremely unfair.

Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, given that this motion is the same as NDP-28, I'd like to speak to it. This is our final NDP motion.

We certainly appreciate the committee considering these amendments. It takes a lot of work to improve legislation, and there is good discussion both ways. I appreciate the government members' consideration.

NDP-28, which is very similar to PV-17, requires that the review of the act include these additional topics as part of the review by the committees: (a) a systematic assessment of the state of fish and fish habitat across Canada; (b) a list of all authorized fish habitat damaged during the relevant time period; (c) a list of all required habitat compensation during the relevant time period; and (d) summary statistics from the public registry.

I want to note that the West Coast Environmental Law Association provided a brief on Bill C-68, and I appreciated their input. All witnesses provided this committee with a lot of very detailed and helpful suggestions. Certainly the WCELA's brief was extremely helpful.

I want to mention what they said:

Monitoring of compliance and effectiveness of habitat restoration has been found to be unsystematic and therefore compromises the ability to assess whether proponents are meeting required conditions.

Regular reporting on the status of restoration and offsetting decisions, monitoring, and outcomes enables evaluation of whether objectives are being achieved.

In the United States, the National Fish Habitat Partnership, a coalition of anglers, conservation groups, scientists, industry, and state and federal agencies was formed in 2006 with the priority goals of preparing five-year comprehensive assessments of the condition of fish habitat across the US. These assessments have been produced in 2010 and 2015, and have identified key areas of degraded habitat and drivers of degradation.

We recommend amending section 92 which now says that a five year report to this Committee or the Senate Committee should be prepared on “the provisions and operation of this Act” to also mandate the preparation of a systematic report on the state of fish habitat, fish habitat damage authorized by DFO, habitat compensation required by DFO, and the status of ongoing monitoring efforts across the country.

I wanted to get that in before the fate of this amendment was voted on.

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

Madam Chair, as this is my last amendment, I just want to take a moment to commend the permanent members of this committee on the wonderful way in which you work together, and the expeditious and fair way you've approached clause-by-clause on Bill C-68.

I will apologize that due to the motions I mentioned earlier—the ones I don't like, and you'll remember them—today I have to be at clause-by-clause for Bill C-68, Bill C-69, and Bill C-74, and Bill C-69 and Bill C-74 are happening at the same time, so I'll be leaving very shortly.

I just want to say that my amendment, PV-17, is to provide a requirement. It's great that this bill has included a five-year review process. I think that's appropriate, but what my amendment would do—not to go through every detail of it—would be to ensure that when that five-year review comes up, whatever committee is mandated to review the Fisheries Act as it has been amended by Bill C-68 would have reports from the minister that cover really significant bits of information that would allow a committee to make a good assessment. The minister would give them the report on the assessment of the state of our fisheries and the state of the fisheries stock, a review of what's been done under provisions of this act relating to the undertakings for which there were exemptions, and a list of all fish habitat where there have been no net loss and other offset measures.

I won't give you all the details, but that's the intent of this amendment, to have the Minister of Fisheries have an affirmative duty to prepare a series of reports for the use of the committee that reviews this bill in five years' time.

[Nicholas Winfield]

In Bill C-68, there is the introduction of a permit scheme, where the word “permit” is used to define a statutory instrument. The term “permitted” is to refer to the permit scheme, whereas the language that previously read “otherwise permitted” is a bit vague around what it's specifically referencing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 102nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 16, 2018, we are considering Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, and today we are on clause-by-clause.

Before we get started, I'd just to like welcome a few people to the meeting today.

We have Stéphane Lauzon, the MP for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation. Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, is no stranger to this committee. Dave Van Kesteren, MP for Chatham-Kent—Leamington is with us. Thank you for joining us today.

Also, our departmental officials are here today to answer any technical questions we may have. We have Adam Burns, Director General, Fisheries Resource Management; Darren Goetze, Director General, Conservation and Protection; Gorazd Ruseski, Senior Director, Aboriginal Program; Mark Waddell, Director General, Fisheries and Licence Policy; and Nicholas Winfield, Director General, Ecosystems Management.

We're going to move to clause-by-clause, and I'd just like to provide members with a few comments on how committees proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively. Each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package which each member received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together. In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principles of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause from the bill, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you would need unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first, then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title of the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has the proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I thank the members for their attention, and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-68.

(On clause 1)

We have amendment PV-1, in the name of Ms. May.

[Chris Bloomer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments on this bill. I represent the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

I have some quick comments. Over the last two years, CEPA has committed fully to participating in consultations, discussions, and round tables on the government's review of the Fisheries Act, CEAA 2012, NEB modernization, and the Navigation Protection Act. CEPA provided over 200 pages of submissions and practical recommendations that were intended to help to achieve clarity and certainty and restore trust in the regulatory system for all stakeholders.

Throughout the process we have advocated for legislation that would be founded on science and fact-based decision-making, and we have leveraged the considerable and established expertise of the National Energy Board. We sought legislation that would achieve clarity, certainty, and predictability, while avoiding duplication.

Before I speak to Bill C-68, CEPA would like to reaffirm that we remain extremely concerned about the changes put forward in the impact assessment act, Bill C-69,, and we emphasized our concerns at the standing committee studying that bill. We have recently provided the government with detailed recommendations on amendments to the bill and we hope that changes will be made.

With respect to Bill C-68, our concerns are less profound and mostly related to details that are simply unknown at this point. We recognize that the proposed amendments in Bill C-68 are essentially a return to the pre-2013 approach to fisheries regulation, with added elements such as gender analysis, indigenous traditional knowledge, and community knowledge.

The effect of these potential changes is to increase regulatory burden, complexity, and uncertainty. The impact will very much depend on the approach to implementation. To put it another way, the mischief is in the details. Numerous regulations need to be developed, including the designated project list, timelines, habitat banking, and how authorizations or permits may be amended, suspended, or cancelled. These regulations will require significant consultation with stakeholders and at this point the details are unclear. We need to understand how Bill C-68 will be implemented. This includes an understanding of how advisory panels will work, the public registry, cost recovery, time limits for authorizations, habitat banking, and how gender analysis works within the context of the Fisheries Act.

We need to understand what groups and organizations could be considered an indigenous governing body, and we need to understand under what circumstances equivalency provisions will apply. We don't know how indigenous traditional knowledge will be considered and weighted. We simply do not have any clarity on any of these issues.

Although we have many questions, I would like to use the remaining time to focus our comments on four areas of concern that are of the highest priority to the pipeline sector.

First, there is the designated project list. Bill C-68 contemplates different processes for major projects than for smaller, routine projects. This, in and of itself, can be positive, allowing for more streamlined procedures for routine projects that have minimal impacts and known mitigation practices and upon which there is a large body of best practices that have been employed. However, we do not know what will be on that list or how it will be developed. Therefore, we strongly suggest that this legislation should not be passed in Parliament without the understanding of what the designated project list regulation will look like.

Second, we are concerned about how standards and codes of practice will be implemented. Proposed section 34.2 of Bill C-68 allows the minister to establish standards and codes of practice that may provide formal guidance for small routine projects. We consider this to be positive, if implemented in a practical manner. For more than 60 years, CEPA member companies have operated pipelines across the country, currently operating approximately 119,000 kilometres of pipelines, and they have constructed thousands of watercourse crossings. Because of this history, the environmental and socio-economic effects of building pipelines are well understood, and over the years best practices and standard mitigation methods have been developed and implemented. Having standards and codes of practice are of utmost importance to our industry. We require certainty and predictability during the permitting process. The codes of practice can provide that. Without codes of practice, our industry could be buried in time-consuming, uncertain approvals being needed for low-impact activities.

We are encouraged by the recent work done in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and scientists to prepare watercourse-crossing guidelines for pipelines. The guidelines, known as the fish and fish habitat impact assessment tool, could be one of the first standards referenced under the new legislation. In addition to input from DFO, the science underlying this guideline was reviewed by the Canadian science advisory secretariat using the highest, most rigorous scientific standards. The model used to prepare this guideline could be used by other industries.

Third, in terms of amending, cancelling, and suspending authorizations, a third area of concern is related to section 43. This section enables regulations to be developed whereby the minister or any other member of the public may request an amendment, suspension, or cancellation of an authorization or permit at any time. The rationale for this provision is unclear, and it creates uncertainty where there should be certainty. CEPA strongly suggests that this provision be removed from the legislation.

My fourth point relates to the National Energy Board, or the future Canadian energy regulator, and the role that the new CER will play in Fisheries Act authorizations.

In 2013, DFO and NEB signed an MOU, and that gave the NEB responsibility for initial review of Fisheries Act authorizations for NEB-regulated pipelines. Under the MOU, the NEB will assess the potential impacts on fish and fish habitat for pipeline watercourse crossings, and determine whether mitigation strategies are needed. If there are serious impacts, the NEB informs DFO and DFO will then review and be responsible for any authorizations, just like any other application. However, the NEB does the initial work to determine whether there are impacts. If there are none, the project applicant does not have to make a separate application to DFO.

Essentially the process triggered by the MOU avoids having two departments perform the same assessment. It avoids the duplication that drives more costly processes with long timelines. We are encouraged that Bill C-68 enables the sort of MOU that is currently in place with the NEB and DFO. To this end, CEPA recommends that the current MOU between the NEB and DFO be maintained.

In conclusion, CEPA recognizes that keeping water bodies and fish habitat protected is of utmost importance to Canadians, including pipeline operators, but we must also maintain a regulatory framework that provides clarity and certainty, avoids duplication, and further builds on the wealth of technical knowledge and best practices already in place to achieve our desired outcomes and ensure Canada's competitiveness.

Thank you very much. I look forward to questions.

[Nick Lapointe, Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation]

Thanks.

We've heard so far under Bill C-68 that large projects will be managed either by permits as designated projects or by authorizations, and we support this. We've also heard that low-risk projects will be regulated by codes of practice, and we support this as long as they fully avoid harm, which DFO has clearly stated is the intent.

For example, CEPA is speaking next, and if a pipeline is placed under a stream using a horizontal directional drill without disturbing the stream bed, this should fully avoid harm and seems like a suitable candidate for a code of practice. But this still leaves out a third class of projects: the countless small projects that do cause harm, and it's really unclear how they'll be managed. We're deeply concerned that DFO intends to include projects under codes of practice that actually do cause harm, and this harm won't be compensated for.

Take stream crossings, for example. It's been suggested that properly designed stream crossings don't cause harm as long as they pass fish, but any biologist will tell you that blocking fish passage isn't the only harm caused by stream crossings. If we take the example of a culvert, there's infilling on each side of the culvert. If the culvert has a closed bottom, then it eliminates habitat in the middle of the stream. Then, of course, there's riparian habitat loss on both sides, which occurs basically for any stream crossing.

A culvert example is on the small end of the scale in terms of small projects that cause harm. Other examples of bigger projects that aren't currently addressed under the Fisheries Act include the expansion of wharves, piers or jetties, extending shorelines, and channelizing streams. Definitely anything that infills aquatic habitat leaves residual harm and needs to be compensated for because right now, when you put all of these projects together, the cumulative effect is a significant problem.

How are small projects that harm fish currently managed by DFO? Flat out, some aren't. Proponents self-assess and might not choose to even notify DFO even though there is residual harm. If they do submit a request for review, DFO's now established formal triage thresholds are based on perceived habitat importance. For example, proponents can destroy up to 100 square metres of “important” habitat or up to 1,000 square metres of low-quality habitat without triggering an authorization. What counts as important or unimportant is entirely subjective. It's definitely not based on science at this stage.

If the project is small enough, the proponent is given a letter of advice on how to proceed. The problem is that this letter is an extra-legislative mechanism. The projects aren't tracked, the conditions of the letter are not enforceable, and no compensation is provided for the residual harm of the project.

What do DFO scientists think about this? A group of them, led by DFO's chief scientist, published a peer-reviewed paper and concluded that to achieve no net loss, all projects that are not authorized need to result in zero death of fish or zero residual harm to habitat or an improvement to habitat, and this is not currently the case.

Ken Minns, a retired DFO research scientist, concluded that under DFO's current approach to managing small projects, the continued net loss of productive capacity appears inevitable. Under this framework no net loss is really slow net loss.

Again, currently under the proposed framework projects that avoid harm will be regulated by codes of practice and those that cause HADD will still require authorizations or permits. What's going to happen to the small projects that cause residual harm? Either letters of advice will still be issued and residual harm will still accumulate, something that's flat out unacceptable to anyone who cares about fish habitat, or thousands of small projects are going to require authorizations. I assume when I say that some of you, and certainly our industry partners, are thinking, “God, these guys want DFO to authorize everything”. Trust me, that's not the case. Authorizing all these small projects would create a massive bureaucracy. It would create delays, uncertainties, costs, and liabilities for proponents, and it would really only produce questionable environmental benefits. A whole bunch of tiny one-off offsets are unlikely to address the real restoration priorities that we have in Canada. There are definitely better ways to solve this problem.

One solution is to set up an alternate permitting process for small projects, where proponents can register online and receive a permit automatically—no delays, no uncertainty. The permit conditions would have to be enforceable. They would have to require that proponents first avoid, then mitigate harm, following best management practices, and this process would have to be accompanied by random audits to ensure that proponents are accountable and evaluate the effectiveness of the system. Overall, this would definitely be more efficient and it would allow DFO to assess cumulative effects, but we still need to address the residual harm from these projects.

There are several ways to do this that would be better for fish habitat than individual offsets. Big proponents might simply be able to use credits from their own existing habitat banks under the new habitat banking framework, but that leaves small proponents and private landowners out in the cold.

These proponents need to be able to purchase credits from existing habitat banks. For that, we need an amendment to enable third-party habitat banking, or DFO could collect a fee in lieu of an offset and pool these fees in a dedicated fund similar to the environmental damages fund. This could later pay for meaningful, high-priority restoration projects in the same service area, but again, an amendment is needed to enable this tool.

Finally, it might be even be possible to include specific requirements for compensation activities for some project types in the permit conditions, or possibly under codes of practice, as long as these conditions were enforceable. These recommendations are outlined in our brief. We also support recommendations made by Ecojustice on this issue.

Generally, though, we’re open-minded to any alternative solution that solves this problem, and need to emphasize that this is the primary modern safeguard that needs to be established under Bill C-68.

[David Browne, Director of Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Federation]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to appear before committee today.

The Canadian Wildlife Federation supports much of what is proposed in Bill C-68, including support for the requirement to rebuild fish stocks, and strong support for the provisions that deal with modifying commercial fisheries to address impacts to marine mammals or marine biodiversity. However, our focus today is on the habitat provisions.

In our testimony before this committee in October 2016, we emphasized what we see as the goals of the fish habitat provisions: to protect fish habitat, to restore past harms, and to compensate for future losses.

With respect to protecting existing fish habitat, the act goes a long way to achieving strong protection. We are very pleased to see the creation of a public registry in the proposed amendments, though its scope should be expanded. In our opinion, Bill C-68 falls short on strengthening the fish passage provisions. We would like to see fish passage as a mandatory requirement with provisions for exemptions. Bill C-68 also falls short on dealing with minor works that cause harm. We will go into this in greater detail.

On the restoration of past harms, we are pleased to see the inclusion of language around habitat restoration, and to hear the minister say before committee that Bill C-68 will create a positive obligation for the department to work to restore fish habitat. To this end, net gain should be established as the goal of the fish habitat protection provisions. The strengthened requirements around offsetting will also contribute to restoration, especially if this is guided by watershed-level goals.

Finally, regarding compensating effectively for future harms to fish habitat, we are seeing broad agreement in testimony before this committee that Bill C-68 does not create a comprehensive legal framework for dealing with small projects, and that the act needs to be applied consistently and appropriately across all works that cause harm. To quote Mr. Pierre Gratton of the Mining Association of Canada on the cumulative effects of small projects, “these stresses cannot be addressed by focusing the department’s attention on a few mining projects.”

I would just modify that to say: a few major projects. Mr. Gratton stressed the need to address all works with residual harm, and he highlighted forestry, agriculture, hydro, and municipal works.

Small projects are the crux of the act. Successive governments have struggled to provide a regulatory and policy framework to Fisheries and Oceans that effectively and appropriately deals with the harm to fish habitat resulting from small projects. They are a major—if not the major—cause of fish habitat loss across Canada on a cumulative basis.

Several witnesses have brought up the example of works that clear shoreline vegetation, or the works of farmers and municipalities in routine clearing of drainage infrastructure such as ditches, channels, and retention ponds, as problematic areas of regulation. They have suggested that all of these activities in all locations do not require oversight, beyond guidance via a code of practice. We would disagree that such a blanket and hands-off approach can prevent significant impacts from such a wide range of activities.

I want to be clear that we agree that a code of practice with no requirement for compensation is appropriate for many types of water bodies and many types of activities on farmland or municipal land where harm can be avoided. But we have the science to classify water bodies and activities. We know that the department could specify which locations and which works do result in residual harm and do require oversight and compensation, in order to move toward a policy goal of net gain. In these cases, we argue that the act does not contain the tools to regulate and manage HADD from small projects.

I’ll ask Dr. Lapointe to go into more detail.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all our witnesses for being here and providing your testimony on Bill C-68.

Mr. Berry, you talked about the owner-operator principle. We had some young fish harvesters from the west coast in front of the committee, and they were very passionate about this principle and idea of owner-operator. They were passionate about having fisher harvesters who actually fish being the operators, as opposed to investors who make it more costly or cost prohibitive for some, especially new entrants like them, to get into fishing.

Can you provide any advice from your perspective? You mentioned off the start in your testimony, your successful area in LFA 34. Is there any advice that you could give the west coast?

When Mr. Finnigan was asking you some questions about whether you could envision change, I think your comments about the situation were important. If you look at the west coast, we're faced with the ITQ system, so moving to owner-operators is pretty tricky. Is there any advice that you could provide?

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you Madam Chair.

Thanks to all our witnesses here this morning for helping us to go over Bill C-68.

I'll start with you, Mr. Berry, since your opening remarks are fresh for us. It's not hard to see that you favour the owner-operator. We've had many discussions here at the committee about that. Are you happy with how the strengthening of that portion of the act has evolved? Are you okay with that? Are there any hitches you can see?

[Kate Lindsay, Vice-President, Sustainability and Environmental Partnerships, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspective as you review Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act. I am here today representing the Forest Products Association of Canada, or FPAC.

FPAC is a voice for Canada's wood and pulp and paper producers nationally. Canada's forest industry employs over 230,000, and operates in over 600 communities from coast to coast. FPAC members manage forests on over 90 million hectares of land across Canada. This is primarily done on provincially managed land. All FPAC members are third party certified to one of three independent certification standards—the Canadian Standards Association; the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, SFI; or the Forest Stewardship Council, FSC.

The forest sector engages in planning for sustainable land use. We develop long-term forest management plans that include aquatic and terrestrial habitat and biodiversity objectives utilizing stakeholder input, science-based approaches, and engagement with local communities and indigenous communities.

When we appeared in front of this committee in December 2016, we spoke to the robust provincial regulations that forestry operations must comply with as well as the third party audited certification regimes that all FPAC members are certified under.

Specific to Bill C-68, I would like to identify current amendments that we notionally support, and identify a number of current amendments that will require further consideration.

To begin with, FPAC is supportive of the provision to empower the minister to establish advisory panels. In particular, we encourage these advisory panels to have individuals or organizations that have experience as proponents. In addition to a formal advisory panel, I would suggest earlier informal multi-interest advisory capacity in the development of the regulations and policies.

Second, FPAC is supportive of “agreements” as referred to in proposed subsection 4.1(1). Our strong recommendation is that equivalency agreements are pursued and recognized between provincial governments, indigenous governing bodies, and DFO to provide for more efficient and effective implementation of the regulations. This will require DFO to prioritize the development of regulations in which equivalency with other jurisdictions could be assessed in the short term, prior to coming into force. Provinces have continued to revise and standardize their own laws, regulations, and guidance for fish and fish habitat over time. We believe this would support efficient and effective policy implementation.

Third, FPAC supports and encourages DFO to recognize robust standards and codes of practice, as referred to in proposed section 34.2(1). Our member companies adhere to regulatory requirements under provincial and federal laws, and in addition employ practices—referred to as best management practices or standard operating procedures—to avoid or mitigate harm to fish and fish habitat. This due diligence that the forest sector employs towards fish and fish habitat has continued to be in place pre- and post-2012. In fact, our standards and operating procedures with respect to fish and fish habitat have continued to improve through the implementation of environmental management systems, forest certification, and evolving provincial regulations.

The vast majority of the work or projects that the forest sector engages in near fish habitat are watercourse crossings—culverts and bridges. New innovations and continual improvement inform our standard operating procedures. For example, in the 1990s and early 2000s, through partnership work with DFO and the development of the operational statements, forest companies have widely transitioned to using such new technology as clear-span bridges for fish streams. These crossings have much better environmental performance than the older technology used previously, 15 years ago.

FPAC, professional foresters, and professional biologists working within our member companies and provinces continue to work with technical experts, such as FPInnovations, the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, and partners like Ducks Unlimited, on implementing best practices. These practices address sediment and erosion control, culvert and bridge design and maintenance, integrated road access, and the maintenance of hydrologic and aquatic ecosystem function in areas where we operate.

We strongly encourage DFO to work with us to establish and recognize existing codes and standards with robust effectiveness monitoring programs, such as forest certification, to recognize the practices that avoid harm to fish and fish habitat.

While I'm on the topic of forestry certification standards, I will state that relevant requirements within the certification standards speak to protection of riparian areas—areas adjacent to permanent waterways—the protection and maintenance of sites that are biologically or culturally significant, the use of ecosystem-based management practices, and the development of long-term research and monitoring programs focused on biodiversity.

Now I would like to identify a few components of Bill C-68 that we believe require further consideration or clarification, as they pose potential concerns with regard to how they may be implemented.

The first is the amendment referred to in proposed subsection 35.2(1) on ecologically significant areas. Although we notionally support the identification of such areas, we want to see science, knowledge, and agreed-to processes developed to identify such areas.

The second is a general concern with the capacity of DFO to implement and enforce potentially expanding provisions while developing aquatic health baselines and monitoring cumulative effects moving forward.

We also want to identify the significance and challenge of climate change impacts, and would hope the department builds an understanding of watershed changes due to climate change. There may be other federal departments, such as Natural Resources Canada, that can contribute significant knowledge and expertise on climate change impacts, as well as adaptation practices. We recognize an increase in DFO funding announced recently in the 2018 budget, but we encourage the committee to consider the scope and ability of the department to implement the proposed act. We are hopeful that DFO will receive the necessary support to conduct this type of cumulative effects monitoring.

In summary, we encourage the minister and department to draft regulations that would enable equivalency agreements. We encourage the minister and department to establish multi-interest advisory capacity in the short term and to develop and recognize codes and standards. There is an opportunity for government to recognize the continued research and implementation in improving BMPs and in adapting practices on an ongoing basis, as well as the robust indicators and effectiveness monitoring programs established through third party audits.

We encourage that appropriate transition time and instruments be thought through to ensure that responsible proponents have a clear process identified while the necessary regulations and policy are developed.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide feedback on this important topic.

I welcome your questions.

[Paul Lansbergen, President, Fisheries Council of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to be with you this morning. Bill C-68 represents a significant modification of the Fisheries Act and will have long-standing implications for the sector and the health of our oceans and fish resources.

Before I get into specific comments on the bill, I would like to spend a few minutes to provide some context about the council, the sector, and the policy reality in which we currently find ourselves.

The Fisheries Council of Canada is the national voice for Canada's commercial fisheries. Member companies are processors who process the majority of Canada's fish and seafood production. Our members include small, medium-sized, and larger companies, as well as indigenous enterprises that harvest fish in Canada's three oceans and inland waters.

Canada is a global leader in sustainable fisheries management, with 80% of our Canadian wild seafood production, by value, being certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. This figure is in contrast to the only about 10% of the world's fisheries that are certified. The Canadian seafood industry creates 80,000 direct jobs, mainly in coastal and rural communities, and accounts for $7 billion in exports to 139 countries in the world. Our largest export markets are the U.S., China, the EU, and Japan.

The council is looking towards advantages created by such recent free trade agreements as those with South Korea, the CETA, and the CPTPP. Growing global demand for protein, including fish and seafood, points to more growth in Asian markets and elsewhere. In addition to trade opportunities, we have opportunities to realize more value from what we harvest today. A recent study has indicated that the sector is missing out on $600 million of additional revenue annually. These growth opportunities provide important context for my remarks today.

The most significant policy issue facing the sector is a concern about stability of access to the fishing resource. Recent actions and announcements from DFO have undermined the sector and therefore undermined the economic growth of Canada's coasts. Taking away long-standing licences and quotas does not respect past investment, has eroded the sector's confidence to invest, and could undermine conservation efforts.

This is not an issue for just one part of the sector. There are two reasons for this. One is that the concern is widespread. The second is that the supply chain is highly interdependent. For example, fish harvesters rely on their local fish processor to purchase their catch in order to bring their products to market. With the growth opportunities I mentioned a moment ago, we need to accelerate investment to extract more value from what we harvest and process. Much of this growth will only be realized by investments in new technology and practices. This and other growth opportunities won't be achieved in the absence of a clear and stable policy framework. Unfortunately, such is currently lacking in Canadian fisheries.

This concern also creates a lens through which the sector views Bill C-68 and the pending regulations, under new authorities provided by the bill. FCC views positively the habitat provisions that have been restored. These provisions have undergone significant consultation through the committee process. However, there are a number of other broad changes contained in the bill, particularly the new regulations, that could benefit from more thorough consideration.

Given the enabling nature of the bill, the council reserves judgment on the bill pending the development of the regulations authorized, which could take up to three years or more to be completed. Having said that, I would like to highlight three key messages. Our submission goes into more details and provides commentary on a number of the regulatory provisions, if you're interested.

The first is that FCC would like a better reference to the use of fisheries as part of the purpose of the act in proposed new section 2.1. As part of the 2017 consultations, we submitted the following:

‘Sustainable Use’ has been the primary implied principle of the Fisheries Act since its inception, and this primacy must be maintained/strengthened in any revised Act; care must be taken that the introduction/drafting of any additional principles/purpose etc. not diminish this primacy.

It is not clear that this has been achieved in Bill C-68. The first element of the purpose in proposed paragraph 2.1(a), “the proper management and control of fisheries”, is quite broad. Case law is clear that the minister can make decisions based on a wide range of considerations. The use of fisheries is missing in the current wording of the bill. FCC asked the committee to consider this, as participants in the fisheries sector and their communities rely on the economic benefits from Canada's fish resources. It is paramount that such use of our resources be sustainable. Failing to do so will only lead to economic hardship in the future and undermine the vital role this sector plays in Canada's coastal economy.

FCC submits for consideration an amendment to the purpose clause that would make explicit the sustainable use of fisheries as the primary purpose of the act. The wording we propose in proposed section 2.1 is that the purpose of the act is to “(a) ensure the sustainable use of fisheries; and (b) provide a framework for (i) the proper management and control of fisheries; and (ii) the conservation and protection of fish habitat, including preventing pollution.” This is in our submission. Essentially, we have inserted a new paragraph (a) and have moved the rest down.

My second message is related to indigenous participation and co-management. Bill C-68 provides significant new authorities relating to indigenous participation in and co-management of fisheries. Co-management agreements are authorized by the new proposed section 4.1 if provisions are deemed “equivalent” to provisions in the act. However, there is currently no legal test for equivalency in this context. Moreover, both the act and the bill fail to set any considerations that the minister or Governor in Council must—or may—consider when determining equivalency. This applies in terms of equivalency in provision and its administration or enforcement. Of particular concern is a potential for different management regimes across different fisheries, which could potentially negatively impact the sustainability of our fisheries resource.

According to the Ahousaht case in B.C., bilateral negotiations of what the fishing right means in practice are unacceptable. DFO does not represent the interests of other sector participants, such as commercial or recreational fisheries, and these interests must be included. The FCC believes there needs to be a clear process for involvement of other impacted stakeholders in co-management negotiations and a process in place to avoid a patchwork approach to the management of a resource that undermines overall sustainability.

In the same case, the crown testified that it is willing to use the allocation transfer program and the Pacific integrated commercial fisheries initiative to increase indigenous participation in fisheries. Moreover, Madam Justice Humphries stated:

Canada takes the position that access under PICFI and ATP is relevant to the access provided under the right, in particular because reconciliation is achieved through voluntary relinquishment of licences by commercial fishers. It is not necessary and is unhelpful to the principles of reconciliation to move to involuntary relinquishment of licences by the commercial sector.

Unfortunately, this is not the approach that has been taken in the surf clam fishery. A lack of clear criteria and policy has created a climate of uncertainty and instability in the fisheries management. The FCC strongly believes the government needs to adhere to a willing buyer, willing seller policy, as it has done historically.

My third message relates to the many regulations authorized by the bill. FCC looks to how these regulatory provisions can contribute to greater stability of access and thereby instill confidence to invest and support conservation. At the same time, FCC has cautions in terms of the government's ability to anticipate how the sector will evolve over time—quite frankly, I don't know if anyone can. Smart regulations will provide flexibility to accommodate the ongoing evolution of the sector.

FCC hopes this legislation and its subsequent regulations will provide a clear and stable policy framework that will facilitate and enable the fisheries sector to be prosperous long into the future. We look forward to continuing the dialogue with the government and parliamentarians on the details of the bill and subsequent regulations.

With that, I welcome any questions you might have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 100th meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament. Pursuant to order of reference on Monday, April 16, 2018, we're studying Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

Today for the first hour we have with us, from the Fisheries Council of Canada, Paul Lansbergen, president; from the Forest Products Association of Canada, Kate Lindsay, Director, Environmental Regulations and Conservation Biology; and via teleconference we have Bernie Berry, President, Coldwater Lobster Association.

Also with us today we have Cathay Wagantall from Yorkton—Melville. Thank you for joining us today.

We have the Honourable John McKay from Scarborough—Guildwood. Thank you for coming. I hear you say it's the centre of the universe, but I challenge you to come to Nova Scotia.

We will get started with our first witness today from the Fisheries Council of Canada, please. Mr. Lansbergen you have 10 minutes.

[Daniel Rubinstein, Director, Policy and Research, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

On behalf of FCM's president and our board of directors, I want to acknowledge the passing of Gord Brown and to extend our sympathies, as well, to all of you.

Thank you very much for having us here today.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities welcomes this opportunity to bring Canada's municipal voice to your review of Bill C-68.

As environmental and economic leaders, local governments understand and support federal efforts to protect fish habitat. From coast to coast to coast, communities depend on strong and healthy aquatic ecosystems to support local fisheries, outdoor recreation, tourism, and quality of life.

Prior to the changes made to the act in 2012, municipalities were concerned that the legislation over-regulated low-risk activities and created unnecessary administrative burdens for municipalities. This was due to the fact that all projects, from a hydro dam to a culvert, required the same authorization under the act on all water bodies. These concerns were felt most acutely by our rural municipalities but were experienced by local governments of all sizes across the country. For these reasons, we were supportive of many of the changes that were made to the act in 2012.

At the same time, our members recognized that the blanket removal of the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction, or HADD, provision had the effect of leaving some fish habitat less well protected and also created legal uncertainty for our members around how and when the new legislation would apply to local infrastructure projects. Further, the changes in 2012 didn't achieve the primary objective that municipalities were seeking, which was to treat smaller, low-risk projects differently.

There are a number of changes proposed in Bill C-68 that directly respond to recommendations we put forward to this committee during your review of the act last year. They include the reintroduction of the HADD provision; the introduction of codes of practice for routine infrastructure projects that follow clear guidelines to reduce impact and avoid HADD; the introduction of habitat offset banking so that municipalities can get credit for fish habitat they have created or restored; and as mentioned earlier, a new national registry that will document all work being undertaken in order to better assess cumulative impacts and make science-based decisions on the impact of fish habitat.

We support these changes, and we appreciate that the government considered our recommendations in drafting Bill C-68.

We're also pleased to see the announcement in budget 2018 of additional funding toward DFO to improve regulatory efficiency, monitoring, and reporting. Increasing the capacity of DFO is a need identified by our members, and we fully support the allocation of additional resources to that end.

Of the changes proposed in Bill C-68, we'd like to highlight in particular the establishment of codes of practice under section 34. This creates a new mechanism to provide guidance to municipalities and other proponents on how to undertake a project in a way that does not cause harm to fish habitat. Under this approach, municipalities won't have to seek an authorization under the act as long as they comply with the code.

We support this proposal as a way to avoid HADD, but it really will be important for DFO to work with municipalities in the near term to develop these codes of practice for a wide range of works. We believe that DFO should have the primary responsibility for developing these codes of practice in consultation with proponents, particularly in the case of municipalities that do not have the resources or expertise to do so on their own. To further assist municipalities in developing these codes of practice, we really are calling on DFO to make funding and other administrative assistance available to municipalities. I want to emphasize that we believe this is something that should happen this fiscal year.

While we welcome the addition of codes of practice to the legislative framework, our view is that, on their own, they won't go far enough to reduce the regulatory burden on small, low-risk municipal projects and operations.

There's one area that's very important to municipal governments that does not appear to have been addressed in the bill, and that's the application of the act to marginal fish habitat. Restoring the former HADD provision without complementary changes will have the impact of applying the act to drainage ditches and other similar bodies where fish are found to be present.

Last year, in response to your standing committee's review of the act, we supported the reintroduction of HADD, but we did recommend that it be re-established as part of a regulatory regime in a way that adequately protects fish and fish habitat without unnecessarily applying to low-risk municipal infrastructure and in water bodies that don't constitute fish habitat. Our recommendation was to develop a new mechanism within the legislation that would identity specific kinds of works, undertakings, and activities related to the construction and maintenance of municipal infrastructure. This mechanism would authorize specific activities to take place without the application of the HADD provision and within applicable terms and conditions meant to provide basic protection for fish and fish habitat.

I want to underscore that, as an order of government, municipalities are fundamentally different from private sector proponents. Municipal infrastructure projects are subject to federal environmental legislation that's been developed with a sense of public input. They're guided by comprehensive, environmental, and land-use policies, and are subject to the approval and oversight of democratically elected councils that are accountable to the public.

Municipal infrastructure is built exclusively to serve the public and is essential to economic activity and to quality of life. Any costs and delays related to building and repairing this infrastructure impact taxpayers and the fiscal sustainability of public budgets, especially at the local level. This is especially pertinent given the federal government's historic long-term infrastructure plan and long-term investments in both new construction and maintenance projects at the local level.

Your committee recognized the unique circumstances of municipalities during your review of the act last year and called on DFO to “put sufficient protection provisions into the Fisheries Act that act as safeguards for farmers and agriculturalists, and municipalities.”

Bill C-68 does not adequately do this, and to address the concerns of municipalities, as I mentioned before, a corresponding regulation will need to be developed that exempts works, activities, and undertakings that cause HADD but that have only a limited impact on fish or fish habitat. We're recommending that your committee urge DFO to prioritize the development of that regulation under section 35 of the act.

In conclusion, FCM supports a number of the important changes that have been brought forward by the government in this legislation, but the changes alone will cause delays for municipalities in carrying out routine maintenance or the building of infrastructure with minimum impact on fish habitat.

Again, to underscore, we're recommending that the government prioritize two things: the development of a new regulation under section 35 that exempts works, activities, and undertakings that cause HADD but have only a small impact on fish or fish habitat, such that they do not compromise the objectives of the act; and, again, that DFO proactively work with municipalities to develop codes of practice and to make funding and technical assistance available to municipalities this fiscal year to begin developing these codes.

We look forward to working with DFO to ensure that Bill C-68, once implemented, can work for municipalities of all sizes.

We'd be happy to answer questions from the committee or individual members following the meeting.

Thanks very much.

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

Good afternoon, everyone.

I would also like to offer my condolences on the loss of one of your colleagues.

I will speak in French.

It's strange because the last time you went to Shippagan, I was speaking in English. I have to come to Ottawa to speak in French.

First of all, thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before you a second time in a few months. Even though shrimp fishing began in March and snow crab fishing began last Sunday, you'll understand that I wasn't able to bring it here for sampling, like we did during your quick visit to our offices last fall. The message is quite simple: come back and you can enjoy it again.

Let's get into it and talk about Bill C-68.

After first reading, we find this very interesting. We are delighted with the initiative taken by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to clarify and strengthen several aspects of the Fisheries Act.

In visiting the Parliament Buildings, we can see the fishing profession represented in the frescoes decorating the ceiling, beside the logging and hunting-trapping professions. As the old saying goes, when we want to know where we're going, we need to look at where we're from.

To see what is happening today in the fishery sector, there is no doubt that this collective memory has been obliterated for a long time in people's minds, and even more so, in our opinion, in the government's mind.

The federation of fish harvesters that I am representing here today doesn't have a legal advisor or a specialist in the drafting of acts and regulations. As a result, the comments I'm going to make have nothing to do with legalese. They are much more about the reality of fishing in the 21st century and its relationship with the Canadian state.

While fish harvesters used to have an almost heroic image, environmentalists and the media have made the fish harvester a virtual destroyer of the environment who is harming the sustainability of the planet. It isn't surprising that the officials concerned often try, by all possible means, to control, if not counter, fishing activities.

Let's get to the heart of the matter. We have been fishing in Canada since the arrival of Christopher Columbus and Jacques Cartier. There is no doubt that we have a thorough knowledge of fish and fish habitat. However, this is ignored in the proposed section 2.5. There is talk of “community knowledge”, but it's so vague that it doesn't really mean anything. For ages, fish harvesters and their associations have been saying to anyone who will listen that nobody listens to them, and section 2.5 is proof of this: we have been totally excluded.

The government is missing a great opportunity to make space at the table for the people who have been in the profession for generations. In short, it's as if we're being told, “take care of fishing, while the government runs your business.”

We recognize the government's role and its competence, but it is fairly strange not to give a voice to fish harvesters who are living off the sea and its resources. If anyone should be concerned, you will agree with me that it's the beneficiary user.

This brings us to the advisory committees referred to in the new section 4.01. The beginning of this section talks about the remuneration of the members of these committees. It's unfortunate that it isn't retroactive, because I would have a pension plan that would allow me to retire immediately. Again, it's very vague. What is being referred to? It's hard to say. Let's hope that this isn't a pretext for bringing in all kinds of supposed experts in this or that, who will come from all over to tell us that they hold the truth and that we should apply “their” solution. Do we want to pay the current members of the many advisory committees now? For what purpose? Why? This needs to be clarified.

Beyond the issue of remuneration, we want to share our frustrations with these famous committees.

For starters, there is little or no transparency at all; some proceed with reports, others don't; it's impossible to know what is communicated to the minister; and so on. Therefore, the minister decides everything. Yes, the legislation gives the minister a lot of powers and functions, and we believe that this very dictatorial approach needs to be modernized. In our opinion, the role, composition, functioning and power of these committees must be reviewed. This power must be decentralized, the industry must be given more responsibility, and a simpler administrative framework must be created, which is more in line with the various types of fishing.

Currently, management is done by species, and a different resource becomes the enemy of the other. The sea is not built in compartments, but we have specialized fisheries. This model just doesn't work anymore. In order to maximize our resources and avoid the waste that is happening right now, we need to change the way we operate. Since we don't have a national forum, we speak in a vacuum, and most importantly, we don't talk to anyone.

Yes, the new legislation talks about protecting fish and avoiding killing them, but where is maximizing the benefits discussed?

I will now turn to sections 8 and 11 of the act, which deal with fees and charges. The last time the Fisheries Act was revised, which was done under the previous government, we ended up with a lot of new expenses that were added to the existing licence fees. These included fees for dockside weighing, for sea observers, for science and for at-sea monitoring, which was imposed. This is what people call black boxes or VMS systems, all at the expense of the fish harvester.

As a result, in the case of the crab and shrimp fisheries, the Government of Canada is, in many cases, the second or third expense, after a fish harvester's wages and fuel.

Is this normal? Let's ask the question. For us, we believe that this isn't normal and that, moreover, it is an unfair system. For information purposes, the cost of licences for shrimpers is $66 per metric tonne and $137.50 for crabbers, which for this year represents an average of $35,000 for one and $13,000 for the other. A lobster licence costs $100. In addition, in most other fisheries, fees listed earlier don't have to be paid out. That's the reality.

The department wants to impose electronic logbooks starting in 2019. At the moment, we are shopping with the fish harvester's credit card, and then submit the invoice, without the fish harvester's being able to say anything. It seems to me that this act already has a lot of power in the sector. To use the expression “the devil is in the details”, let's hope that the new legislation makes it possible to balance out the situation. We would like to see a more just model for all, based on income rather than arbitrary factors that have nothing to do with the economic reality of a particular fishery.

I'll move on now to owner-operators. We applaud the new provisions of the legislation that seek to protect our way of life and therefore prevent all kinds of individuals and businesses from appropriating the privileges granted to fish harvesters who wish to earn an honest living and who allow our coastal communities to remain vibrant. There is a positive aspect to this case: we are the victims of our success. This is proof that our fishing businesses are prosperous. That's new. Our life used to be one of poverty, subsistence and misery, but we were able to get rid of the big foreign companies that exploited our fish harvesters. That said, vultures are always on the lookout for easy prey. Many law firms are constantly working to find loopholes in the system.

In addition, we must tackle the issue of succession. The question is delicate, and for the moment, the new legislation doesn't really address this difficulty.

With families being smaller, the transfer between parents and their children is less and less possible, and it becomes even more complicated in the situation where fish harvesters would like to be able to share between their children, rather than favour one at the expense of the others.

We submitted to the department a concept of family-type or professional-type company, but its representatives told us that it was difficult and complicated to set up. This isn't easy, but recognizing this power the minister has for issuing permits would allow for proper succession and the end of speculation by stakeholders who are not involved in the fishery and who want to circumvent the law in order to outright rob coastal communities of wealth that belongs to them.

Thank you for listening. I would have been happy to answer your questions, but I understand the situation.

[Professor Martin Olszynski, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and committee members.

Before I get started, I also want to express my condolences on the passing of Gord Brown.

As some members may recall, I had the privilege of speaking to this committee when this process of reviewing and restoring the Fisheries Act began almost two years ago, and I am pleased to be with you here again at the tail end to discuss Bill C-68. I will begin by briefly describing the positive aspects of Bill C-68 before diving into the areas that still need work.

To be clear, although the Fisheries Act amendments appear to have received the most praise out of the suite of legislation introduced in February, we're not there yet. There is still considerable room for improvement.

Among the positives, first and foremost is the restoration of the prohibition against “the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of destruction of fish habitat”, applicable to all fish and fish habitat, as recommended by this committee. The second is the establishment of a public registry, also recommended by this committee, which should go a long way towards enabling transparency and accountability in the management of Canada's fishery resources. Third is the explicit inclusion of cumulative effects and the traditional knowledge of Canada's indigenous peoples as mandatory factors for consideration when authorizing impacts to fish and fish habitat.

There are other good things about this legislation, but recognizing that my time is short I want to move on to those things that still need work. Also, having listened for the past hour, I want to say that I think nothing I'm about to say contradicts the previous witnesses' testimony.

The first issue is the treatment of works undertaken in activities that pose a low—but not zero—risk to fish habitat. Bill C-68 risks perpetuating the current fiction that low-risk projects are no-risk projects and that DFO does not need to monitor them, which is to say, to at least know when and where they occur. Either these will be deemed as avoiding impacts when carried out in accordance with guidelines and codes of practice, such that no notification will be required, or, where no standards exist, DFO will continue to rely on its letters of advice, where, once again, no notification appears to be contemplated.

One of my colleagues here at the University of Calgary, who used to work at the CESD in Ottawa and so knows a thing or two about regulatory effectiveness, is fond of saying, “If you don't measure it, you can't manage it.” This is definitely true about the thousands of so-called low-risk projects that cumulatively are having a detrimental effect on Canada's watershed and fisheries resources.

What is required of DFO, perhaps in collaboration with some of Canada's expert fisheries biologists—and there are several of them—is to do the hard work of identifying which projects truly do avoid impacts on fish habitat and which ones do not or are likely to result in some impact, and for the act to require notification for those latter projects—nothing more, but nothing less. If there are concerns about privacy, as the previous witnesses expressed, those can and should be addressed.

Before moving on from this issue, I want to make it clear that there's no question that DFO has the authority to require such notification. Any suggestion to the contrary is based on a misreading or misunderstanding of the relevant case law.

Issue number two is that there's still too much discretion in the act. Probably the most glaring example is in proposed section 2.5, which lists a series of factors that the minister “may” consider when making decisions under the act. To see why this is a problem, you need only replace “may” with “may not”, a trick suggested to me by a freshwater biologist here in Alberta. For example, the minister may not consider the sustainability of fisheries; he or she may not consider scientific information; and he or she may not consider the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples. I think it's pretty clear when you read it this way that there is a problem with this wording, and I can see no reason why the minister would not be bound to some of these factors, except for a reflexive bureaucratic instinct towards discretionary powers and duties.

Third, there should be much clearer parliamentary direction to the minister with respect to his or her annual reports, which, I pause to note, DFO appears to have stopped providing to Parliament since about 2015. There needs to be a clear requirement for the minister to report on the state of fish habitat in Canada, and at a minimum, how much habitat was impacted and how much was restored on an annual basis.

Fourth, with respect to habitat banking, as currently drafted, the banking provisions are unduly narrow, in that they do not permit third party banking. As drafted, the banking provisions will allow only large institutional proponents to create banks for their own use in the future. If the government thinks that banking can be more effective and efficient than the current ad hoc approach to offsetting, as I do, then it needs to be given the conditions to thrive, which includes allowing third party banking.

Fifth, with respect to environmental flows, this is an issue that is consistently neglected under the Fisheries Act, so I'm pleased to see that it got some attention from the minister and in previous hearings of this committee. Bill C-68 amends the fish passage and flow provisions of the act, which will be at proposed subsection 34.3(1). As clearly written, this provision is triggered where the “Minister considers that doing so is necessary to ensure the free passage of fish or the protection of fish or fish habitat”.

Bill C-68 could be improved by adding a requesting provision to this power similar to the request provisions found in part 1 of Bill C-69 with respect to regional and strategic assessments, which is a provision that allows a person to request that the minister consider the issue of flows and/or fish passage at a particular area or location, and provide his or her response upon having done that analysis.

On the sixth issue, which I've raised before, I can't understand why almost 10 years after the previous Conservative government introduced them to so many of Environment Canada's environmental laws, the Fisheries Act is still without an administrative monetary penalty, or AMP, regime. As noted by Environment Canada, an AMP is a financial penalty for non-compliance that may be issued by a regulator without court proceedings for the violation of designated legislative requirements, thereby supplementing existing enforcement measures. Bearing in mind DFO's current track record in terms of charges laid, I think it's reasonable to suggest that it needs an additional, less costly tool than regulatory prosecutions.

Those are my prepared remarks this morning. I was prepared to answer many questions, but I understand the situation.

[Bridget Doyle]

We have included specific wording for proposed section 2.5, that climate change impacts be included as a ministerial decision-making consideration. Our written brief seeks a commitment from the Government of Canada to incorporate that, which might actually require some consultation to identify the various sections where climate change considerations need to be included. However, we also seek a commitment that through the modernization of the legislation, there is follow-through to modernization of fisheries management policy, because that is where we're most affected on the ground. As written within Bill C-68, in the existing Fisheries Act and the previous Fisheries Act it's not obvious that the burden of proof for traditional use and access would be required for indigenous fisheries. However, our experience with the front-line policy is different from what you might expect, considering the definition in the act.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd also like to acknowledge the death of Gord Brown. The New Democrats express our deep condolences to Gord's family and to our Conservative colleagues. It's a real tragedy.

I'd also like to thank all of our witnesses for being here and testifying on Bill C-68, on the Fisheries Act. [Member speaks in Halkomelem] to my Tsleil-Waututh cousins providing their testimony. I'd like to start off with Tsleil-Waututh.

You directed the committee to the written submission, which we'll certainly review and look at. I appreciate that. You spoke about section 35, the 1982 amendment to the Constitution. My question is about the revised act. As stands, Bill C-68 right now includes wording about including traditional knowledge, but as you pointed out in your comments, Mr. Thomas, it doesn't include UNDRIP or free, prior, and informed consent. I am wondering if there's an amendment or some wording that you or the nation could suggest about how the legislation could be improved to respect free, prior, and informed consent and UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Ray Orb]

My name is Ray Orb, and I am the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. SARM is an independent association that represents all 296 rural municipal governments in Saskatchewan.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

Prior to 2012, the Fisheries Act placed unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens on municipalities and agriculture producers. The 2012 amendments to the act lessened these burdens. SARM is concerned that the current review and subsequent amendments may re-instate these unnecessary burdens, creating further delays to municipal infrastructure projects, increasing costs, and generally leading to more administrative burden for rural municipalities.

SARM supports ensuring that fish habitats are preserved and that any damage to habitat be mitigated through a balanced approach. Prior to 2012, the act applied to all waterways in Canada, regardless of whether the waterways actually supported fish habitats. Impact assessments and modified design and construction processes were often required for municipal bridges and culverts to accommodate fish habitats that, in many cases, did not exist. Municipal drainage maintenance was hindered by lengthy bureaucratic application processes for permits and authorizations. This resulted in requirements to install larger-than-necessary culverts to accommodate the passage of fish.

These requirements increased the costs of projects and delayed construction timelines, which is a significant burden given Saskatchewan’s very short construction season. For example, in the fall of 2011, the rural municipality of White Valley, which is in southwestern Saskatchewan, was replacing a culvert that intersected a seasonal running stream. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans assessed the work and concluded that a larger culvert for fish passage was necessary. This added $28,000 to the overall cost of the project. The cost was borne alone by the municipality’s ratepayers, even though Canada as a whole is a beneficiary of fish protection.

The current version of the Fisheries Act effectively balances the need for habitat protection with the need for municipal infrastructure development by focusing on federal oversight of the protection of Canada’s commercial, recreational, and indigenous fisheries. This results in increased autonomy for municipalities to use local tools to balance environmental stewardship and infrastructure development on other waterways.

For SARM’s members, the 2012 amendments streamlined review processes and improved enforcement mechanisms. These amendments also recognized that waterways such as drainage ditches and agricultural irrigation canals should not be treated in the same way as natural fish habitats.

This past March, SARM had the opportunity to meet with Minister LeBlanc and Minister Goodale to discuss the proposed amendments. At this meeting, we were pleased to learn from the ministers that the intent is not to return to the way things were prior to 2012, and that there is a strong intention to work with municipalities, agriculture producers, and provincial and territorial governments. We believe that making use of Saskatchewan environment officials to conduct investigations and partake in enforcement is an opportunity to avoid a duplication of efforts by using existing provincial services and maximizing fish and habitat protection.

For municipal projects, a code of best practices would benefit municipalities and other stakeholders. By having best practices in place, we can all play a role in environmental sustainability. Minister LeBlanc also mentioned that low, medium, and high-risk projects all need to be treated differently, and SARM is interested in hearing more about what determines what those categories are. SARM recommends that any amendments made to the Fisheries Act take into consideration the municipalities’ needs, and that any amendments do not bring back the administrative burdens and project delays that existed before the 2012 amendments were put in place. SARM encourages the federal government to consider providing funding to municipalities and individual land owners for the costs they accumulate while taking measures to maintain publicly beneficial fish and fish habitat for environmental stewardship.

SARM, along with the Western Canadian Municipal Association, strongly agree with the following recommendations by the committee: sufficient protection provisions to act as safeguards for municipalities; the expediting of permitting to allow for works that involve the restoration of damage, infrastructure, and emergency works to protect people and communities; an advisory committee, including municipalities, to provide ongoing recommendations regarding the administration and enforcement of the act.

Streamlining the review processes is important to municipalities, given our short construction season in Saskatchewan. Municipalities must be able to complete emergency projects in a timely manner.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[Matt Thomas]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the invitation to present to you today on the important matter of Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. We are here today to specifically address the Fisheries Act.

My name is Matt Thomas. I am a Tsleil-Waututh member and acting director of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation's economic development department. From here on in, I will refer to Tsleil-Waututh Nation as TWN. I have an extensive history of working on fisheries and fisheries-related files in various roles with the nation. I continue to play an active role in managing TWN food, social, ceremonial, and commercial fisheries. I am joined by Bridget Doyle, natural resources planner for TWN, and Michael George, cultural and technical adviser for TWN.

Today, I will speak to our priorities that reflect how we, as first nations that hold rights under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, will be impacted through legislation, regulation, and policy. I urge you to refer to our written submission for more details and priority topic areas.

I would like to begin with a brief introduction to the TWN so that you understand a bit more about who we are and the perspective that we have. TWN are the People of the Inlet, and we have used and occupied the lands and waters of Burrard Inlet since time out of mind. The TWN community is located on the north shore of the Burrard Inlet in North Vancouver, British Columbia. We hold a sacred obligation and responsibility to steward our lands and waters for our ancestors, for our generation, and for those to come. TWN does this through actively asserting and exercising our stewardship and governance rights. This includes participating in consultations with the crown over the hundreds of development projects proposed within our territory every year, many of which relate to authorizations under the Fisheries Act. We are also heavily engaged in proactive initiatives that assert TWN stewardship and governance rights to monitor, protect, and restore ecological integrity and functioning. This includes the protection, restoration, and management of fish and fish habitat.

Arguably, no Canadian legislation other than the Indian Act, 1985, has imposed the same level of determination over first nations physical, cultural, spiritual, and economic health and well-being as the Fisheries Act. In our view, the revision and modernization of the Fisheries Act provides a much-needed systemic shift in how Canada engages with the indigenous groups to manage fish, fish habitat, and fisheries. The proposed amendments contained within Bill C-68 offer a significant improvement over the existing Fisheries Act. Most notably, TWN applauds the Government of Canada for repealing the definition of commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. We also applaud the reinstating of broader protections under the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of the fish habitat provision.

However, we have remaining concerns that specifically affect TWN as a rights-holder. We believe the purpose section needs to be strengthened and broadened to reflect modern fisheries governance and management issues in Canada as well as the outcomes the law is intended to deliver. For managing fish and fish habitat, this must include the purpose of restoration. Due to adverse cumulative effects, TWN is in the position of having to restore fish and fish habitat within our territory before being able to access and exercise our constitutionally protected aboriginal rights.

Restoration is a key piece of everything we do, and many indigenous communities across Canada are in this same position. Providing clarity that restoration is one of the overall purposes of the Fisheries Act would help to empower the required actions from our governments.

It is also critical that the Government of Canada clearly state that one purpose of the Fisheries Act is reconciliation with indigenous peoples. The legislated respect for the existing rights of indigenous peoples of Canada, as recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, would be a strong starting point to add to the purpose of the act.

As you are aware, Canada has stated its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its intent to implement UNDRIP. However, we see no mention whatsoever of UNDRIP in the act. Including these amendments in the purpose of the act would make them obligatory considerations in ministerial decision-making.

It would be irresponsible to future generations to ignore the issue of climate change in the revision of the Fisheries Act. Climate change must be considered in all aspects of fish and fish habitat protection, conservation, restoration, biodiversity, cumulative effects assessments, and fisheries management.

According to a study by Weatherdon et al. from 2016, as a result of climate change, it is anticipated that marine fish on the west coast of North America will shift their ranges poleward at a median rate of 10.3 kilometres per decade by 2050, relative to the year 2000. In British Columbia, first nation salmon catches are projected to decrease by 30%, and first nation herring catches will experience a 49% decline.

Without making provisions for climate change in the Fisheries Act, the Government of Canada is setting itself up for legal uncertainty with respect to constitutionally protected aboriginal rights. As currently implemented through policy, the burden is placed on indigenous groups to prove their traditional use and access to a fishery to receive food, and social and ceremonial licence to a particular species or fishing area. This policy has always been, and continues to be, a significant challenge to indigenous groups fully participating in fisheries and reinforces current adversarial challenges between the Government of Canada and indigenous groups.

In an era of rapid environmental change, shifts in species migration patterns, and biodiversity loss, the burden of proof of traditional use and access can no longer limit indigenous fishing opportunities. As our ancestors did, we continue to adapt and access all available resources within our territory that are not restricted by conservation concerns. Accessing new fisheries opportunities like, for example, fisheries migrating from warmer, southern waters, may become a critical climate change resiliency strategy for TWN to protect and maintain the physical, cultural, and economic foundation of our community.

The arbitrary requirement for proof of traditional use or access is outdated in a coastal system affected by climate-change-related impacts, and has no place in a modernized Fisheries Act.

In conclusion, again, I urge the committee to refer to TWN’s written submission for more detail and for priority areas of interest. I regrettably did not have time to discuss our views on governance structures, environmental flows, or the rebuilding of fish stocks.

However, I want to remind the committee that to facilitate effective decisions, assessments, and implementation under the Fisheries Act, a concerted effort is required by the Government of Canada to cross-reference and coordinate final legislative drafting between Bill C-68 and Bill C-69. These laws do not exist in complete isolation and must be revised as cohesive and significant pieces of Canada’s environmental legal landscape.

We request that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans refer the specific legal language proposed by TWN on Bill C-69 to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development with regard to indigenous jurisdiction and agreements, decision-making, and dispute resolution processes as they relate to the Fisheries Act.

TWN also supports the submissions on Bill C-68 by the FNFC-LFFA coalition and West Coast Environmental Law. We hope that you give their brief special consideration.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide oral testimony before the committee today. We look forward to further conversations with you or your delegates regarding some of these issues, many of which require further consultation with indigenous groups as you finalize the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 99 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 16, 2018, we are studying Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

We will have to convene this meeting a little earlier than we originally thought. For the first hour, from the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, we have Matt Thomas, acting director economic development, by video conference.

Can you hear me?

[Susanna Fuller]

I think the examples that Joshua Laughren of Oceana gave are cases in point of where other countries and groups of countries have much better fisheries laws than we have. I think Bill C-68 goes a long way to getting there, but it's not quite there. I think two key areas, making sure that we are taking account for rebuilding and requiring it, and also making sure that we are managing cumulative effects properly, get to actually achieving the purpose of the act.

Law, as you know, is iterative, but I don't think right now that this Bill C-68 is quite in line with the UN fish stocks agreement or with the NAFO-amended convention, which are the two most recent pieces.

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

If there's wording that you could provide the committee for Bill C-68, that would be really helpful.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all our witnesses for your testimony on Bill C-68.

Dr. Fuller, you mentioned six recommendations. I think you covered those quite well and you mentioned that you will submit that to this committee in writing.

[Susanna Fuller]

I do think science should be the basis. I think in some cases the discretion is inherent in this act and this Bill C-68 has not gotten rid of discretion. I think it's important to have the factors to be considered absolutely include science, and I think that's a good addition because there's science but there's also precautionary approach, an ecosystem approach, and incorporation of indigenous knowledge.

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

Thank you.

If you could, as soon as possible, provide us with a little more detail on what those recommendations might be, it would be very helpful as we move forward.

Mr. Marchi, you mentioned the cumulative effect of overlapping jurisdictional regulation and so on, and the problems that's creating. Do you see more of that with Bill C-68?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Do you feel that Bill C-68 effectively enshrines into law the existing owner-operator policy and the fleet separation policy?

[Susanna Fuller, Oceans North Canada]

Thank you.

Thank you for inviting me to present today in my new role at Oceans North Canada.

Having been involved in previous attempts to amend and modify the Fisheries Act in 2006 and 2007, I want to commend the current government and the work of this committee for finally bringing us, on the 150th anniversary of Canada's Fisheries Act, to the point where significant amendments have been proposed, the majority leading to an improvement and a modernization of Canada's Fisheries Act.

Given the importance of fish and fish habitat to coastal communities, indigenous peoples, and Canadians in general, we do need a Fisheries Act for the 21st century and an act that we can take with pride to Canada's presidency of the G7, particularly with the priority given to oceans.

My comments are based on my history as part of the national fish habitat coordinating committee, which, together with DFO, was a member of several advisory committees for commercial fisheries in the belief that there's an urgent need to ensure that Canada's laws are consistent with the need to reconcile our history with indigenous peoples. They are also based on the belief that the management of a public resource must have a strong legal and policy framework to ensure that its sustainability is part of diversity, valuable ecosystem services, support for independent fishermen, and the future of coastal communities.

As you may know, the initial response to Bill C-68 was very positive, and this is reflective of the broad, though swift, consultative process that was undertaken. There are several elements of Bill C-68 that are significant improvements. I want to take note of these before I get to the few key areas where I believe amendments are needed to ensure that the act adequately provides for fisheries management and protection, conservation of fish and fish habitat, and access to fishing resources for adjacent communities.

The improvements that I think are good are the addition of a purpose section; expansion of factors to be considered in decision-making; measures for protection of independent fishing fleets; restoration of HADD; inclusion of a rebuilding clause for the first time; establishing permanency for fisheries closures, particularly those that are to count towards marine protection targets; creation of advisory panels that can ensure there's an increased use of expertise and public engagement in the implementation of the act; and finally, the five-year review of the act, which will ensure that regular updating is done when needed.

However, on closer examination, and after taking the time to think through how the new act would begin to address existing and long-standing problems with fish and fish habitat, there are a few key areas that, if left as now written, will undermine the achievement of the proposed purpose over time. It's generally accepted that fish populations decline primarily through two key factors: we harvest too many of them, or we destroy too much of their habitat. That's notwithstanding natural mortality and climate change, but without strong legal measures in place, there's no way to ensure that we are managing the harvest properly or able to mitigate and avoid habitat destruction. It is with this view that recommendations for improvements are made.

As you're likely aware, the environmental and conservation communities have been working closely together so that we are concise and aligned in our recommendations for amendments. I've also reached out to the fishing industry to better understand their concerns for areas of support for Bill C-68. The recommendations below are consistent with those put forward by West Coast Environmental Law, Ecojustice, Oceana Canada, and others. I align largely with comments made this morning by Keith Sullivan and Ecotrust Canada. It's interesting to note that the Mining Association of Canada is also aligned with some of the comments from Ecojustice. I think that's actually a unique situation, where we have such a broad constituency acquiescing in so many of the same things.

I will expand upon my six recommendations in a written submission with specific language, but the first one is to strengthen the purpose of the act. It's great that there's a purpose—it's much needed since 1996—but I believe it should be aligned with international agreements and conventions. I suggest that at a minimum we should add long-term conservation and sustainable use of the fishery to the purpose of the act.

Second, there is no mention of section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, and I note that in Bill C-69 it is included. To enshrine indigenous rights in this legislation and have consistency across Canadian legislation, I think section 35 should be added. I am mentioning this for the first time. My colleague Josh Laughren and those at Oceana give lots of reasons for why we need to rebuild the Fisheries Act. I feel strongly that this does need to be in the act and does need to be strong.

In Atlantic Canada, there are 17 species of marine fish that are either targeted by commercial fisheries or impacted by them, and these species are considered threatened or endangered by COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which advises on the Species at Risk Act. Marine fish do not tend to get listed under the Species at Risk Act, mainly for socio-economic reasons, many of which I have some sympathy with. However, I believe that if we had a strong Fisheries Act that required the rebuilding of fish populations we might not find ourselves in such dire straits, with so many species considered endangered, some of which are vital to our coastal communities.

Strengthening the current rebuilding provisions means there is a legal backstop to the Species at Risk Act, which I would think the fishing industry would support. It gives us another tool to rebuild fish stocks without their being listed under the Species at Risk Act, although in some cases that may be the best tool. The Fisheries Act should require that rebuilding plans be in place and that they take into account ecosystem considerations, including climate change, with regard to timelines and targets. Failing to do this with Canada well behind other fishing nations and their legislation—many examples were given by Oceana—also fails to align us, again, with the international agreements to which Canada is a party or a signatory.

Fourth is on reporting to Parliament and to Canadians. Reporting on the status of fish habitats and the status of population rebuilding should be done on an annual basis. Currently, Environment and Climate Change Canada reports on the fisheries checklist from DFO. It seems a bit misplaced. I think DFO should have to report on its own goals, including fish habitats and the fish stocks and rebuilding. There are excellent examples of how this is done that are easily communicated to the public, and one of those is done by NOAA to the U.S. Congress. It's very readable. It's an infographic. It's not difficult to do. I would recommend adding reporting on rebuilding in proposed section 42.1

Finally, with regard to cumulative effects, we need to broaden the requirement of what's included in the public registry, proposed section 42.3. The public registry for projects is much needed. The NGO community has been advocating this for a very long time, and we're glad to see it in there. However, it's important that all projects where a fish habitat is impacted, whether through a letter of advice or through a departmental authorization, are included. Organizations on the ground, including DFO, through a pilot project in the gulf region, have already mapped areas where fish passage is blocked or a habitat has been altered. In practice, this is happening. It shouldn't be so difficult to add it to a public registry that is geospatially referenced. Without low-risk projects being included, planning and mitigation on a watershed level will be impossible, and I think colleagues at the Canadian Mining Association made reference to that as well.

In closing, a very strong constituency in Canada is interested in helping to implement a new Fisheries Act. This is a unique situation where thousands of volunteers through stewardship organizations and indigenous communities are working to identify barriers to fish passage and damage to fish habitat, to work on restoration. Increasingly, there is more transparency and multi-stakeholder engagement at fisheries advisory committees with regard to commercial fisheries where common ground can and is being found and actions can be agreed upon that help protect fish habitat and rebuild fish populations.

We can also use new tools to implement a new Fisheries Act, including mapping and GIS, electronic monitoring, just as examples, that can make data collection and data analysis easier. In the past attempts to upgrade the act, we didn't have those tools and now we do. They can make implementation much simpler.

In closing, as you consider and review Bill C-68, I hope you will be as ambitious as possible in this historic moment. It is the 150th anniversary of the Fisheries Act, the second act after the British North America Act, and this current act, Bill C-68, gets us up to about the 1970 level. We need to bump ourselves up to this century and give us a Fisheries Act for the future. We're very close. This act is and will continue to be foundational to who we are in Canada.

Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.

[Sergio Marchi]

Thank you very much, Terry.

In conclusion, as Terry mentioned, CEA has long worked well with DFO to ensure the protection of fish and fish habitat on behalf of all Canadians.

We trust you will find today's presentation, and our fuller submission that will follow next week, useful as you finalize Bill C-68. We also hope you will give serious consideration to the proposed amendments we suggested this morning.

We look forward to continuing to work not only with DFO but also with this parliamentary committee to develop policy, regulations, and codes of practice that will have practical and effective application while protecting Canada's fisheries into the future.

Thank you very much for your attention. We're happy to answer any questions members may have.

[Sergio Marchi]

Thank you very much to you, Madam Chair, and to the members of this committee for inviting the Canadian Electricity Association to appear before you this morning on your review of Bill C-68.

I'm pleased to represent our association. To my left is Terry Toner, director of environmental services for Nova Scotia Power, as the chair alluded to.

By way of context, CEA is the national voice and forum for the Canadian electricity sector. Our membership is comprised of the major generation, transmission, and distribution companies, as well as the full spectrum of our suppliers. As you all know, electricity is indispensable to the quality of life of all of your constituents and all Canadians, and to the functioning and competitiveness of a modern economy.

The sector is also uniquely positioned to enable Canada's clean energy future. Currently, we are at 82% GHG emissions-free, which ranks us among the cleanest sectors in the world. We have reduced GHG emissions by some 30% since 2005 and we are on track to do so again by another 30% by 2030. No other sector in Canada comes close to matching these results. As we are also a hydro-rich system, our electricity production is highly dependent upon the responsible use of water resources, which is something that came up at the tail end of the previous engagement with witnesses. Water is also used at nuclear and thermal generating facilities. As such, our sector remains committed to protecting and conserving all of our natural resources.

However, it needs to be said that our future, and that of other industries, becomes less certain through the cumulative pancaking of wide scoping federal, provincial, and territorial legislative and regulatory changes. This pancaking cumulatively is becoming dangerously heavy and no one level of government takes accountability for this overall burden. Each government only considers its own respective layers. This needs to change because our business environment must be competitive and it must provide investor confidence, if we are to contribute to the continued economic prosperity of Canada. Also, all these policy decisions ultimately add to the cost of electricity to consumers, who are our customers and your voters.

That said, we believe that Bill C-68 is a missed opportunity for the federal government to anchor the Fisheries Act, clearly and explicitly, in the responsible management of fisheries and overall fish habitat, rather than the protection of single fish and microhabitats.

With that in mind, let me turn to Terry, who will outline our five specific recommendations to improve the practical application and impact of this act.

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

That's I think a global perspective, and obviously a national perspective here in Canada. I appreciate your testimony and your being here today.

Mr. Sullivan, you emphasized the importance of owner-operator and fleet separation.

I'm wondering, again, if you have specific wording that you could provide the committee to strengthen Bill C-68 on how that's done, certainly on the east coast but also even on the west coast. You have more experience in Atlantic Canada than we do on the west coast. I come from western Canada, British Columbia. We don't enjoy that strength of the owner-operator, fleet separation policy in British Columbia.

If you're able to provide wording and any wisdom or insight on how the west coast would follow your lead on the east coast, that would be helpful.

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

In terms of other work that you're doing, how important does this rate with other campaigns or things that you think Bill C-68 needs to include?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all our witnesses for being here to provide testimony on Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act, probably one of the most important pieces of legislation in the country for protecting our fishery.

We have spoken about the importance of trying to prevent overfishing. That's a critical case. We've talked about the importance of rebuilding plans. I would also submit that the importance of habitat or habitat loss is critical across the country when we're talking about flourishing fishery.

Mr. Laughren, if I could start with you and Oceana, you provided some specific examples of other countries and how rebuilding plans in their legislation is important. You provided those specifics.

You mentioned right at the very end of your testimony that you could provide wording on amending Bill C-68 so that's included. Are you able to get that in to us as soon as possible?

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

Mr. Sullivan, I appreciate your comments on the owner-operator and fleet separation being the two most important economic development tools for Newfoundland and Labrador. Your organization has recently come out very vocally against the minister with respect to the TAC with snow crab, the pricing with snow crab, and the surf clam decision.

Does it not give you and your organization some fear that Bill C-68 gives the minister more of this kind of authority, which will have such a great impact on your membership?

[Joshua Laughren, Executive Director, Oceana Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members.

Thank you for the opportunity for Oceana to appear today on Bill C-68, and thank you for your continuing good work.

Oceana Canada is collaborating with the other environmental groups that have been in front of you as well. We're regularly consulting with first nations on how to strengthen Bill C-68. We support the priority amendments that you've heard from others on environmental flows and cumulative effects. First nations groups, in particular, have emphasized the importance of developing habitat banking in the act in co-operation with first nations, and of referencing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the act.

Our top priority, as Oceana, and our area of expertise is the rebuilding of fisheries. It's our view that Bill C-68 as worded is missing one really crucial element, and that's a duty to act when stocks, populations are depleted, with an aim to restore the fishery back to healthy levels. Other nations require this, which I'll show. Canada has committed to it in international agreements, and it already exists in departmental policy. We believe that enshrining this duty in law is the single most important thing we can do as a nation to secure the future for our fisheries and all who rely on them.

This is a word on who we are. Oceana Canada was established in 2015 as an independent, science-based organization. It's part of the largest international group focused solely on oceans in eight countries plus the EU. We believe the oceans are essential to helping feed the nine billion people projected to be on earth by 2050. By rebuilding Canada's fisheries, we can strengthen our coastal communities, reap greater economic and nutritional benefits, and protect our future. Oceana Canada wants the same things we think everyone in this room wants: robust, healthy, wild fisheries and all the cultural and economic benefits that come with them.

Turning to Bill C-68, for the first time since the Fisheries Act was created in 1868, Bill C-68 includes provisions specific to rebuilding. That's good. Unfortunately, as currently worded, the provisions fall short of what we know from global experience is necessary to effectively rebuild stocks. It falls short of our international agreements, and it will not keep us commensurate with other nations' laws.

Bill C-68 requires the minister to consider whether there are some unspecified measures to rebuild stocks that, in his or her opinion, are in the critical zone when making management decisions. I want to pause on that for a moment. “Consider” whether or not there is some measure in place only once the stocks are at or below the level the government's own policies and management measures are designed to never let it get to.

I've heard it argued that we shouldn't worry about this, that the regulations will be where this detail will be put in. We agree, of course, that regulations will be necessary, and that's where a lot of the detail can lie. We fundamentally believe the act has to provide clear guidance to those responsible for drafting the regulations and to stakeholders and rights holders on what the intent of those regulations will be. That guidance is currently missing.

What constitutes a measure to rebuild stocks? If there aren't measures to rebuild depleted stocks, what then? Rebuild to what? Is it to maximum sustainable yield or to upper reference points or just rebuild them back to the edge of the critical zone and leave it there? In what time frame? Bill C-68 falls short of the international standards, right at a time, too, when Canada is seeking to play a global leadership role in fisheries and oceans management.

I want to give you some quick examples from other laws around the world, edited for brevity. In the U.S. the law says, “Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.” It goes on to say that any fishery management plan, with respect to any fishery, shall contain measures necessary and appropriate to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks.

In the European Union it says that the common fisheries policy “shall aim to ensure that the exploitation of...resources restores and maintains populations....above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.” It goes on, “Multiannual plans shall be adopted as a priority...and shall contain conservation measures to restore and maintain fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield”.

In New Zealand the law says the minister shall set a total allowable catch that enables the level of any stock whose current level is below maximum sustainable yield to be altered in a way and at a rate that will result in the stock being restored to that level.

In Japan the law says the state shall take measures “aiming at the maintenance or recovery of fishery resources to the level that enables maximum sustainable production.”

Canada has required this of nations in the new NAFO convention that we've signed on to. Some other nations and we ourselves signed on to it.

In each of these cases there are regulations and further guidance that's developed that clarifies how governments can and should take into account economic and social considerations, how to take into account interdependent stocks, and how to adjust plans when nature doesn't respond the way we think it will. That's appropriate and necessary. You can't legislate biology. But in each case, the intent of the legislation is clear: when stocks are in trouble, governments must respond, not “consider” responding.

Of course, this matters because the need to rebuild our fisheries has probably never been greater. We really have halted some of the worst cases of overfishing that happened in decades past, but many of our fisheries remain depleted, often decades after collapse. We are left in the vulnerable position now of being highly dependent on only a handful of species to support the bulk of the economics of the fishing industry, like lobster, crab and shrimp, obviously.

Canada's marine fish populations have declined, as you've heard, by 55% since 1970. That's over a half of our biomass of fish in my lifetime. According to DFO's most recently published numbers, there are only three rebuilding plans in place for the 21 stocks that DFO has confirmed to be in the critical zone. DFO often continues to allow directed fishing on stocks in the critical zone even in the absence of a rebuilding plan or management reference points. Northern cod, of course, which collapsed in 1992 and has been under a moratorium for 26 years, as this committee noted, is still without a rebuilding plan, and there is no identified upper reference point. Nonetheless, management decisions continue and allow fishing levels to increase on a fragile stock, giving it the dubious privilege of being the largest groundfish fishery, I believe, in Atlantic Canada right now, while still under a moratorium.

It is our view that this historical lack of priority on rebuilding, despite policy commitments to do so, and on implementing rebuilding plans is directly attributable to the lack of legislative guidance and a legal duty. This committee has the opportunity to fix that. There is strong evidence, I'll add, too, that adding a legal duty to create rebuilding plans makes a difference—a big one. For example, since the United States legally required rebuilding of depleted fish stocks, 44 stocks have been classified as rebuilt since 2000, generating, on average, 50% more revenue than when they were overfished. In the EU, the number of stocks with a total allowable catch, based on science to produce maximum sustainable yield over time, has gone from two, in 2007, to 53, in 2016. Cod, of course, once collapsed in Europe as in here, has recovered in the North Sea, in Norway, and in the Barents Sea.

Canada has committed to rebuilding international agreements like the United Nations fish stocks agreement, the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the NAFO convention. It's already departmental policy. What we're missing is the legal guidance.

We recommend that you amend Bill C-68 by including a legal requirement for the minister to develop rebuilding plans when stocks have fallen into the critical zone; to set a target to rebuild stocks out of the critical and cautious zones and back to healthy levels as advised in the sustainable fisheries framework of DFO right now; and to include a timeline and guidance on timelines for rebuilding.

Obviously, this is not a silver bullet. This kind of duty needs to be matched by good science, good management, strong enforcement, and it should be done in partnership with the communities and people who rely on and are deeply connected to our oceans. Countries that have this positive legal duty to act have healthier and more stable fisheries than those that do not. Surely that's what we all want.

In our brief we will provide specific wording for the committee to consider.

We look forward to your support and discussion. Thank you.

[Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada]

Thank you, members of the committee. On behalf of the Mining Association of Canada, Justyna and I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today.

As some of you may know, when I spoke to your colleagues on the environment committee about Bill C-69, I said I was mad, mad because in the same bill, the transition provisions for mining projects under CEAA were not the same as those for NEB projects.

In the latter, the government ensured that all projects undergoing an assessment begun by the NEB under CEAA 2012 would remain under the NEB, but not so for mining, which faces the uncertainty of switching acts midstream.

Guess what. I'm mad about Bill C-68 for a very similar reason. In our appearance before this committee on November 14, 2016, we stressed the importance of adequate departmental capacity for implementing the act and managing transition. We described the significant challenges we encountered with the transition resulting from the amendments introduced in 2012. Over and over we emphasized to the department that they had to do a better job of managing the transition this time around.

We appreciated your recommendations, particularly 21, 22, and 25, that advocated for investments in hiring field personnel and meaningfully resourcing the monitoring, compliance, and enforcement components of the department. We are pleased that the government has materially increased funding for DFO.

However, here with Bill C-68, we find once again a failure to address the problem of transition. While the provisions proposed in subclause 53(1) provide an orderly transition for authorization applications that have been deemed complete, they do not recognize directions given to proponents by DFO in response to a request for review or to guide an application for authorization.

What does this mean exactly? I'll explain.

Determining whether a large and complex mining project will impact fish habitat, gathering information on potentially impacted fish habitat, and examining mitigation or avoidance options takes time. Field studies take time, and must account for seasonal constraints. If an authorization under the Fisheries Act is required, additional time is needed to gather all necessary information, assess offset options, seek input from affected communities, particularly indigenous communities, and otherwise conform to the applications for authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act regulations. The cost of the complete authorization application package can range from hundreds of thousands of dollars for small projects to millions of dollars in the case of large projects, and can take several years.

Thus, requesting a review and preparing an application is not a trivial or a quick undertaking. Mining projects are also subject to federal and provincial environmental assessment processes. These can take three or more years, and application for an authorization under the Fisheries Act cannot be submitted until these assessments are completed. The case of one MAC member is particularly troubling, and exemplifies the importance of our request for amendment.

The project entered federal environment assessment in 2012, and the proponent had to completely revise its original Fisheries Act-related plans when the new Fisheries Act amendments came into force in late 2013. In the case of this project, it is unlikely that the environmental assessment will be completed in time to allow an application for authorization to be submitted before this bill, Bill C-68, and its amendments, come into force. This proponent would then be required to revise its application all over again, because the extensive direction given by departmental officials over the past six years would suddenly be deemed invalid.

I'm sorry, but we find this simply unacceptable. We therefore urge you to amend subclause 53(1) as suggested in our brief to you, to prevent responsible proponents from being forced to redo field studies, project design, offset design, and application development.

I should emphasize we have met with the department on this matter, and we believe we've been heard, but again, we strongly encourage this committee to consider our proposed amendment seriously, because, members of the committee, our sector has practised due diligence. Unlike other sectors that believe their activities were no longer regulated by the Fisheries Act, over the past six years we have fully complied and engaged with departmental officials to understand the requirements of the 2012 amendments to the Fisheries Act.

Indeed, officials, by their own admission, confirm that most authorizations today are for only the mining sector. Few others, removed from the scrutiny of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and, thus, removed from the scrutiny of DFO, have bothered to seek authorizations even though their activities can, and do, harm fish.

Yet we find it is the mining sector that, by following the directions received, now may be penalized for our due diligence and engagement with the department if the directions received are invalidated through inadequate transition provisions, and duplication of effort is required to re-engage following the coming into force of new amendments.

The change we are requesting is not wholesale grandfathering. In fact, we believe the number of projects that would be affected by the proposed change is small. Morever, the requested change to the transition provisions would not affect the health of Canada's fish habitat. We do not believe there has been a deterioration in the protection from inadequate stringency of reviews and authorization applications for mining projects—and I believe the department could confirm that, as well. If there has been a deterioration, it is due to the lack of scrutiny of the activities of others. We are asking for relief from unnecessary administrative burdens on responsible project proponents and DFO regional staff.

Let me now turn to a second issue, which relates to cumulative effects.

When addressing the environment committee on Bill C-69, I spoke about how CEAA 2012 has penalized the mining sector by making us responsible for the cumulative effects of others not subject to CEAA. With Bill C-68 we face a similar situation with the requirement in proposed paragraph 34.1(1)(d) that the minister consider cumulative effects before recommending regulations or exercising any power.

Consideration of cumulative effects is necessary in making decisions that may impact aquatic ecosystem health. Fisheries are under federal jurisdiction, and the Fisheries Act contains a comprehensive range of regulatory tools for the discharge of that jurisdiction. DFO, thus, has the tools for monitoring, assessing, and managing cumulative effects.

However, based on our experience with CEAA 2012, the department may default to erroneously and unfairly place the burden of managing cumulative effects on a few mining projects rather than taking the steps necessary to address the root causes of cumulative fish habitat deterioration.

You recently heard from Margot Venton of Ecojustice Canada, who said:

...fish habitat is degraded not only by major projects, but also through the impact of smaller-scale works, undertakings, and activities. To stem the tide of incremental loss of habitat, DFO needs to do a better job of considering and addressing this cumulative loss of habitat....

Yes—guess what—I'm agreeing with Ecojustice, and not just with them.

The recently published “Watershed Reports: A national assessment of Canada's freshwater”, by the World Wildlife Fund, highlights the complexity and diversity of stresses on Canada's watersheds. It supports our concern that these stresses cannot be addressed by focusing the department's attention on a few mining projects. Activities affecting fish and fish habitat must be fully assessed by the party that caused the effect. Mining projects should be responsible only for project-related effects, as our industry has no control over effects related to non-mining activities, such as forestry, agriculture, hydro, and municipal works. In short, the act must be applied consistently for all works, undertakings, or activities.

Project proponents should not be held accountable for the cumulative effects of non-regulated activities, as contemplated in proposed subsection 34.1(1). As the legislation is drafted, a project proponent could be required to avoid, mitigate, or create offsets for fish habitat to compensate for the harm to fish habitat caused by other industries.

These concerns could be partly addressed by amending proposed paragraph 34.1(1)(d) as spelled out in our brief.

To conclude, if the transition provisions in subclause 53(1) are amended as requested, and if you help balance the responsibility for cumulative effects, the impacts of the revised Fisheries Act proposed by Bill C-68 on the mining sector are expected to be manageable. Of course this is contingent on how these are interpreted and implemented by DFO.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[Keith Sullivan, President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers]

Thanks, everybody. Thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak today. I'm not sure if I was the number one pick by Mr. Donnelly, but anyway we're going to get going. I hope everyone will appreciate the comments. I would have loved to be there today in person certainly.

My name is Keith Sullivan, and I'm the president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union. We represent workers in more than 500 communities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and most of those people work in the fisheries. About 10,000 of those are actually harvesters.

Many of the communities actually existed for centuries. The whole reason people live in these communities in these places in Newfoundland and Labrador is the fishery. I grew up in the small fishing community of Calvert. There were six generations of harvesters in that area before me, and that's not unlike an awful lot of stories of our members as well. I was lucky enough to be working in a fishing boat for many years of my life as well.

The inshore fishery has been the primary economic driver of coastal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's the real backbone of the middle class in those rural communities. Without the inshore fishery, the rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador wouldn't actually survive.

Our industry has gone through a significant transformation over the last number of years, particularly the last 20 years. Our ability to adjust, transform, and reinvent ourselves has been an amazing show of resilience and innovation in the inshore fishery. Now we're going through another transition and we're seeing a dramatic impact on our fishery once again. We're seeing warming water temperatures that have resulted in generally a decline of shellfish stocks, very valuable shellfish stocks, and we're seeing a resurgence in many groundfish species. While we see that there are new opportunities on the horizon, in the short term our members, whether they're in harvesting or in fish processing, are going to face significant challenges.

In order to rebuild a groundfish fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and sustain those coastal communities, we have to have management that's based on the principles of ecological sustainability, of course, and social sustainability, but also economic sustainability is important as well.

The recently tabled amendments to the Fisheries Act provide much of that critical foundation required to achieve those objectives. Most of my comments today are going to focus on the fisheries management provisions in Bill C-68, specifically the preservation and promotion of the independent, owner-operator fishery.

In our province it is not an exaggeration to say that the owner-operator principle and fleet separation are the two most important economic development principles we have in our coastal communities, particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador. These two policies have kept a viable inshore fleet in place and have injected significant wealth to all areas of the province. Again, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say those two policies combined are the most important economic development tools that our province has to offer, and I would say it would be similar in many areas of rural Atlantic Canada. It's because of the critical role that owner-operator and fleet separation play that the FFAW has been lobbying for 20 years to make sure that these policies are enshrined in law.

While inshore fish harvesters, their families, and their communities recognize the importance of these policies, there are some who do not see the value of safeguarding the independent owner-operator fishery. In the past, we've seen that corporate interests have influenced and interfered with the application and enforcement of the fleet separation and owner-operator policies. As a result, corporations have gained control of licences and are siphoning the wealth and the benefits not only from fisheries and fishery participants but really from our coastal communities and entire regions of our province.

The attack on the owner-operator principle, led primarily by large fish-processing companies, over the past 20 years has had serious economic repercussions for the fishery and our coastal regions. Of particular concern is the impact that trust agreements have had on the cost of fishing licences, which has made it extremely difficult for young people to enter the fishery. This is becoming more and more prevalent, and is really a key consideration for the next generation of harvesters. It's also important to note that harvesters who are actually in these trust agreements receive less for their catch. The same competition doesn't exist for these harvesters, so they're paid lower wages, in many instances.

The fleet separation and owner-operator policies have been remarkably easy to circumvent in recent years. They're extremely valuable, but at the same time they've been easy to get around. Legal teams for companies have developed trust or controlling agreements where the licence-holder must transfer the beneficial interest of a licence to another party that's not legally entitled to hold one—namely, most times a fish-processing company or a larger corporation. In such transactions, control over how the licence is used, sold, or managed is really granted to this third party as well. Again, for the licence-holder whose licence is owned or held in name only, the total control over that and the benefits are going to these outside corporations. That can be someone from outside of Canada, for that matter, just because we don't have the enforcement to back things up. Really, this is why the enforcement powers are so critical to ensuring that the owner-operator fleet is protected.

The independent owner-operator fishery is a strategic asset to Canada's economy. Amendments to section 43 of the act that give the minister authority to make regulations to enforce the owner-operator and fleet separation are key. With the force of law, these policies will become more robust, with legal consequences for corporations holding fish harvesters in controlling agreements.

Just the policy alone, as we saw, is insufficient to safeguard the social, economic, and cultural future of coastal communities. These policies deserve to be in legislation, and are the pillars, as I said before, of economic development for hundreds of thousands of people and their communities in Atlantic Canada. Over the years, there have been many discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on how to better enforce these policies, but little progress has been made. The policy for preserving the independence of the inshore fleet in Canada's Atlantic fisheries—PIIFCAF, as many in the business would know it—is an important policy initiative that's been in place for almost a decade but that's had modest results. It's an important and well-intentioned policy, but again, they've had the ability to circumvent that policy without the force of law.

In the end, PIIFCAF and the enforcement of the owner-operator and fleet separation are undermined because the activity they're regulating is not illegal. Owner-operator and fleet separation are not law, and violating them does not result in any specified punishment.

The proposed amendments to section 9 of the act should address the current lack of punishment by clarifying the minister's authority to act when the law is violated. These provisions give new authority to suspend or cancel licences if the minister determines that the licence-holder has entered into an agreement that contravenes any provision of the act or regulations.

Protecting the inshore fishery is one of the best ways to build a strong middle class in hundreds of coastal communities—much like Calvert, the community I grew up in—and to create jobs and protect and strengthen the economy. We actually have a very highly sophisticated, independent owner-operator fleet that is capable of harvesting all species on our coasts. It's able to bring that fresh product to our communities, but we need to make sure we have a strong policy and legal framework to ensure that the benefits of the fishery come back to the people who fish and to the adjacent coastal communities.

We can no longer afford to make fisheries decisions in silos, nor can we afford to ignore the wealth of knowledge offered by people who spend their days and countless hours in fishing boats.

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

Madam Chair, we are, by our count, I think, on meeting three on C-68, and we have yet to see the complete witness list. We're wondering if it is possible to give that out to the parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, meeting number 98. Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, April 16, 2018, we are doing a review of Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

Before we get to our witnesses, I would just like to tell committee members that we have to do a little bit of committee business to approve budgets for the fall, and I'm wondering if we can take five minutes off of each hour and do 10 minutes at the end of this session.

Do I have consent?

The Environment

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question in relation to the Cowichan Lake weir. I would also like to state that in addition to asking this question of the minister, the member has brought up this issue with me as well.

The Cowichan River is a British Columbia heritage river with significant cultural and historical importance, and it supports significant populations of salmon, as was mentioned by the member opposite. As an islander, I spent significant time during my childhood camping and exploring areas around Cowichan Lake and Cowichan River.

Healthy fish and fish habitat play a critical role in the Canadian economy and are a strong measure of our environmental health. That is why it is so important that we safeguard the health of our fish as well as the habitat in which they live, feed, reproduce, and migrate.

The continued well-being of Pacific salmon and their habitats is a high priority for the residents of Cowichan Valley Regional District, the Cowichan Tribes, the Lake Cowichan First Nation, and, frankly, all British Columbians and all Canadians. Our government is deeply committed to ensuring that these iconic species are protected for future generations.

As a result of climate change and other factors, we know that inflows from Cowichan Lake have been reduced. We also understand that the weir constructed in 1957 at the outflow of the lake is no longer adequate to ensure sufficient storage in drought conditions, which have been occurring more frequently in the past 20 years.

However, the problem at the Cowichan Lake weir is complex, and a long-term solution needs appropriate planning and consultation. It will require the involvement of a number of partners and significant funding to be implemented. That is why Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been working with the Cowichan Valley Regional District, the Cowichan Tribes, the Lake Cowichan First Nation, other federal departments, the Province of British Columbia, and industry to discuss a proposal to increase the height to the weir and to examine potential funding mechanisms. We are committed to this ongoing dialogue and to finding a long-term solution to resolve the issues of the Cowichan watershed.

Departmental officials are engaged in the Cowichan water use planning process, which works with all local stakeholders to address long-term water needs for fish and local residents. However, while the work to consider the Cowichan Lake weir proposal is under way, this government is also taking action and is concurrently making investments in habitat restoration and salmon stock assessment projects on the Cowichan River.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada currently has two active projects on the Cowichan system that will deliver mainstem riparian rehabilitation projects on the lower Cowichan River over a three-year period and is working with resource professionals, youth, volunteers, private landowners, and the community at large to restore lake and river shoreline properties.

The oceans protection plan is a historic $1.5 billion investment that will make our oceans safer, healthier, and cleaner for generations to come, and it includes support for the restoration of the Pacific salmon habitat. As salmon are a migratory species, the benefits from our government's investments in coastal restoration projects will therefore extend beyond the boundaries of the river system itself into the Georgia Strait ecosystem and also benefit species such as the endangered southern resident killer whales, which rely on salmon as their primary food source.

In addition, amendments to the Fisheries Act that we have introduced in Bill C-68 are intended to incorporate modern safeguards and restore protections lost as a result of changes that were made to the act by the previous government. These amendments were mentioned by the member opposite, who is also supportive. These changes will provide additional protections to fish and fish habitat across Canada, including habitat in the very important Cowichan River.

I can assure the member that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to the ongoing conservation and protection of Cowichan River salmon and their habitat. We continue to invest in restoration projects that will benefit chinook salmon within the system, and we will continue to work with our partners to evaluate potential solutions and funding options for work at the Cowichan Lake weir.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, on December 6, 2017, I rose in the House during question period to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about the Liberals' promise to protect communities from climate change with investments in green infrastructure. I specifically alluded to the state of the Cowichan River in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I wanted the minister to specifically commit to making sure that federal funds were there to raise a critical piece of infrastructure, the Cowichan weir.

I want to back up a bit and explain what is going on. Every summer, around the end of August and into September, the Cowichan River gets down to critically low flow rates because of the effects of climate change. We are not having the lake retain as much water. The snow pack is lowering, and as a result, we are dealing with flow rates that can sometimes go as low as four cubic metres per second.

This is an iconic river. It is a heritage river, and when that river is flowing at only four cubic metres per second, we can barely see the water move. It looks like a still and placid lake. What that does is that the temperature starts rising. We start losing access to tributaries, and it poses a very real threat to fish and fish habitat.

I also want to acknowledge the important work that is being done in the Cowichan Valley, both through Cowichan Tribes and the Cowichan Valley Regional District. They have come together to form the Cowichan Watershed Board. We also have a number of stakeholders that have come together to form the Cowichan Stewardship Roundtable, including Catalyst Paper, which owns the weir. All of these organizations have come together in a 100% consensus and have agreed that the solution to the long-term problem of the Cowichan River is to build a new weir so we can hold back more water in the lake. By holding back more lake supply water, we will be more successful at controlling the flow rate to make sure that an adequate flow of water is running down that river in the dry summer months so that fish and fish habitat can be saved.

During the minister's response to my question, he acknowledged that the government is proceeding with Bill C-68. We support that legislation, and we are glad to see that some of those changes from the 2012 amendments to the Fisheries Act are being repealed. However, one of the criticisms we had of Bill C-68 during second reading, before we sent it to committee for further study, was that in the definition of fish habitat, there was not any explicit legal protection for environmental flows, which really means the amount and type of water that is needed for fish and aquatic ecosystems to flourish. This is a big oversight, because by controlling flow rates and making sure they are adequate, they actually work.

I will give the example of the Jordan River, also in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. The Jordan River has suffered from a copper mine and from B.C. Hydro dams. It has had a lot of work done to it over the years. They found recently, in 2008, when they increased the flow rates in the Jordan River, that, surprise, fish and fish habitat started returning and becoming a lot more healthy.

I want to specifically ask the parliamentary secretary if he will honour the Liberal promise to build this green infrastructure. Will he commit the necessary federal funds to ensure that the Lake Cowichan weir can be raised?

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

I'm very grateful for that. Thank you to the government side.

Margot, it's Elizabeth May here, your MP. I want to be very concise because this time has been given to me.

The mandate around what Dominic LeBlanc is doing is under the rubric of restoring lost protections. I don't want to take us out of Bill C-68 too far, but we know that we lost those protections in Bill C-38, which also took out one of the critical triggers that I think came to mind when you were speaking of how you look at small project, what you look at, the incremental, and whether we can look at the cumulative.

I don't know if you want to speculate about this, but if the committee studying Bill C-69, the impact assessment piece, were to restore the trigger that used to be there in section 35, would that address concerns that you're trying to amend through Bill C-68 or not?

Did that question make sense?

[Dan Gibson, Senior Environment Specialist, Ontario Power Generation Inc.]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Ontario Power Generation appreciates the opportunity to appear before you today at the standing committee.

OPG, Ontario's largest clean-energy generator, is focused on safe, reliable and sustainable electricity generation. The company's electricity generation portfolio has an in-service capacity of over 17,000 megawatts. We operate two nuclear power generating stations, two biomass-fuelled thermal generating stations, one oil-and-gas thermal station, 66 hydroelectric generating stations, and one wind-power turbine. As of 2018, I'm proud to say, our power generation is more than 99% free of smog and carbon emissions and maintains a critical role in Canada's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

OPG has also long been involved in fisheries management in our province, including more recently our work on American eel, lake sturgeon, and Atlantic salmon restoration and recovery efforts across the province, and also including proudly working with our first nations partners on a number of these initiatives.

OPG has also been very actively involved in all aspects of this federal review and supports the delegations—both written and before this committee—coming forward from the Ontario Waterpower Association, the Canadian Nuclear Association, the Canadian Hydropower Association, and the Canadian Electricity Association.

Like many other proponents commenting on Bill C-68, permitting certainty and regulatory clarity are of paramount importance to our organization. While OPG applauds the government's efforts to implement modern safeguards in the act, we believe that additional amendments are required to properly balance the environmental protections the government seeks to attain with the interest of the end-use consumers and customers, and to maintain Canada's leadership role in low-carbon electricity generation, both domestically and through exports.

Of interest to OPG are the following recommendations to improve the act. I'll start with no order of preference here, but will simply be stating them as we go. We'll start with the purpose statement.

On the stated definition of “fish habitat” in subclause 1(5), the “conservation and protection of fish” in proposed paragraph 2.1(b), and the prohibitions listed in proposed sections 34.4 and 35, OPG acknowledges the government's stated desire to “restore lost protections” in order to conserve and protect fish and fish habitat. It is vitally important, however, for consistency of application, that all of these sections align with the higher-order objective of the purpose statement, which is stated in proposed paragraph 2.1(a) and that is for “the proper management and control of fisheries”.

As currently written, the purpose statement seems to establish two distinct clauses: one being the management of fisheries as a resource, while the other, along with the prohibitions in proposed sections 34.4 and 35, seem to focus on and pertain down to conservation and protection of each individual fish.

OPG has concerns with this interpretation and application of the prohibitions themselves. While the purpose statement focuses on fisheries as a resource, which we support, the prohibitions seem to focus, again, on individual fish. OPG recommends that this uncertainty can be remedied in the purpose statement with a simple amendment, that is, “the proper management and control of fisheries through the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution” would clarify this for our organizations.

Secondly, on the specific prohibitions and exceptions—specifically, proposed sections 34.4. and 35—they also seem at times, when you look downstream at the application of the act, in slight contradiction to the first purpose statement, which is to manage the fisheries as a resource. The proposed prohibition under proposed section 34.4, for instance, suggests that any incidental death of fish, potentially a single fish, could be construed as a contravention of the act without a permit or an authorization. This is a critical distinction for large power-generating companies.

The prohibition focusing on individual fish, as opposed to fisheries, is concerning to generation proponents across the country. The government could further address this concern by amending proposed subsection 34.2(1) to include the establishment of a code of practice which would allow some incidental harm to fish while still maintaining the act's stated purpose, which is the “proper management and control of fisheries”.

Similarly, proposed section 35 is reintroducing the prohibition of HADD, as we've already heard mentioned, that being fish habitat or “water frequented by fish”, and we would recommend that a reasonable scope come to this application. For example, exemptions, including intake canals, penstocks, and things of that nature, or ancillary structures next to power generating facilities that were built for the purpose of facility operation and not intended to be frequented by fish, but sometimes are, should be considered. Such exemptions should be considered.

We'll move on to proposed new sections 2.5 and 34.1. These state factors to be considered by the minister.

We believe there could be greater alignment of these two provisions with the proposed Impact Assessment Act. Specifically, proposed sections 2.5 and 34.1 list the factors that the minister “may” or “shall” consider when making decisions under the act.

OPG, along with our industry colleagues, believes there is a need to align these sections in the Fisheries Act with the proposed IAA specifically wherever the public interest is considered. Under the impact assessment, the public interest is considered, and this is left out of these provisions under the proposed Fisheries Act.

When a project designated under the Fisheries Act has already gone through an impact assessment and has obtained a positive decision, the impact assessment decision statement should inform and streamline the permitting and authorization process under the Fisheries Act. This could be made explicit in a decision statement issued under the impact assessment articulating the expected economic outcomes of the project, including their relevance to the public interest.

I'll move on to inter-jurisdictional collaboration, a theme that we've identified across our organizations. Inter-jurisdictional regulatory regimes are not new to us; they are governing powers that govern us. They are very complex and often include numerous stakeholder and indigenous interests. Navigating these regulatory frameworks is a critical requirement for the safe and reliable operation of power generating facilities. That's from the federal to provincial to municipal jurisdictions.

To this end, and specific to water management, OPG strongly believes that wherever equivalent or existing provincial water management regimes exist, proposed section 34.3 of the act, whereby the minister has the ability to mandate flow around obstructions, only serves to add to the complexity and uncertainty of these inter-jurisdictional controls.

In the case of OPG specifically, our provincial hydroelectric power plants are already governed by numerous water management agencies and regulatory policies, including but not limited to provincial water management plans, Parks Canada on the Trent-Severn Waterway, the International Joint Commission on our boundary waters, and federal water control boards such as Lake of the Woods Control Board.

Further, the Ontario Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act in Ontario and the Water Resources Act regulate water power facilities through our province and include in their provisions the management, perpetuation, and use of the fish, wildlife, and other natural resources dependent on lake and river ecosystems. Suffice it to say, we have a lot of governance in this issue, and proposed new section 34.3 presents some concerns to us.

It is for these reasons OPG recommends that proposed new section 34.3 of the act should only be applicable in cases in which equivalent provincial or jurisdictional powers do not already exist.

If, however, the government intends to maintain these provisions, OPG insists that a vital amendment is required to the act, that being that prior to making an order under proposed section 34.3 for the management and control of an obstruction, the minister be required to consult with any provincial or federal authority also exercising, in this area of water management, powers that may overlap, may be in conflict, or may be inconsistent with the terms of an order to be issued by the minister.

Finally, OPG has long advocated for and welcomes the provisions in the act for a habitat banking system that advances the effective and efficient management of Canadian fisheries' resources. We also welcome the flexibility afforded the governor in council under the proposed legislation for designing this scheme.

On this point, however, OPG would also recommend adding flexibility to widen the potential creation and use of credits by project proponents and third party groups in a manner that advances both fish habitat conservation objectives and economic objectives. Improved clarification regarding the calculation and eligibility of offsets should be a focus, moving forward. We encourage the government to maintain a flexible, modern approach when working with proponents on the applicability of a habitat banking and offset system.

Secondly, and consistent with such other credit and debit systems as our cap and trade emissions system in Ontario, there should be a capacity of the governor in council to regulate not only the creation, allocation, and management of credits, but also their exchange in trade.

As mentioned, OPG has worked extensively with our parent organizations, the Canadian Electricity Association, the Canadian Nuclear Association, the Canadian Hydro Power Association, and the OWA in preparing these respective submissions.

I can safely say that the electrical sector is unified in our position that Bill C-68 requires amendments to best serve all parties—

[Churence Rogers, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions for Duncan and Tasha.

First let me say that it's nice to hear from you today, Duncan, talking about the financial challenges of acquiring licences or doing the things you need to do to stay in a fishery.

To start a fishery at your age, 22 years old, and to try to do the things you're doing is admirable. I commend you for taking on that kind of job in your life, even though you have family support, no doubt. That's great.

And Tasha, thank you for some of your comments.

I'm trying to get to an understanding of the Pacific fishery. This is new to me as well, as I haven't heard a lot of information about the fishery on the west coast. I know a fair bit about the east coast, but not the west; I'll readily admit that.

Does Bill C-68, from your perspective, enable a potential future transition from the current commercial fisheries' licensing policy in British Columbia to a new regime that would better support independent fishers? If not, what amendments do you think are required?

Tasha, I know you alluded to a couple, but I'd like to hear comments from either one of you or both.

[Tasha Sutcliffe, Vice-President, Programs, Ecotrust Canada]

Good morning.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for having me here today.

My name is Tasha Sutcliffe. I'm the Vice-President of Ecotrust Canada. I also grew up in a fishing family. I spent my first birthday on a salmon troller, and I have spent my working life in fisheries and with the people and communities reliant on them.

Twenty-four years ago Ecotrust Canada came together, powered by the vision of people and nature thriving together. We believe that Canada's rural and remote communities can create vibrant and prosperous livelihoods and greater well-being through the use, stewardship, and co-management of local natural resources.

Much of our work has been focused on fisheries in rural communities on the Pacific coast, where we have worked to co-create sustainable fisheries solutions, such as licence banks, traceability, small fishing loan funds, and first nations-led monitoring.

Today I'm here to speak in favour of Bill C-68 as legislation that stands to improve the Fisheries Act, and to affirm that fisheries and fish harvesters must have the same opportunities on all coasts.

First, I have some general comments on the bill.

At Ecotrust Canada we applaud the recognition of indigenous traditional knowledge for consideration in decision-making, the new ability of indigenous governing bodies to enter into an agreement with the minister, and the commitment to consider any adverse effects that a decision by the minister may have on the rights of indigenous peoples. We also applaud that traditional knowledge, in a more general sense, can include the knowledge of harvesters who have been working the coast for generations.

We are heartened by the new definitions of “fish habitat” and of “fishery”, which return protective measures to all fish and their habitat, not just those that are of commercial interest. This will help maintain the health of the ecosystem and, in turn, the many tangible and intangible benefits a healthy ecosystem provides.

Additionally, Bill C-68 introduces important new considerations for decision-making by the minister, all of which are important to viable fisheries, ecosystems, and coastal communities, and all of which are inextricably linked.

On the addition of social, cultural, and economic considerations, we emphatically endorse the inclusion of social, economic, and cultural factors for consideration by the minister in the management of fisheries, and our hope is that this will lead to greater parity between the Atlantic and Pacific regions. Our experience tells us that these considerations in the management of fisheries in coastal B.C. are necessary to help rebuild sustainable economies, local jobs, and thriving coastal communities that will help current and future generations of harvesters on the west coast.

To protect access for fish harvesters and communities, we recommend that the language in the bill not limit such considerations to “inshore fisheries” only. Though inclusion of this term is applicable in Atlantic Canada, we must ensure that the language does not exclude fish harvesters in the Arctic or the Pacific. For instance, it will be necessary to consult independent fish harvesters in the Pacific region to determine appropriate terminology and parallel policy if this is a prerequisite to the inclusion of social, economic, and cultural considerations in the management of the fishery.

On the independence of fish harvesters, the openly transferable, unregulated, and non-transparent market for licences and quota in B.C. has invited speculative investors and corporate consolidation of licences and quota, including by offshore interests. This has seriously impeded the independence and viability of our skippers and crew, as you have heard from others.

We applaud the insertion, in subsection 43(1), of a new scope of regulation under the Fisheries Act to address circumstances that would tie the licence to fish with a requirement to personally carry out any activity authorized by the licence. This, combined with a new ability to make regulations that would prohibit the transfer of licences except under prescribed conditions, can strengthen owner-operator and fleet separation policies, preserving the independence of those with fishing licences and enabling them to enjoy the full economic benefits from their labour.

The key term needing clarity to ensure that this clause would achieve its intended benefit is “licence holders”. We assume here that this is meant to refer to fish harvesters. This, however, is not a given, especially in B.C., where licence-holders are increasingly not fish harvesters. We recommend that this term be replaced with “fish harvesters”. Furthermore, as these clauses refer to where these restrictions already exist, this emphasizes the need to review current policy in the Pacific region and to understand how policy reform can occur on a fishery-by-fishery basis.

On the need for a stronger and more inclusive future for B.C.'s future, at Ecotrust we have observed, through our research and our close ties to coastal communities and fish harvesters, that unrestricted transferable quotas and licences have not worked for them. We have seen increasing and untenable debt loads, an aging industry, and a dramatic loss of jobs and incomes. Recent analysis of Statistics Canada tax filer data reveals that in 2015 the average fishing income for B.C. fish harvesters was $19,100, which is less than half the average fishing income earned by Atlantic Canada's fish harvesters of $42,795.

Over the period of 2000 to 2015, average income from fishing employment in B.C. dropped 28% in constant dollars, while the Atlantic provinces combined saw an increase of 45% after inflation in fishing incomes. It might be suggested that this drop in income for B.C. must be due to a collapse of the fishery or an equivalent loss in landed value. However, B.C. landings did not decline over that period. In fact, they slightly increased. They did lose 25% in market value, but the loss in total employment income for the industry was over 40%. There was also an 18% decline in that period in fish harvester jobs, which is nothing compared to the drop that we've seen over a longer period of time. Clearly, by the numbers and facts, the objective to increase incomes and improve enterprise viability through ITQs and fleet rationalization is not being achieved.

We know that sustainable small-scale fisheries can provide multiple benefits to their communities. Fish harvesters are small businesses. They run operations, employ crew, buy local supplies, and give back to community, ensuring that their family members, community members, and country members have healthy and high-quality foods, and they risk their lives to do so. There are many layers of value, from the landed value all the way through to a host of impactful, intangible values such as intergenerational knowledge transfer, gift and trade of food, and local stewardship.

These are all compromised under the current policy framework in the Pacific. In B.C., fish harvesters are struggling, as landed value is increasingly going to the non-fishing licence owner rather than active harvesters. Wholesale value and local employment are lost as processing leaves adjacent communities, and the less tangible benefits of the fishery that have formed the fabric of the coast for generations, and for first nations since time immemorial, are being eroded.

As you've heard already from others, change is needed. We need to transition respectfully and responsibly to an industry that young people can get into and thrive in for generations to come. In February of this year, we convened, along with our partners, a large and diverse gathering of food harvesters, organizations, and community groups. Among the over 120 participants were young and old fishermen, coastal community mayors, first nations leaders, academics, and environmental organizations. Despite the diverse perspectives and interests in the room, the gathering came to agreement on the need for fisheries policy reform in the Pacific region, and drafted the following consensus request:

That the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, perform an independent review of BC commercial fisheries licensing policy, built on a transparent & inclusive process, to:

a) Ensure fisheries licensing policy in the Pacific region supports independent fish harvesters, First Nations, and the revival of rural fishing communities, and

b) Determine how “social, economic, and cultural” objectives are to be achieved in Pacific region fisheries.

It is our hope that this committee will support and actively engage in such a review.

The gathering also came to agreement on a list of principles for policy reform that can easily be translated into a vision for the future of Pacific coast fisheries. These can be found in the proceedings report I have provided to the committee clerk, and I hope you'll read these.

I want to express that although the language of the bill is permissive for B.C. to push for change, there's a need for leadership by government to explore options, help bring people together, and develop consensus across the industry on ways to address these challenges and move forward.

In conclusion, we believe that Bill C-68 represents a unique and powerful opportunity to achieve positive change for first nations, active fish harvesters, and fishing communities in British Columbia. To enable this, we hope you will consider these simple language changes that can create opportunities for better implementation. We urge you to remember the voices of the young B.C. harvesters you've heard—Chelsey, Cailyn, James, and Duncan—as they represent a positive future for our fisheries.

Finally, we will continue to offer our expertise, research, and analysis in any way we can to support our community partners and the government in working hard on the common goal of creating a fair, prosperous and sustainable Canadian fishery from coast to coast to coast.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here before you today.

[The Chair, Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 97 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 16, 2018, we are dealing with Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence.

Before we get started I would like to welcome today, from Burnaby South, Kennedy Stewart.

Mr. Stewart, welcome.

Elizabeth May, from Saanich—Gulf Islands, thank you for joining us this morning.

And we have Colin Fraser, from West Nova, so we have a whole bunch of new people here today.

We're going to get right into our testimony. We have, from Save Our BC Fisheries, Duncan Cameron, and also from Ecotrust Canada, Tasha Sutcliffe, for the first hour of testimony.

We're going to start with Mr. Cameron, for 10 minutes please, with his opening statement.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Amos and I both sit on the indigenous committee as well, and right now we're studying Bill C-262 around UNDRIP—the implementation of UNDRIP and the framework around it. Of course, FPIC is a constant point of discussion around that. There seem to be three definitions of free, prior, and informed consent: good faith, without necessarily obtaining it; a type of process, a consensus-oriented process that is sometimes referred to as collaborative consent; or a veto.

I know Mr. Gustafson mentioned earlier that they had made a submission around Bill C-68, for example, and within Bill C-68 they actually have quite an extensive overview of recognizing indigenous rights without actually spelling out UNDRIP itself.

What is your view of FPIC, and what is your view of C-68 in how they've defined indigenous rights and consultation?

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to start off by thanking our witnesses. I thought your testimony was very impressive. I loved all three of your stories. I thank you for your enthusiasm, your passion, your knowledge, and your experience. Having that come to this table and to this committee is really important when we're talking about Bill C-68, which is probably the strongest piece of legislation to protect the fishery and ensure that it succeeds into the future.

Mr. Lawson, you painted a picture for us. You talked about foreign entities. You used the term “serfs upon the sea”, which is pretty strong. You talked about the common resource and concentrating wealth to a few. You talked about the settlers fleet, price-fixing, owner-operators, and then your main points about control over your own destiny and encouraging others in coastal communities and nations like yours to actually engage in the fishery.

All three of you have painted very strong pictures of the work you're doing and the work we need to do on this committee to ensure that you can keep doing what you do. The future, we hope, will look strong.

Getting into the specifics, earlier we had the minister at a separate committee meeting. He welcomed recommendations on bringing owner-operator policy to the west coast. He legitimately is open to that. He is also legitimately struggling to figure out how we do that. It's on the east coast. The policy is strong there. Fishers want it on the east coast, and they're protecting it. On the west coast, we have an ITQ system, so it's slightly different and very hard to change.

Ms. Ellis, you talked about two specific recommendations. On that note, I haven't seen your submission yet, but if any of the three of you have recommendations, I would encourage you to supply those recommendations in writing to the committee, because that would be extremely helpful. When we go to look at amending Bill C-68, we specifically look at those written submissions, and they are really helpful, especially coming from folks like you who are on the front line.

As I was saying, Ms. Ellis, you've given two specific ones. The first was about the knowledge of fishers, and I agree with Mr. Hardie's point that the act is now going to include first nation traditional knowledge and the knowledge of fishers and others, which is great. Input is important, but I would say more important is actually listening to that input and then enacting it in law. You need to be diligent about following up with the government to ensure that they listen to input.

The same applies to this committee. We can hear all the testimony we like, but if we don't make recommendations to the government, it's not going to change anything. I just wanted to emphasize that you need to continue to be diligent about following up and doing what you're doing, which is already great.

Getting into owner-operator and how we support active fish harvesters, you painted a picture of transferring power to investors who are essentially slipper skippers. We hear them being called slipper skippers—armchair skippers, right? They're the ones who are investing in licences while you actually go out there and fish, but they take a big chunk of your paycheque, essentially. There's a role for investors, absolutely, but how do we make it so there's also a larger role for fish harvesters? That's what the minister is asking you to be specific about, given our system and our context on the west coast, which is very heavily ITQ, individual transferable quota.

In the remaining time I have, I'm wondering if any or all three of you would like to elaborate on that.

[Chelsey Ellis, As an Individual]

Madam Chair, and honourable members, first of all, I would like to thank you very much for allowing us the time to speak. I really appreciate this opportunity.

My name is Chelsey Ellis, and I'm a third-generation fisherwoman from a small fishing village in Prince Edward Island. I spent my early years on the water fishing lobster and scallops with my family. I then graduated with a biology degree that was heavily concentrated in marine science. Upon graduating, I took a position in the U.S. working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as a fisheries observer. I then moved on to a position with the P.E.I. provincial government as an oyster biologist, and I was working on the side as a seafood traceability coordinator in Atlantic Canada.

I have been living on the west coast in small fishing towns in B.C. for the past six years as a seafood traceability coordinator, a fisheries observer, a monitoring program coordinator, and also as a commercial fisher. I have worked in 11 different fisheries as a biologist and commercial fisher on two coasts in both Canada and the U.S. I'm currently working towards my 150 ton master ticket, and I'm a member of the BC Young Fishermen's Network.

I'm here today to offer my unique experience to the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act, specifically the two pieces that I feel are missing. One, in decision-making, the preservation or promotion of the independence of active fish harvesters needs to be taken into account in all of Canada's fisheries. Two, the knowledge of commercial fish harvesters needs to be added as a consideration for decision-making. This is crucial to maximizing the social, economic, and cultural benefits of all of our fisheries.

Commercial fishing is the backbone of my community on Prince Edward Island. The provisions in place on the east coast protect and promote the independent owner-operator. This provides a meaningful and important livelihood that supports people in place, allowing young people the opportunity to stay in their communities and follow their families' traditions if they choose to do so.

I found this to be in stark contrast to the west coast, where provisions in place do not support and protect independent owner-operators. Companies, shareholders, and foreign entities have been enabled to buy and lease licences and quota. This has resulted in licences and quota being transferred out of the hands of fishermen and communities, creating extremely high capital costs, which have resulted in huge barriers to entry for the younger generation.

Through my experience as a biologist and a commercial fisher on both coasts, I've seen the impact that this discrepancy has created. Young people are not able to see themselves gaining access to or making decent wages in the fisheries on the west coast. The high cost to lease licences and quota has transferred most of the profits from fishing out of the hands of those who are doing the long hours and hard work to those who simply have the deep pockets to make the costly investment.

It doesn't have to be that way. This government can preserve and promote the independence of active fish harvesters across all fisheries in Canada. If steps were taken in the long-term direction of preserving or promoting the independence of active fish harvesters on the west coast, it would create great benefits to sustainable fisheries and healthy coastal communities in the exact same way that it would on the east coast.

Through my experience, I've seen that having an intergenerational link within the industry is a huge component to sustainable fisheries and healthy coastal communities.

We are at a crucial moment on the west coast. If things continue in the current direction, the intergenerational link is going to be severely or completely broken. Taking the control of resources outside of coastal communities and the fishers who fish them can have a negative impact on sustainability. Independent multi-generational fishers have the most to lose if a fishery isn't sustainably managed.

There are great amounts of pride, respect for the ocean, and knowledge transferred generationally in commercial fishing—transmission to family, and to all the people starting out in the industry who come to work for multi-generational fishers. I have seen this transmission through my own family and in action on both coasts. It's an extremely positive experience being on a boat with a multi-generational family fisher or someone who has directly learned from one.

Many multi-generational fishing families on the west coast have members who would like to continue working in the industry. Unfortunately, many of them are unable to make a decent living to support their families and ultimately have to make the choice to look for work elsewhere.

It's the same problem that is being seen in the Vancouver housing market. Many young people would love to own a home in Vancouver, but it's not a realistic option. Houses are no longer a place to live, but an investment to make profit from. This creates a speculative market and drives up the cost.

In the same way, owning fishing licences and quota under current policy on the west coast has become an investment that pays high returns. Just as stand-alone houses in Vancouver are unaffordable to the vast majority of the population, fishing licences are unaffordable to almost everyone trying to enter or expand within the fishery, and that is because of the speculative market.

The threat this creates to long-term sustainability is that the current system on the west coast creates the same differences that can be seen between home owners and renters. Fishermen who are only able to lease licences and quota, by circumstance, don't always have the same long-term vision and goals as independent owner-operators. It creates an attitude of making as much as you can as quickly as you can to offset the huge cost of leasing the licences and quota. If you don't feel you have a stake in the future, why would you be worried about the long term?

By preserving or promoting the independence of active fish harvesters on the west coast, you would be promoting sustainable fisheries and healthy coastal communities, which leads to my second point.

To fully understand what is happening in an ecosystem, the knowledge of commercial fishers needs to be added as a consideration for the decision-making. The men and women who have fished for their entire lives have intimate community knowledge of their local ecosystems. These fishers have worked on the water for 30 years, 40 years, and more, as have their parents before them. Utilizing their knowledge could ultimately help DFO make better management decisions.

Bill C-68 should afford opportunities for knowledge transmission and decision-making from commercial fish harvesters and involve them more in the process. Through my work at a biologist, fisheries monitoring coordinator, and commercial fisher, I've noticed that there is a negative attitude toward using the knowledge of fish harvesters in management decisions. A broken link exists in communication, where the knowledge of fishermen is not being accounted for and is being unfairly branded as untrustworthy. This is to the detriment of all involved and is creating great amounts of extra work and making it harder to enact positive change.

I see a future where fishers are inextricably involved in fisheries management, monitoring, and enhancement, using their on-the-ground knowledge and innovative thinking to work together with government to improve the fisheries for present and future generations.

I am so optimistic about the future of our fisheries in Canada. I hope people for generations to come will be able to have the same positive experience of commercial fishing that has enriched my life.

I've spoken with hundreds of fishers on both coasts, and the common thread is that commercial fishing is an important tradition and lifestyle. It is also a platform to challenge yourself and to explore and exceed your personal limitations. It's a meaningful living that completely connects people to place and creates a personal identity.

I have hopes that this experience and the benefit it has for our coastal communities will be understood and steps will be taken toward protecting it over the long term. We need you to all be partners in that.

In closing, I would suggest that Bill C-68 should include the following in its considerations for decision-making: one, the preservation or promotion of the independence of active fish harvesters in all fisheries; and two, the knowledge of fish harvesters. These two additions would be positive steps forward to maximize the social, economic, and cultural benefits to commercial fishers, coastal communities, and the future generations of all Canadians who are called to this work.

While working on the west coast for the past six years, I have collected photographs and interviewed those who work in the industry. I'm leaving you with a very small sample of their voices explaining why they love to fish and their hopes for the future. Their reasons for fishing and their hopes for the future echo up and down the west coast.

I want to thank you again for this great opportunity to speak. I really value your taking the time to listen.

[Cailyn Siider, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and honourable committee members, for inviting us to appear as witnesses and share with you our unique stories and perspectives in regard to our experiences as commercial fishermen on the west coast.

I apologize in advance for my lack of organization and a well-prepared presentation. We three were given less than 72 hours' notice to organize ourselves in time to be here to appear in person. James and I had recently travelled to Prince Rupert and were given little choice but to appear here today wearing our gumboots. Because of this, the words I have prepared today are largely anecdotal and from my heart.

My name is Cailyn Siider. I'm a fifth-generation commercial fisherman from Sointula, British Columbia. I have actively fished for more than a half of my life, beginning with gillnetting for salmon and trawling for shrimp on my family's 38-foot boat, the Milly III. My family is currently actively engaged in the salmon, halibut, rockfish, herring, Dungeness crab, and shrimp fisheries. I've spent most of my adult life crewing on salmon seine boats, as well as prawning, and most recently salmon trolling off the north coast of B.C. I am fortunate to have grown up within and around many examples of multi-generational fishing families.

After I leave Ottawa this evening, I will return to the west coast to begin preparations to fish prawns on a multi-generational family boat from Campbell River. Following the prawn season, I will begin the northern salmon troll season on an independently owned boat from Pender Harbour. Unfortunately, these examples of independent, multi-generational family fishing operations have become the exception rather than the norm on the west coast.

I am currently in the process of completing my B.A. in peace and conflict studies, a program devoted to social justice, community-building, and grassroots social change. I chose this program because I believe that, coupled with my passion and intimate knowledge of the commercial fishing industry, I may have an opportunity to help turn the tide of the devastation that current fisheries policy on the west coast has inflicted upon my family, my friends, and the communities I belong to and cherish. Being invited here today helps to solidify this belief that there is hope for our communities and a future for young fishermen, like Chelsey, James, and me. We want to be the future of the commercial fishery on the west coast, but we need your help.

Now I'll explain a little more about who I am and where I come from.

As previously mentioned, I'm from Sointula, which is a tiny community on Malcolm Island, nestled between northern Vancouver Island and the mainland at the intersection of Queen Charlotte and Johnstone Strait. Malcolm Island sits just west of the Broughton Archipelago, and along the migration route for the majority of salmon that return every year to the Fraser River. This is in the heart of the traditional territory of the Kwakwaka’wakw peoples, who have lived off the riches of the ocean since time immemorial.

My family are settlers to the B.C. coast. On both sides of my family my ancestors immigrated to Canada from Finland at the turn of the 20th century. They moved west, eventually finding themselves in the newly established utopian community of Sointula. These settlers from Finland were farmers and poets and philosophers who were not prepared for the coastal climate of the Pacific Northwest. A theme in fishing that most fishermen will be able to attest to is that you need to be resilient, adaptable, resourceful, and creative. Five generations back, my family learned this the hard way. Some took to the forest; most took to the sea. Since then, Sointula has been well established and known up and down the coast as a coastal fishing community.

I represent the fifth generation of my family to be an active fish harvester involved with the commercial fishery in B.C. My first summer fishing I was two and a half years old. My parents and I travelled to Haida Gwaii to gillnet chum salmon in Cumshewa Inlet. The trip west across the open waters of Queen Charlotte Sound made me seasick. On the trip back, after we were finished fishing, I sat on my father's lap as he navigated us through the open ocean swell. I squealed, “Wee, Daddy, do it again”, every time we could ride down from a swell and green water would crash over the bow. I got over my seasickness and have been fishing ever since.

I spent summers as a teenager gillnetting salmon with my dad, exploring the B.C. coast and spending time in the communities that rely on the health and sustainability of our fisheries. My sisters and I would take turns going out on openings. We learned work ethics, community values, independence, how to live off the ocean, camaraderie, and respect and appreciation for the coast and all the gifts it gives us. As I grew older, graduated from high school, and began exploring the world on my own, I continued to return every year to the coast to fish and spend time in my home community of Sointula and the fishing community that extends up and down the B.C. coast. I'm a member of the B.C. Young Fishermen's Network and the UFAWU.

I have sat on industry advisory boards and have been engaged in grassroots movements around salmon fishing most of my life. The first letter I ever wrote and decided to send was an opinionated piece, written in crayon, to fisheries minister Fred Mifflin, when I was six years old.

Growing up in Sointula, we had two operational fish plants: McMillan's, in the heart of the breakwater, and Lions Gate, uptown. Sointula had a large gillnet, trawl, and seine fleet. If you lived in town and didn't fish, you worked at a plant. If you didn't work at a plant, you worked at the pub or the co-op store, somewhere that was sustained by the money made by fishermen or shore workers.

There is an urban myth in Sointula that it once boasted the highest per capita income tax bills anywhere in Canada. I didn't fact check this, but during Sointula's boom years, I don't doubt it.

Today, Sointula has a handful of gillnetters, no trawlers, and one seine boat that hasn't fished in years. The fish plants that I used to visit with my dad and grandpa, where the old fishermen would sneak me candies while they jawed politics over cups of coffee, are long gone. The co-op store runs at a fraction of the capacity it once did. The pub is open during tourist season, if you're lucky. People my age and young families have migrated out of Sointula. Rumours resurface every few years about whether the elementary school will close. Thankfully, it remains open.

This is not a story unique to Sointula. This narrative is repeated up and down the coast, from Ucluelet to Prince Rupert to Alert Bay. Our communities are suffering and have been suffering for a long time. This damage is a direct result of the increasing privatization and corporate control of our commercial fisheries. Due to federal policy and opportunistic corporations, we have been pushed out of our homes, our communities, and our livelihoods. The Canadian Fishing Company or a foreign investor doesn't care about the preservation of coastal communities. Jimmy Pattison does not care about Sointula or Bella Bella or Port Hardy. The investment of these companies in the sustainability of our fish and fisheries is just that, an investment. As coastal communities, we have a vested interest in the sustainability and stewardship of our fish and fisheries because it means that our children and grandchildren will be able to eat wild salmon, to see the sun rise over the open Pacific Ocean, and they will be able to live the same adventurous, fulfilling, and beautiful life we have, if they so choose.

Our legacy is the health of our coast, the succession of family ways of life, and the vitality of our communities. The Canadian Fishing Company has its bottom line to look out for. We have our families, communities. and coasts to look out for.

To have owner-operator policy entrenched within the Fisheries Act would help to empower us on the west coast with the agency to rebuild the commercial fishing industry in such a way that benefits active, independent fishermen and their families and communities, not just the highest bidder. Adjacency would help us breathe life back into our communities and allow them to hopefully return to the Sointula that exists in my memory.

We need preservation, protection, and promotion of not simply commercial licence holders, which would mean anyone with enough money to buy a licence, such as a corporation, but we need preservation, protection, and promotion of active, independent commercial fisherman.

Jim Pattison's tax writeoff of a commercial fishing fleet does not need protection. Independent commercial fisherman like us speaking in front of you today do. Otherwise, we are doomed to live our lives as tax writeoffs for Jim Pattison and other disconnected corporate investors.

Until we change this, my livelihood, my life, is just part of an investment or tax writeoff for a corporation. I deserve more than that. Our coastal communities and active independent fishermen deserve more than that. We deserve to be treated the same as our brothers and sisters on the east coast. It's outrageous that there is a west coast fisheries management model and an east coast model. Where is that line where fisheries policy in Canada changes? Does fisheries policy suddenly change in Ottawa? Does it change when the corporate lobby on the west coast decides it does?

Whatever this change process ends up looking like, I firmly believe it needs to come from the ground up rather than the top down. This change needs to be centred around and led by coastal communities and active, independent fisherman. Anything less would run the risk of perpetuating this harmful cycle of corporate control of our common resource.

These are the first steps in a long process, but we are representative of the young fishermen in B.C. who are ready for it, who are energetic and motivated and want to go for it. Being intentional and paying attention to this process is just as important as any goal we work toward.

Chelsey, James, and I are young fishermen. Just the three of us, being so young, represent 40-plus years of experience actively fishing on the water. Imagine the hundreds or even thousands of years a room full of fisher men and women, such as at the Fisheries for Communities Gathering, represent. The traditional and community knowledge within that room, within our fleets and communities, is invaluable. Change needs to come from that experience, from those voices, from our voices.

That's a little snapshot of who I am and why Bill C-68 and these proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act are important to me. I appear here to provide anecdotal evidence that speaks to my experience as a young fisherman from a long lineage of women and men who have made their lives on and beside the sea. To adopt into the Fisheries Act, actively though carefully, practised policies such as owner-operator will be to help us carry on these lifestyles and traditions that we love so much.

I believe strongly in the power of storytelling. Storytelling has the power to bring people together and change the world. There is a great divide between this room where we are now and the communities we all come from and represent. It should not and does not have to be this way. All of us here now have a responsibility and role to play in closing this divide.

I hope that at the end of the day, we all have the same vision for the west coast: healthy oceans and thriving communities. Community engagement is critical. Listening to, respecting, and acting upon traditional community knowledge is fundamental in realizing this vision.

I urge you to continue listening to our voices, to our stories. If there is one certainty of all fishermen, aside from our independence and stubbornness, it's that we all have stories to tell.

The time to act is now, because as any old fisherman might tell you, the tide waits for no man and very few women.

Thank you for having us here today to share our stories with you.

[Linda Nowlan]

I haven't had the opportunity to read the commissioner's report. It's a huge issue on our coast. I know it is in Atlantic Canada as well. Right around us, Washington state is now moving to land-based aquaculture and moving away from open net pen aquaculture. Alaska is as well, so B.C. is caught in the middle. We're still doing it. We haven't really fully implemented the Cohen commission recommendations, which took a precautionary approach to approving new aquaculture, as you well know.

I'm not sure what Bill C-68 can do about this issue. There are aquaculture regulations under the act currently, so we could take a look at that issue in more depth, but I do know that the government is looking at a separate aquaculture act, as you mentioned, which I think probably would be a good idea, given that there's a very inconsistent regime across the country right now.

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

Reviewing those projects is really important. I think the minister did talk in some of the.... My Liberal colleagues referenced the additional funding in the budget to review that, which is helpful.

The last thing I want to talk about is that the environment commissioner just released, this morning at 10 a.m., a pretty scathing review of aquaculture. This amendment to the Fisheries Act doesn't talk a lot about aquaculture. I think it's because we're anticipating an aquaculture act coming in. Obviously, this is an issue of concern, especially for where I'm from on the west coast, because you have an impact of.... You have competing interests. You have competing mandates within DFO. On the one hand, they're tasked with conserving wild fish, which drives our commercial fishery and other fisheries, and they are also promoting farmed fish, which the environment commissioner is saying is putting disease into the waters, impacting our wild fish, and the department isn't even monitoring or aware of some of those diseases.

I'm wondering if there's anything your association could recommend for C-68 to strengthen that in this regard.

[Mark O'Connor, Resource Management Coordinator, Resource Development Department, Makivik Corporation]

Madam Chair, honourable members, I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and hope that my input will be useful in your deliberations.

I'm here representing the Makivik Corporation with regard to BillC-69, and particularly with regard to the impact assessment act included therein.

Makivik Corporation is the birthright organization established in 1975 to represent Nunavik Inuit ethnic rights, pursuant to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It was the first modern land claim agreement in Canada. Makivik, in Inuktitut, means “To Rise Up”, which was a very fitting name for the organization mandated to protect Nunavik Inuit rights, interests, and financial compensation that were provided by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Most recently, Makivik also signed the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, which has been in effect since 2008. Through this agreement, Makivik, on behalf of the Nunavummiut, the residents of Nunavik, own 80% of all of the islands, including both the surface and subsurface rights in the Nunavik Marine Region, the region defined under the land claims agreement.

Because of habit I will clarify now that the JBNQA is the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and NILCA is the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, and I usually use the acronyms so there's a chance they'll slip out.

I am a resource management coordinator for Makivik in the resource development department. I've been entrusted by the Inuit of Nunavik to speak here on their behalf and when it comes to environmental issues and their potential impacts on Inuit rights. I am not here today to provide an in-depth review of the proposed legislation or its potential impacts on Nunavik Inuit, but instead will speak to you about the core concepts about which our understanding of the impact assessment process are based.

Nunavik Inuit are not opposed to development. They recognize that large-scale development projects can represent significant economic potential for our regions and our communities. However, we also recognize that even the smallest projects can have significant impacts on the environment and on the Inuit way of life. This is especially true when we consider the fact that Nunavik is one of the most pristine areas in Canada, and that wildlife harvesting is still a major component of food security.

Because of this there is an expectation within our communities that development projects will not be allowed to proceed unless every precaution has been taken to ensure that they are compatible with our understanding and respect for the environment, and that they uphold the maintenance of Inuit livelihoods, traditional practices, and the cultural identity.

As you know, I represent a region where governments have historically taken a top-down, colonialist approach to determining what is in the public interest. Of course, I am referring to events such as the High Arctic relocation, residential schools, and the dog slaughter, all of which were seen by governments at the time as being a benefit to Inuit. It's safe to say that Nunavik Inuit do not generally trust southerners and governments to determine what is in their best interest. The assurance that impact assessments will be conducted by people who are familiar with the region, the people, their culture, and their day-to-day reality is therefore critical.

For this reason the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the NILCA have laid a framework for environmental, social, and impact assessments to be conducted by bodies whose members give Inuit a direct role in the assessments. These bodies are essentially tasked with applying federal laws of general application in a manner that is consistent with the particularities of our region, and in a culturally appropriate way. It's critical that the provisions and spirits of these agreements be upheld by any federal legislation that's put in place by the government, including Bill C-68 and BillC-69.

Last week you heard a similar message from Mr. Bill Namagoose, who was here representing the Crees of Eeyou Istchee. He provided you with a relatively detailed overview of the federal social environmental assessment regime that was included in section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Mr. Namagoose correctly explained that under this regime the COFEX should be the sole body responsible for federal assessments on the Cree territory of the JBNQA.

I assume that you're already familiar with the JBNQA, but I will nonetheless take the opportunity to remind you that section 23 of the agreement is actually essentially a carbon copy of the regime that Mr. Namagoose presented to you, the main difference being that the body responsible for assessments is called the COFEX-North and applies to the Inuit territory.

The COFEX-North's membership is composed of representatives who are appointed by the Inuit and by the federal government.

Similarly, under the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, the Nunavik Marine Region Planning Commission and the Nunavik Marine Region Impact Review Board were created to oversee the impact assessment process in the offshore region. For each of these bodies, half of the members are appointed based on nominations put forward by Nunavik Inuit through Makivik Corporation, and the other half are appointed by governments.

In either case, the impact assessment regimes that are included within our land claims agreements are the outcome of extensive and careful negotiations. They are sensitive to the particular circumstances of the region and have been constructed with the rights of Nunavik Inuit in mind. Perhaps more importantly, they are relevant to and trusted by Nunavik Inuit. There is no need to add another layer of federal assessment to them.

The written submission we have provided to you outlines a number of inconsistencies between the text of Bill C-69 and the provisions of our land claims agreement. These relate to matters such as the project screening phase, the impact assessment agency's role in impact assessment, legislated timelines, and so on.

A relatively straightforward example of that is the fact that, under the JBNQA, a project screening committee was established to determine whether or not to assess projects that are not automatically subject to or excluded from review. Within the proposed act, this would fall upon the agency to do. There are some inconsistencies, and you'll understand that we can't support the creation of federal law and legislation that conflicts with the provisions of our constitutionally protected rights and processes.

Although we acknowledge that the proposed impact assessment act includes provisions that allow for substitution or harmonization, we are concerned that they won't be implemented to their full potential, leaving us with an extra layer of federal impact assessment.

Mr. Namagoose proposed last week that the new legislation allow for a carve-out of the JBNQA's section 22 process as it applies to the Cree territory. I will repeat his request today and ask that the process for federal environmental and social impact assessments that was described in section 23 of the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement and the process defined in sections 6 and 7 of the NILCA be recognized explicitly in the act. Failing that, it is critical that negotiations to establish the appropriate regulations or agreements be initiated such that the direct participation of Nunavik Inuit in all impact assessment decisions is retained.

I won't venture too far into the debate about consent at this stage. I recognize it's an issue that was debated at length here, in other forums, and in our written submission to this committee. However, I will note that we are troubled by the fact that the proposed legislation does not require the minister—or the agency, as the case may be—to obtain the consent of indigenous groups before authorizing works to proceed.

We certainly agree that the proposed early engagement phase will be beneficial towards obtaining the consent, but as Andrea outlined, we are worried that the act will allow for unilateral decisions by the minister that can affect the constitutionally protected rights of indigenous peoples without needing to obtain their consent.

Finally, I wish to draw your attention to another organization that was born out of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement—the Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee. The committee is composed of equal representation from the Inuit, the Quebec government, and the Government of Canada. Within the act, the advisory committee is defined as a consultative body to responsible governments and is the preferential and official forum for responsible governments concerning their involvement in the formulation of laws and regulations related to the environmental and social protection regime. It is mandated to oversee the administration and management of the regime through the free exchange of respective views, concerns, and information.

While Makivik Corporation has been actively engaged in this file for some time now, it appears that the Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee has been greatly underutilized by the Government of Canada throughout this process. I must therefore stress the importance that you take the necessary steps to engage with them before the new legislation is adopted. They have been involved in the implementation of the JBNQA impact assessment regime for over 40 years and have tremendous insights to offer.

More importantly though, their participation is required through the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Thank you for your time.

[Linda Nowlan, Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association]

Madam Chair, it's a pleasure to be here again.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to present to you today.

During the last election, you heard loud and clear that Canadians had lost faith in the revised system under the previous government to approve projects with impacts on fish habitat. The West Coast Environmental Law Association commends the government for following through on its commitment to restore lost protections and modernize the Fisheries Act.

There are many provisions that we and many others across the country are pleased to see, and I'm happy to talk more about them if you want. Today, though, I'm here to talk about how you can improve the act even more while you have the chance to do so. As the minister mentioned this morning, there is still time to propose amendments.

Many conservation groups have worked collaboratively to analyze this bill and have proposed amendments on three key issues: rebuilding fish stocks, cumulative effects, and environmental flows and fish passage. We fully support and endorse these.

Today I'll address two broad areas where you can propose amendments that will make the act even better and address past criticisms of it. You can set national legally binding and enforceable standards in the law directly. I'll speak to two of these issues: flows and cumulative effects.

The other big issue I'll speak about is increasing government transparency and accountability. The government has made great strides in this area as well, especially with mandate letter commitments. Additional improvements can be made to increase transparency and accountability, and I'll speak of three ways.

First is legally binding standards.

As described in one of our briefs to you, the legislative history of this act, going back to when it was first introduced—and it is one of Canada's oldest acts—shows Parliament's clear intent to create national standards for the protection of fish and habitat. Courts at all levels have confirmed the wide scope of this federal power.

Standards on environmental flows are a priority area for legislative change. The minister this morning gave you the internationally accepted definition of “environmental flows”. This definition is included in laws around the world, and it really would be an improvement to Bill C-68 to actually talk about the flow regime and environmental flows—the environmental role of water for fish. Water law was traditionally about water for people. The concept of environmental flows shows that water has a really critical environmental role, especially for fish and other aquatic organisms.

DFO's own science advisory report from 2012 talks about the need for a national framework for flow, so that there can be a consistent approach to this issue across Canada. From all your work, you know very well about the decline in fish—northern cod, which was spoken about this morning, and both Atlantic and Pacific salmon—and the decline of fish habitat, which continues apace across this country. One example is that only 10% of the former habitat of the lower watershed in the Fraser River remains, and that's one of the biggest salmon-producing rivers in North America and probably the world.

Minister LeBlanc indicated a willingness to consider amendments. We have provided language for amendments that define environmental flows, establish national standards on the acceptable limits of flow alteration, and establish monitoring requirements.

The second area that you've already heard about this morning is cumulative effects. This is a big one. The government is grappling with it, and I know the department is grappling with it. It's a difficult one.

The cumulative effects of small projects remain a major cause of habitat loss, and this was a priority issue in public consultations. The minister said there are two types of projects: large projects, which go through the authorization, and low-risk projects that avoid harm. This actually leaves a really big gap in terms of all the medium-sized projects—a massive number of small to medium-sized projects that cumulatively can impact fish habitat and cause it to be lost.

We support amendments that have been provided to the department and will be provided to this committee in briefs, which talk about ways to better address cumulative effects. One way to do this is by expanding the records that are in the proposed new public registry, to require not only the authorizations in there but also that all the projects be approved under the codes of practice and under designated project regulations. You can really press a button—online registry—and say, “Here's our project. Here's where it is.” People can track it. Scientists will track it, as will researchers and DFO.

This bill also needs to address one of the chief ways that DFO currently uses to exempt proponents from the need to obtain a habitat authorization, and that's the letter of advice. This isn't mentioned at all in the act. We suggest and recommend that the letter of advice be defined in the act, and that all letters of advice also be posted on the public registry. A letter of advice is given to a proponent because there is the potential to cause harm to fish habitat. Why not tell everybody about this advice?

I'll move rapidly along, because I know I have limited time here.

I also want to talk about, in the second half, transparency and increasing accountability. I've already mentioned the public registry. We and many others strongly support this. This has been a recommendation from many groups for many years.

There's a great registry for CEAA projects. We need such a registry for fish and fish habitat projects as well. Now we have one, and that's great, but the rationale for making some records mandatory and some optional is really unclear. Mandatory records include standards and permits, and optional records include guidelines, policies, and intergovernmental agreements.

It's really not clear why there's a distinction between mandatory records and optional records, the ones that are listed in proposed section 42.3. We recommend that all the ones listed as optional be mandatory.

There's a new requirement for more transparency and public access to information, which again is a great improvement. It's a five-year report from this committee, or your corresponding Senate committee, on the administration of the act. We suggest and recommend that if you're going to do such a five-year report, why not do the state of fish habitat and the state of fish stocks across Canada? Our neighbour to the south, with a bigger population and more impacts, does a national fish habitat report every five years, and Canada can and should do that as well.

Third and finally, the act can increase accountability through legal mechanisms allowing other levels of government and scientists to request action, and require a response from the minister. We're proposing this amendment to deal with one of the big criticisms of the former act, that there was too much discretion.

The minister and his or her staff could, really, make decisions without too many bounds on their discretion. The act has been changed. There are many factors that now must be considered when making decisions under the act, but we recommend that another way to increase accountability would be for other levels of government, scientists, and conservation groups to make requests. I'll give you one example of what I'm talking about.

There's a new provision in this act for the protection of long-term area-based fisheries restrictions, and these are what DFO calls marine refuges. They're intended to be a complement to marine protected areas. Long-term fisheries closures are a federal responsibility. They can only be imposed by the federal government. They really require an extra level of protection for provincially and indigenous declared marine protected areas.

For example, as far back as 2004, the Province of B.C. has requested from DFO that for the ecological reserves and marine protected areas declared under provincial law, the province wants federal fisheries closures. It wants full protection for those areas. Fourteen years later, that still hasn't happened. The province is still talking to the federal government about it.

Why not put in a legislative mechanism requiring the minister to act, creating the ability for a province, or an indigenous government to make this request of the minister, and requiring a response from the minister about the decision? Indigenous declared marine protected areas are another set of places where complementary federal fisheries closures could enhance protection.

There are some other suggestions for increasing accountability through this ability for people or other levels of government to request the minister to take action that are set out in our brief, which will be provided to you shortly. You're moving so quickly, and we haven't yet filed our brief, but we will.

In conclusion, many of the provisions in Bill C-68 will require regulations. We look forward to working with the department and the government to make these regulations effective. It's important to examine whether all the procedures contained in this law will help restore Canadians' faith in the fisheries regime. We're sure your committee wants to achieve this goal, and will work with everybody who appears before you on amendments to achieve that goal.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)]

Good morning, everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 16, 2018, we are studying Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

Today, I want to welcome to the committee Mr. Vandal from Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, who is subbing in for Mr. Rogers.

We have by video conference Duane Post.

From West Coast Environmental Law Association, we have Linda Nowlan, staff counsel.

We're going to start with opening remarks from Mr. Post.

You have 10 minutes, please.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks, gentlemen, for being here.

One of the alarming parts of Bill C-68 is the return to HADD. I'm sure you're all familiar with that. I've heard from a number of groups that are concerned that these changes will actually slow down development and recreate the confusing and quite inconsistent process that was in place prior to the changes being made in 2012. The confusing part about all of this is that the government hasn't really explained what specific protections are being lost.

Mr. Arnold referred earlier to an Order Paper question that he had, and the minister in the department has said that the has heard concerns from outside groups about lost protections, but you don't actually give any sort of explanation of what is actually being lost here. How can you explain that?

You basically ignored his question, or didn't answer, ragged the puck—I'll use whatever term—but you haven't given any examples.

I only have five minutes, so I ask you to be brief.

[Nicholas Winfield]

One of the biggest issues that's come up in both Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 is addressing cumulative effects. All the federal departments are investing time and effort to think through more holistically how each of the pieces of legislation can be gathering information that supports better cumulative effects assessment.

The Fisheries Act provides an opportunity, first off, with issues like codes of practice and standards development, the ability to notify DFO that projects are taking place on the landscape, and also then the ability to have information available to assess cumulative effects over time.

This is only one of the opportunities that exist. There are more opportunities just in terms of investing more time and effort in looking at trends in ecosystems, as compared to only looking at projects and site-specific impacts. That's part of our investment towards science and looking at ecosystem changes.

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

Okay.

I'll just turn to residual impacts. Can you explain how the cumulative impact of small or low-risk projects will be addressed under the amendments to the act that are proposed in Bill C-68?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You're right, Mr. Hardie, that the oceans protection plan from our perspective is a very significant historic investment. A great deal of the work is obviously focused on the west coast. The same thing would apply on all of Canada's coasts.

In terms of the proper development of industries that necessarily use, for example, marine navigation and ocean transport, we think Canadians and the global community expect us to have world-leading safeguards to protect coasts, to prevent any environmental damage, but also to, for example, improve access of indigenous communities to search and rescue assets, to environmental response circumstances, and to improve the Coast Guard's capacity to respond to a whole series of incidents. There are search and rescue examples from the west coast and Newfoundland and Labrador, with real concerns expressed around search and rescue capacity that we've sought to improve.

All of those things, from our perspective, might.... The “crosswalk”, to use the bureaucratic phrase that my colleagues at the table will be pleased to hear me use, would probably be around modern safeguards. If we say that the legislation should have modern safeguards, we think that the government needs to have the tools to make those modern safeguards real for Canadians. It necessarily involves expenditures, and $1.5 billion in the oceans protection plan is a significant investment.

I would point out to colleagues that almost $300 million in additional dollars were also assigned to Bill C-68 and Fisheries Act modernization, so this legislation necessarily comes with an investment as well of almost $300 million.

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

Okay. Good.

Can you talk about Bill C-68 and the complementary aspects between Bill C-68 and the oceans protection plan?

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

With the short remaining time I have left, thank you, Minister, for your responses.

Would the government be open to amending Bill C-68 to include free, prior, and informed consent? You have included aboriginal information, which is strengthening the act. The next is FPIC, and that would move toward the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

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

We'll do that.

Are you open to amending Bill C-68 to strengthen rebuilding provisions, which would bring Canada in line with other leading fishing nations such as the U.S. and the European Union?

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

That's great.

In terms of getting to Bill C-68, the ministry went further than what this committee even recommended. There were more recommendations included in the legislation than were actually proposed through this committee, so that's good to hear.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the minister and his officials for being with us today. We certainly appreciate Bill C-68 and the fact that the government and you have led the charge on strengthening the Fisheries Act.

I have a series of short, specific questions.

You welcomed amendments to the act, so I want to ask you a few questions about that.

Minister, are you open to amending Bill C-68 to address cumulative effects and specifically broadening the information base so that the public registry captures all projects, and to provide compensation for residual harm to fish habitat caused by smaller, low-risk projects?

[The Chair, Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)]

Good morning, everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 16, 2018, we are studying Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

Before we begin today's meeting, I would like to ask the committee to observe a moment of silence, please, for the victims of the tragedy yesterday in Toronto.

[A moment of silence observed]

Thank you.

Today, appearing before committee in our first hour this morning, we have the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. Welcome, Minister LeBlanc. We also have with us, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Philippe Morel, assistant deputy minister, aquatic ecosystems sector, and Mark Waddell, acting director general, fisheries and licence policy, fisheries and harbour management.

Mr. LeBlanc, I believe you have 10 minutes for your opening statement.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I would just say that to me it seems to be a very good description of the way the relationship should happen with indigenous peoples under Bill C-69. I would like to see it taken from Bill C-68 and brought over into Bill C-69. I don't know why it wasn't done in the first place. Anyway, I'll leave this question there.

I know we've already spoken a bit about meaningful public participation, but I'd like to get your feedback on the early planning phase of public participation, looking at meaningful public participation but also alternatives and need. Can you talk about how you would define it and how you would ensure that the right criteria are in place to make it happen?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Okay. It may be then, that the question isn't going to be as....

Bill Namagoose, are you familiar with that part of the Fisheries Act in Bill C-68?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

In Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act, there's a description of the relationship with indigenous communities under that act. Are you familiar with that part of Bill C-68?

[Jamie Kneen, Communications and Outreach Coordinator, Mining Watch Canada]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin nation. This fact needs to shape our discussions here. It's not just something that we say before we go about our business, but a reality that we need to carry through everything we do.

Like many, Mining Watch was greatly encouraged by the government's commitment to reforming environmental assessment and by the expert panel process that was created to advance that agenda—notwithstanding its compressed time frame—both in the astonishing extent and thoughtfulness of participation from the public, indigenous people, and experts alike, and in the depth of consideration that the expert panel reflected in its report.

My focus today is primarily on part 1 of Bill C-69, the impact assessment act. There are certainly important concerns with respect to other parts of the bill, as well as Bill C-68, the amended Fisheries Act, both on their own and in relation to the impact assessment act, especially regarding the assessment and monitoring of non-designated projects. I would direct your attention to the submission of the Canadian Freshwater Alliance, especially as it appears they will not be called as a witness.

This bill brings great promise and great disappointment. Overall, we find that it cannot fulfill the government's commitment to restore public confidence, and therefore, also cannot fulfill the promise of facilitating good development projects. In some respects, it represents a failure of ambition, where a stronger commitment and stronger leadership are required to meet the challenges of the 21st century. In other respects, it's just a matter of design flaws and limitations of implementation. At this juncture, it may not be possible to address the bigger structural problems, but we have the opportunity to fix many of its deficiencies.

We are greatly concerned that while this committee has heard the testimony of the responsible ministers, it has not heard from the civil servants, the government's own experts who worked diligently to develop the government's direction in the bill that is before us now. We strongly urge you to call those involved in drafting this legislation as witnesses. We're also greatly concerned that there is very little time for this committee to hear witnesses and to develop and integrate the necessary amendments in order to allow for a more thorough evaluation of some of the critical structural aspects of the impact assessment act.

The minister, through the new impact assessment agency, should undertake a short-term review of the new act and develop a package of housekeeping and substantive amendments to bring before Parliament within a year or two. As well, the proposed 10-year parliamentary review will come much too late. The legislative review requirement should be changed to a five-year ministerial review cycle.

I'll not attempt to address the needed amendments comprehensively—there just isn't enough time—but we have worked extensively through the Canadian Environmental Network, the RCEN, and its environmental planning assessment caucus, of which Anna and I are both co-chairs on a national level, which has made submissions to this committee. We endorse and support the observations and recommendations of the caucus, as well as those of its other members, and I would refer you to the caucus's written submission, as we're not actually here on behalf of the caucus.

The bill does make an important advance in setting out a broad consideration of economic and social factors in addition to biophysical environmental impacts. All of those factors are to be subject to public scrutiny and scientific evaluation, allowing decisions to be based on much more transparent reasons and justifications than has previously been the case. This is something we have advocated as critical to allowing an assessment of any proposal's contribution to long-term sustainability. The bill's inclusion of gender-based analysis is also important.

However, as I think Josh has already laid out, the bill does not provide a clear legal link between the consideration of those factors and the justification for actual assessment decisions. Neither does it establish basic criteria to provide a solid and consistent base for those decisions.

As Professor Doelle pointed out in his submission, the enabling nature of the legislation allows for good decision-making to take place, but it does not guarantee it and, without clearer requirements for justification, doesn't even encourage it. Provisions that enable action also enable inaction and do not provide certainty. It is greatly helpful in understanding the application of discretion if wherever the bill says the minister “may”, one reads “the minister may not”. This is not a question of ill will or irresponsibility, but more one of natural administrative tendencies to conserve money and energy, and natural political tendencies to seek short-term benefits.

We note that the question of discretion has been raised as a concern of all sectors, including industry representatives, indigenous peoples, public interest groups, and environmental law experts, with varying degrees of emphasis on three factors.

First is certainty and clarity, being able to know what the decision-making criteria are at the legislative level, and how they will be established at the level of individual project assessments or regional and strategic assessments.

Second, with regard to fail-safe criteria, is assurance that where benefits or, at least, no harm cannot be assured in all areas, any trade-offs will be subject to defined weighting and limits.

Third, on indigenous self-determination, is definitive protection for indigenous rights, including implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so that impacts on treaty and indigenous rights and the outcomes of nation-to-nation processes are determinative so that the requirements are clear and knowable. I think the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement provides a clear example of that.

We urge the committee to pursue amendments to more closely tie the proposed section 63 decision-making factors to the proposed section 22 factors to include in an assessment.

This is not the first time that you are hearing this, and it won't be the last. We should include a requirement for regulations setting out generic decision-making criteria in each area, and establish a requirement for specific criteria for individual assessments, as well as making impacts on treaty and indigenous rights and the outcomes of nation-to-nation processes determinative and not just considerations.

We have made recommendations for specific amendments and provided background arguments in our written submission in seven other areas to help ensure that public participation is meaningful; that indigenous peoples involvement in any assessment processes respects their self-determination; that there are effective mechanisms to assess regional development impacts as well as policies, plans, and programs, with clear links to project assessments; that impact assessment is linked to monitoring of non-designated projects authorized under the Fisheries Act and the Navigation Protection Act, especially in relation to cumulative effects and project assessments; that energy regulators have a specific and a much more limited role in assessment processes; that international transboundary processes and international obligations and guidelines are given adequate weight; and that scientific integrity is built in, including in mitigation, adaptive management, and follow-up.

In conclusion, Bill C-69 has the potential to make important and badly needed changes in the federal impact assessment regime. Unfortunately, it does not provide clear enough direction on implementation to give us confidence that its promises will be fulfilled. It also replicates many features of the existing failed CEAA, including its limited scope of application. We have provided recommendations in key areas, and we trust this committee to do its best work to improve the bill.

Thank you.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I think you again flagged some things that I have addressed, whether it's Bill C-45, C-68, or C-69. This bill has significant implications for all those other three bills and that is something that I don't think we've perhaps looked at or addressed very well.

I do want to talk about Kinder Morgan because I think it's a pretty good example of some of the challenges that we have. I think a mining project is somewhat easy in terms of free, prior, and informed consent, identifying whose territory it's in and ensuring that the rights and titles are respected and acknowledged and the projects move forward.

You talked about concerns from your community, Mr. Richardson. I have chiefs who run down that pipeline and who are saying, “We took it to our community. They voted 85% for it. One-third of the pipeline is going through our territory.” We have communities along the whole pipeline route, and it's more than just the benefit agreements. They've taken it to their communities and 85% is not 100%, but it is significant.

What we have is rather like Canadians in general. We have a complexity of very strong feelings on this particular issue. How will government ever, if we have something like Bill C-262, align all those important considerations? Again, I look at the communities, the Shuswap people who are predominantly in one area.

It's difficult. It's complicated. I know we were grappling with it until midnight last night. It's important and I worry about where we're going to end up in terms of making sure we respect rights while still being able to move forward with things that are important for everyone who lives in this country.

Maybe we'll hear from Mr. Newman and then Mr. Richardson.

[Dr. Dwight Newman, Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Good afternoon. It's an honour to speak with this committee as it studies Bill C-262. I'd also like to acknowledge the Algonquin people on whose territory this meeting occurs.

My name is Dwight Newman. I'm a professor of law and Canada research chair in indigenous rights in constitutional and international law at the University of Saskatchewan.

I come here today with full respect for the very noble aspirations reflected by Bill C-262 and the passion and lifelong advocacy efforts of the member who has introduced it, the support for the bill by many civil society organizations, and the profound importance of Canada working to implement the aspirations reflected by United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

However, I am going to say something different than some of the other witnesses. I do come to say that I think Bill C-262 as presently drafted is framed in ways that have the potential to cause enormous unforeseeable consequences. It has a range of highly unpredictable legal effects due to two things: elements of uncertainty on the international norms referenced, and legislative drafting issues in the bill itself.

In the next few minutes I'll try to introduce some of those, although I'd also refer you to my written brief for further reference, particularly on some of the legislative drafting issues.

I would suggest that the range of possible implications of this bill is very wide, from courts giving it no effect at all on through to the courts giving it massive, unexpected effects that could inadvertently cause governance gaps, for example, by the potential implied repeal of existing statutes, on through to legal effects that could depend in complicated ways on the order in which different bills currently under consideration in Parliament are passed.

I'll explain some of that momentarily, but my ultimate question is whether it wouldn't be better for Parliament to determine what, more precisely, it's trying to do and to enact a clear bill to do exactly what it's trying to do.

In my few minutes, I'll make three main points: one related to the substantive content of UNDRIP, one related to the drafting issues in the bill, and then a third one, quickly suggesting the need for further analysis by other committees.

First, the substantive content of UNDRIP is itself subject to more debates than often realized, and a statute drawing upon the declaration is no less subject to uncertainties that arise from these ongoing debates. To offer just one prominent example, a number of articles of UNDRIP refer to the concept of free, prior, and informed consent, or FPIC. Some of those articles of the declaration refer to a requirement to have FPIC before taking certain steps, and others refer to consulting and co-operating in order to seek FPIC. The first special rapporteur after the declaration was adopted, Professor James Anaya, attributed significance to that difference and suggested that a spectrum of different duties arose in relation to different articles.

In the years since, in general terms, in international law scholarship, three main interpretations have emerged in relation to the declaration on FPIC. There's an ongoing, growing literature, but I might mention Mauro Barelli's chapter in the new Oxford commentary on UNDRIP, released this year, as a particularly helpful piece in outlining some of those concepts.

One interpretation reads the text more strictly and says that in some circumstances, the declaration says it's enough to seek FPIC in good faith without necessarily obtaining it. I've suggested that this is the implicit position that Canada's 10 principles document, issued last summer, took somewhat slyly, as I put it in an op-ed. It's arguably that interpretation, though, that is most consistent with the French-language version of UNDRIP, and with one possible interpretation of the English-language version.

A second interpretation says the FPIC requirement is really about the type of process required and that it's possible to move away from talking about consent itself as long as one has the right type of consensus-oriented process. That interpretation fits with the approach of many practitioners who are trying to work with FPIC in practical ways.

A third interpretation sees FPIC as grounding rights analogous to vetos, and that interpretation is, and continues to be, urged by many indigenous advocates. A prominent Canadian example would be found in articulations by the scholar Pam Palmater.

In the context of Bill C-262, just which of these interpretations filters through from UNDRIP has drastically different legal consequences that matter. Not knowing that poses difficulties for everyone.

We've seen in the events of the past week around the Trans Mountain pipeline how legal uncertainty can affect the investment climate that can contribute to prosperity for both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, though obviously in the context of a project on which people have many different views.

My main point is that legal uncertainty doesn't help anyone, and this bill may draw Canadian law into new uncertainties coming from uncertainties around the interpretation of UNDRIP itself.

Second, the bill as presented has significant issues from a legislative drafting perspective, which I highlight at more length in my written submission, but I'll mention some of those briefly.

One, it uses a number of legal terms that have either no, or almost no, prior use in Canadian statutes, meaning that one's essentially gambling on how the courts might interpret those terms. That might render the whole bill merely symbolic at one end or it might lead to it having very significant effects, or anything in between.

Two, the different sections of the bill are subject to some tensions as to whether it requires immediate implementation, whether it requires implementation over a multi-decade period, or something in between. That could undermine clarity of meaning.

Three, the English and French versions of the bill may not line up in terms of their language. The French versions of terms from the English side are not the same as the French terms used for the same English terms in other pieces of legislation, again suggesting that there may be more drafting issues to be carefully considered.

Four, the way in which the bill may interact with other statutes or bills gives rise to some real complexities. I go through that in what is probably painful legal detail in the brief, but I suggest that if the courts were to give the bill substantial meaning, it could lead to the implied repeal of other statutes, or provisions of other statutes—maybe the Indian Act—overnight, in a manner that could lead to governance gaps and legal vacuums. That's not the way to abolish the Indian Act, which should of course be done but needs to be done in a clear way that doesn't generate problems in the process for indigenous communities who use its governance structures.

I also raise the prospect that because of the underlying legal principles on dealing with multiple statutes enacted by Parliament, the meanings of Bill C-68, Bill C-69, and Bill C-262, if all passed, could end up being significantly different, depending on the order in which they're passed. With respect, there needs to be a coherent plan and clearer legislative drafting to address some of these issues.

Third, just very briefly, Bill C-262 has the potential and indeed the aim to affect a huge range of areas of Canadian law. Is this committee alone well placed to consider the effects on Canada's intellectual property regime of something like clause 3 in the bill? Is this committee alone well placed to consider the implications on various religious freedom contexts arising out of UNDRIP?

My written brief lists some of the very wide areas of policy-making that could be impacted if the bill is adopted, and indeed the bill hopes to affect. With respect, it's analogous to an omnibus bill, which I would suggest could warrant attention from almost every other committee of Parliament. I would urge that there be some kind of further consideration of those effects.

In conclusion, my overall view is that Bill C-262 warrants further study and careful analysis. The legislative drafting does not meet all of the standards that we would hope for in the best legislative drafting of a bill on behalf of indigenous peoples to support a better relationship between indigenous peoples and other Canadians. There are a range of highly unpredictable effects across almost every area of government policy, and those deserve study. There could well be amendments that could improve the bill, but they need to be developed with legislative drafting expertise of the sort that the justice department has but presumably hasn't provided enough of in support of this committee at this point.

The government has committed its support, but I would hope that we would see further tangible results in terms of the details of the bill, and that there would be that legislative drafting support so that the government's commitments to implementing UNDRIP are realized in the way that best fulfills those.

I urge that the committee call for more support for its work in examining this bill and not rest with brief statements that have been offered by the justice officials who have appeared before it thus far.

Thank you for your attention, and I'm happy to discuss matters further in questions.

The House resumed from March 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fisheries Act

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

Mr. Speaker, those codes of practice that are currently in place were put in place by the previous government, and there is no need to actually change them. The entire campaign that the member and all of his colleagues ran on was based on falsehoods and misinformation to the public about what the changes in the Fisheries Act of 2012 were all about. If the member does not believe me, if he wants to waltz around this issue, I will give him a waltz: one step forward two steps back. However, those are not my words. That is a statement by the Canadian Electricity Association on Bill C-68:

...one step forward but two steps back.

CEA is particularly concerned that the government has chosen to return to pre-2012 provisions of the Fisheries Act that address “activity other than fishing that results in the death of fish....

Those were not my words, but the words of job creators and employers who are actually helping to pay down the debt that the hon. member keeps voting in favour of increasing.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, less than seven hours of debate is being allowed on Bill C-68, a really important piece of legislation, limited by the Liberal government. I am sorry that closure has been invoked on the bill.

I want to ask my colleague about the Cohen commission recommendations. For her riding, as in mine, this was a hot election issue. Coastal people are passionate about wild salmon and were very encouraged in particular by the Liberal government's commitment to implement the Cohen commission recommendations, and specifically, by the mandate letter to the fisheries minister with specific instructions to implement the Cohen recommendations.

Recommendation three was to break the conflict of interest, which has been repeatedly observed of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in that it is both the regulator of the salmon industry, protector of wild salmon, and the promoter of the farmed salmon industry. Those are in conflict. Certainly wild salmon and farmed salmon open net pen Atlantic salmon farming are in conflict.

I would like to know if my colleague shares my concern that the Liberal government has still failed to act on Cohen commission recommendation three.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, this is a day that the citizens of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country have been working toward and waiting for. Bill C-68 is an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. The consultation effort itself has strengthened engagement with Canadians, enhanced transparency in fisheries activities, and improved the health of fish and fish habitat, and we are just getting started.

This new legislation and our debate will go a long way to help restore and strengthen the public trust so badly damaged by the previous government with regard to the Fisheries Act. In 2016, our government initiated a consultation process that engaged thousands of Canadians. Citizens expressed grave concern about lost protections. They spoke out about the importance of science and academic freedom. Indigenous peoples offered voices of experience, traditional knowledge, and ways of working together that we have been missing. Commercial fishers said they wanted to be included in decision-making.

The amendments we are debating today fundamentally recognize that decisions must be guided by the principles of sustainability, by the precautionary principle, and by an ecosystem management approach. This provides hope to many British Columbians for whom Roderick Haig-Brown, named in Campbell River this summer as a person of national significance to Canada, is a source of inspiration, a guide, and a mentor. He wrote:

The salmon runs are, in truth, the wealth of the Pacific Ocean brought readily back to the hand and use of man. For his part, man has used them and abused them, injured and restored them. He knows enough to multiply them even beyond their original abundance—and he is threatening them with total destruction.

Haig-Brown wrote this in 1959, almost 60 years ago. I take his words very seriously.

Fundamental to a robust Fisheries Act, important amendments include protection for all fish and fish habitats, at last, restoring the previous prohibition against harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, known as HADD. These protections were taken as immutable, and yet they were stricken from the legislation in an act of callous disregard by the previous government. l am very grateful to the many who fought for this to be put back into the Fisheries Act.

Other important amendments include that indigenous traditional knowledge would inform decisions that impact habitat. The legislation would strengthen the role of indigenous peoples in project reviews, monitoring, and policy development, and will honour traditional knowledge. It would put short-term measures in place to respond to threats to fish that may suddenly arise. It would restore a prohibition against causing the death of fish by means other than fishing. It would provide full transparency for projects, including a public registry of projects.

The legislation promotes restoration of degraded habitat and the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks, and strengthens the long-term protection of marine refuges. The bill clarifies and updates enforcement powers to address emerging fisheries issues and to align current provisions in other legislation.

Bill C-68 demonstrates that our government is proactive in protecting wild salmon stocks and the diversity of fish and fish habitat in Canada. It is vital that we support and pass this legislation. We need every aspect of Bill C-68 badly. We also need to look ahead and be visionary by drafting a separate but related national aquaculture act. A national aquaculture act would facilitate a regional approach to aquaculture and should include how we can transition away from open net pens to closed containment salmon aquaculture on the west coast of Canada.

In collaboration with indigenous peoples, the Government of British Columbia, hundreds of stewardship groups, and industry, a national aquaculture act would provide a way to ensure an increasingly profitable and productive aquaculture industry.

On behalf of many on the west coast, I am here to represent the view that it is time to transition British Columbia's open net pen salmon aquaculture industry to closed containment. Momentum is gathering globally and close to home to develop a profitable, productive aquaculture system and sector through closed containment.

In Washington state, a bill has just passed through the state Senate to phase out open net salmon aquaculture by 2025. As licences expire, they are not being renewed. If an operation is in violation of the lease, it is shut down. Senator Kevin Ranker introduced the bill. I spoke with him, and he said he had never seen anything like the support that came together from all 29 treaty tribes in the state, commercial fishers, and recreational fishers. Senator Ranker's constituency is the same as many of ours in British Columbia because it encompasses, in Senator Ranker's words, the magical, majestic Salish Sea.

From a business perspective, the global open net pen salmon aquaculture industry is operating in an increasingly unpredictable environment. The biological costs to control sea lice and viruses are rising. The industry is not able to control stock losses or escapes. Licenses are very difficult if not impossible to secure. Public support for the status quo is attenuating and capital is being actively invested in closed containment facilities globally. Governments are paying attention.

From an environmental perspective, there is evidence that sea lice and viruses are transferred from farmed fish to wild salmon stocks. Norway has put a moratorium on open net farms due to the sea lice problem. Add to that the recent complete net pen collapse in Washington state and it is obvious that we simply cannot stand by and allow these threats to wild salmon and wild salmon habitats to continue.

From a trade perspective, British Columbia and Canada should also not concede our strong role in the industry, our knowledge, and our brand to the first movers who know that the status quo will simply not allow for the growth of the sector and who are gaining market advantage over us to research, innovation, and investment.

Canada is a trusted global leader in high value, safe, secure, sustainable food and we have the potential to develop our agri-food sector, particularly in light of recent trade agreements and supercluster announcements. Through technology and innovation in the sector, Canada can bring more high-quality farmed salmon to global markets, create jobs, and strengthen the economy.

Social innovation presents the potential for industry and first nations to be enterprise partners. Transitioning to closed containment is a way for nation-to-nation collaboration in pursuit of business opportunity, trade, and a healthy aquatic environment. In just two and a half years, our government has made it clear through our actions that we are committed to strengthening engagement and transparency and to rebuilding trust with Canadians.

Last year, the government invested $1.4 billion in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, in their base budgets, as a result of a program integrity review that revealed the magnitude and devastation of the Harper government cuts. This is in addition to our historic $1.5 billion investment in the oceans protection plan to further protect the marine environment from coast to coast to coast. As the minister has stated, to preserve, protect, and help restore our environment, we need a Fisheries Act that Canadians can trust. We must continue to build a relationship based on respect for the protection of our shared environment.

I would like to thank Canadian citizens for their ongoing commitment to volunteering, studying the science, advocating, and leading. The people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country have certainly played a major role in the proposed Fisheries Act legislation we are considering today and that will continue no doubt. I am very grateful for their wisdom, spirit, and tenacity in getting us to today.

Our government is taking great strides to protect fish and fish habitat and the environment. I ask my colleagues in the House to please join me in supporting these important amendments and in passing Bill C-68 and then let us take the next step toward a national aquaculture act.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that open-ended question which allows me to continue with my earlier remarks.

One of the main pillars of our election campaign was to revisit the nature in which environmental assessment and protection of our natural resources are undertaken in Canada. In that context, there was a review of transportation, natural resources, environment and climate change, and also the Fisheries Act. When I look at Bill C-68, I consider it in the context of changes that are also put forward with respect to CEAA . I look at it in the context of the broader national consultation that was undertaken with the NEB, the offshore petroleum boards, the CEAA process generally, and of course our international obligations and our commitment to protect 10% of offshore resources under our Aichi targets.

This is really a national undertaking. When people think of fisheries in Canada they think of the north, British Columbia, the Great Lakes, Quebec, the maritime provinces, and then of course Newfoundland and Labrador. It is really the sum of what makes Canadians Canadians in understanding that we have a place in the world, that we have a role in protecting our natural resources. There are changes in this legislation that would both allow us to protect our national resources and also to develop them sustainably so we can enjoy the high standard of living that we have.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House will continue second reading debate of Bill C-68 concerning the Fisheries Act. The House will then adjourn for the Easter break and allow members to return to work in their constituencies and also spend some time with family and friends.

Upon our return on April 16, we will commence second reading debate on Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, and continue that debate for the remainder of the week.

I want to take this opportunity to wish all my colleagues, their families, and everyone who works and helps us in this place a happy Easter and a pleasant break.

Fisheries Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak to Bill C-68.

Bill C-68, from a policy perspective, is another piece of unnecessary legislation aimed at making Canadians feel good. It is filled with fluff. It is all about pandering to environmental groups. It is all about making sure that those that backed the Liberals in the 2015 election get their due, much as what we heard earlier when the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook spoke.

If those who are in the audience were falling asleep previously, they should stay tuned, because I promise it is about to get more lively in the short period of time that I have to speak.

The member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook talked about how proud he is of the government investing in fisheries and investing in areas within his region. His own family has just received a lucrative surf clam quota worth hundreds of millions of dollars. People heard that correctly. I am looking right at the camera and I am going to say that again. The brother of the Liberal member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook just received a lucrative surf clam quota worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and all on a bid that has lots of questions about it.

Therefore, I would beg to differ in terms of some of the points that have been put forward about being open and transparent, and how the minister seems to be doing the right thing. Well, he is spending a lot of money; there is no two ways about it. He is spending a lot of money, but is value going to come out of that money? Who is benefiting from the money that is being spent? I would hesitate to say that Bill C-68 is going to be the stopgap for the changes the government is putting forth that it says are going to have such a profound impact on our waterways and our fisheries.

I sit on the fisheries committee. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard has been before us numerous times. We heard just last week that our northern cod is at near decimated levels. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard likes to throw money at things, but it does not like to throw money at things that are going to have an impact on those who are in the communities. It has not done anything that is going to help create more fish so that we have fish not only for today, but for the future.

The Liberals say that former Prime Minister Harper absolutely gutted the Fisheries Act. I will be the first to admit that the Fisheries Act has been around for 150 years. Maybe it needed some modernization, but the changes the government has put forward are more fluff than anything else.

As a matter of fact, numerous witnesses came before the committee, including academics, environmental groups, or NGOs that are a steady stream into the minister's office. We had local fishers and people in those communities who said that with the Conservatives at least they knew they had the ear of the ministers. Now they have to go through the NGOs to get to the ministers, because the ministers place greater importance on the NGOs than on those who actually matter the most, the communities and the Canadians that the policy impacts the most.

It is interesting that the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Fisheries stood up to talk about the surf clam and said that it was all about reconciliation, yet the winning bid had no first nations, no multiple first nations partners. This was a critical component of the bid criteria. There were no first nations partners, until after the bid was announced.

Three weeks later, there was an announcement of the first nations that were there. The bid actually included just placeholders, which said, “Hey, trust us, we'll get that done”. Guess what? The brother of that member of Parliament, or the group that got the bid, was not even incorporated. It was not even a legal entity. It did not have a boat, a vessel, and did not have a facility to do this.

This leads people to believe that this just does not smell right. As a matter of fact, it sounds very corrupt. Therefore, it is very rich to have that member of Parliament stand in the House and preach about his open and transparent government that he is so proud of. Obviously, he is proud of it, because his family is benefiting from a quota worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That is unacceptable.

As we know, it is open and transparent if one is a Liberal insider or family member, and one would get the appointment. If one is a Liberal insider or family member, one would get the job. If one is a Liberal insider or family member, guess what? One would get the quota. That is what we are seeing.

Today, with Bill C-68, it is interesting that people are saying that Prime Minister Harper absolutely decimated the fishery. I will tell members that this is more of an attack on Prime Minister Harper by folks who dislike him than it is on his policy. That is shameful. Not one witness who came to our committee to testify on this could demonstrate any loss of fish habitat because of what was done in 2012, and that includes academics, environmental groups, fishers, and industry experts. Conservatives want to make sure that we have the appropriate balance between the economy and the environment. We do not want to see our rivers, lakes, and streams ruined.

I am a hunter and a fisher. My family has farmed, logged, fished, and hunted our property in the Cariboo Chilcotin for generations. We want to make sure it is there for future generations. It is shameful how we get this holier-than-thou attitude when all the Liberals are doing is pandering to special interest groups.

Members can tell I am a little heated, and I will tell them why. I was in Grand Bank, Newfoundland, earlier this week and I talked with Edgar, Brenda, Barbara, Bernice, Barry, Tom, and Kevin. I talked with people who are impacted by the policy decisions that the minister has made, which impact that community. With 300 years of fishing history, they have had their ups and downs, but they have had consistent economic viability. They have been okay for about 27 years in terms of the surf clam fishery.

This arbitrary decision to take away 25% of the quota from that community is not acceptable. They are going to see job losses. Edgar told us that he does not want to go on EI. He wants a job. He had 52 weeks of work this year, and with this decision, it looks like he will lose 17 weeks of work. He does not want EI. He wants to work. We heard that time and time again.

Shamefully, it seems that the minister is more intent on looking after his Liberal family and friends than the families of Grand Bank. It is disappointing and, frankly, it is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, and express gratitude to them for their generosity and patience. Meegwetch.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for sharing his time with me, and acknowledge this shows a spirit of respect toward opposition benches from the current Liberal government. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, although I still must object to the use of time allocation and reducing time for debate in this place. However, the respect shown in shortening time but still allowing a member such as me to have at least one crack in second reading to this very important legislation is appreciated. It is particularly appreciated when I stand to speak, with shared time from a Liberal member, with the intention of attacking Liberal legislation, which I have done recently with shared time.

Today is a different occasion. Bill C-68 would repair the damage done to the Fisheries Act under former budget implementation omnibus bill, Bill C-38, in the spring of 2012, as the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook was just referencing. This bill goes a long way. Within the ambit of what the Minister of Fisheries can do, it would repair the damage done by omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, in relation to the Fisheries Act. I want to speak to that, as well as the one aspect where it would not fully repair the damage.

This is definitely a historic piece of legislation. The Fisheries Act was brought in under Sir John A. Macdonald. Canada has had a fisheries act for 150 years. That act traditionally dealt with what is constitutionally enshrined as federal jurisdiction over fish, and some people may wonder where the environment landed in the Constitution of Canada and the British North America Act. Where was the environment? The fish are federal. The water is provincial if it is fresh water, and federal if it is ocean water, so there has always been a mixed jurisdiction over the environment.

Over fish, there has been no question. Fish are federal. In the early 1980s, this act received a significant improvement, which was to recognize that fish move around and they cannot be protected without protecting their habitat. The Fisheries Act was modernized with a real degree of environmental protection. It had always been a strong piece of environmental legislation, because if we protect fish then we tend to protect everything around them.

In this case, the Fisheries Act was improved in the early eighties by a former minister of fisheries, who by accident of history, happened to be the father of the current Minister of Fisheries. It was the Right. Hon. Roméo LeBlanc. We use the term “right honourable” because he went on to be our Governor General. He amended the Fisheries Act in the 1980s to include protection of fish habitat, requiring a permit from the federal Minister of Fisheries if that habitat was either temporarily or permanently harmed or damaged. This piece of legislation is the significant pillar upon which much of Canada's environmental regulation rested.

What happened in Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012 was a travesty that remains in the annals of parliamentary history as the single worst offence against environmental legislation and protection by any government ever. It was followed up with a second omnibus budget bill in the fall of 2012, Bill C-45, which took an axe to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In the spring, Bill C-38 repealed the Environmental Assessment Act and replaced it with a bogus act, which I will return to and discuss. Bill C-38 also repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, the National Roundtable on Environment and the Economy, and gutted the Fisheries Act.

Rather than go on about that, the hon. member who was just speaking referenced the changes made. I can tell people some of the changes that were made, and I was so pleased to see them repealed. When one opens a copy of Bill C-68, the first thing one sees is subclause 1(1), “The definitions commercial, Indigenous and recreational in subsection 2(1) of the Fisheries Act are repealed.” This is not a scientific thing. This is what Bill C-38 did to our Fisheries Act. Fish were no longer fish. They were only fish if they were commercial, indigenous, or recreational. That language came straight from a brief from industry. It did not come from civil servants within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It came from the Canadian Electricity Association. That is repealed.

This bill would bring back protections for habitat. It goes back to looking at some of the foundational pieces of how the Fisheries Act is supposed to work, and then it goes farther.

I have to say I was really surprised and pleased to find in the bill, for the first time ever, that the Fisheries Act will now prohibit the taking into captivity of whales. That was a very nice surprise. It is proposed section 23.1. I asked the minister the other day in debate if he would be prepared to expand this section with amendments, because over on the Senate side, the bill that was introduced by retired Senator Wilfred Moore and is currently sponsored by Senator Murray Sinclair, and I would be the sponsor of this bill if it ever makes it to the House, Bill S-203, would not only ban the taking of whales into captivity but the keeping of whales in captivity. I am hoping when this bill gets to the fisheries committee. We might be able to expand that section and amend it so that we can move ahead with the protection of whales.

This bill is also forward-looking by introducing more biodiversity provisions and the designation of areas as ecologically sensitive, work that can continue to expand the protection of our fisheries.

I will turn to where there are gaps. Because I completely support this bill, while I do hope for a few amendments, they come down to being tweaks.

Where does this bill fail to repair the damage of Bill C-38? It is in a part that is beyond the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to fix. That is the part about why Harper aimed at the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Environmental Assessment Act.

There was not random violence in this vandalism; it was quite focused. It was focused on destroying the environmental assessment process so that we would no longer be reviewing 4,000 projects a year. Of those 4,000 projects a year that were reviewed under our former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, most of them, about 95% of them, were reviewed through screenings that were paper exercises, that did not engage hearings, and so forth. However, it did mean that, at a very preliminary level, if there was a problem with a project, a red flag could go up, and it could be booted up for further study.

There is a reason that the Fisheries Act habitat provisions were repealed. They were one of the sections listed in our former Environmental Assessment Act under what was called the “law list”, where a minister giving a permit under section 35 of our former Fisheries Act automatically triggered that the decision was subject to an environmental assessment.

Similarly, why did the former government take a hatchet to the Navigable Waters Protection Act? Like the Fisheries Act, it is an act we have had around for a long time, since 1881. It was not an act that had impeded the development of Canada or we would never have had a railroad. Since 1881, we have had the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The previous government took a real axe to it. The current Minister of Transport has gone a long way toward fixing it under one portion of Bill C-69.

This is why. Navigable waters permits also were a trigger under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Do members see where I am going here? This was synchronized action. It was not random.

The current government has pledged to fix all of the damage done by the previous government to environmental laws. Where the failure to fix things is evident is in what is called the “impact assessment act” in Bill C-69. It has abandoned the concept of a law list altogether. It has abandoned the concept of having permits and environmental assessments required whenever federal money is engaged. In other words, the Harper imprint of going from 4,000 projects reviewed a year to a couple of dozen will remain the law of the land without significant improvement to Bill C-69. In particular, the decisions the Minister of Fisheries makes should be subject to an EA, just as the decisions of the Minister of Transport should be subject.

In my last minute, I want to turn our attention to something I hope the Minister of Fisheries will take up next, because he is doing a great job. I hope he will take up looking at open-pen salmon aquaculture. It must end. It is a threat to our wild salmon fishery on the Pacific coast. It is a threat to the depleted wild Atlantic salmon stocks on the Atlantic coast, where I am originally from. There is no Atlantic salmon fishery because it has been destroyed. However, there are still Atlantic salmon, which could restore themselves if they did not have to compete with the escapement of Atlantic salmon from fish farms in Atlantic Canada, and the destruction of habitat by those farms. On the west coast, these are not even indigenous species that are escaping and threatening our wild salmon.

Let us close down open-pen fisheries, give aquaculture to the Minister of Agriculture, have fish in swimming pools on land, and let the Minister of Fisheries protect our coastal ecosystems.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act. Before I get into the bill itself, I want to share with the House that my riding has various communities that benefit directly from fisheries. We have the Eastern Passage area, which is a very big community focused on fishing, and then we have other communities as we move down toward the eastern shore. Down in Seaforth and then into Chezzetcook we see all kinds of fishing taking place.

This is a very important bill, because we need to make sure we restore the protections that were cut back in 2012 by the former Conservative government. One wonders why those cuts were made. It is obvious, in the three years I have been here, that the Conservatives had a lot of difficulty balancing investment in the economy and the environment, which is so crucial.

The Conservatives moved forward to make those changes. It is important to know how they made those changes. Did they consult? Did they check with the fishers? Did they consult with environmentalists? Did they consult with the various coastal areas and harbours? No, they put it into an omnibus bill so that it was hidden. There was no consultation, and they just put it in there to slide it through and make cuts to various protections for the fisheries. It affected all the coastal communities, as well as the environment, and people had no opportunity to express themselves in any way, shape, or form.

However, this government took a very different approach. We consulted with Canadians. All Canadians had the opportunity to participate in this consultation. We also had two round tables, where Canadians could participate and offer their advice, suggestions, and comments. They could share some of the key areas where they had concerns.

Furthermore, our Minister of Fisheries suggested to the permanent committee on fisheries that it could have various witnesses come in and share their opinions on this important topic. This exercise allowed for 32 more recommendations to come forward. All those consultations and the feedback from Canadians in various forums allowed the minister, his staff, and the government to put forward legislation that would solidly ensure that we are protecting our fisheries and that we have some standards and safeguards in place, but also that we can do business, which is crucial for our economy.

We have invested over $284 million in that initiative. We have invested as well in the ocean supercluster. We have invested $1.5 billion in the oceans protection plan, and $325 million in the Atlantic fisheries fund. That is a clear indication.

I would like to point out that these cuts were comparable to all of the other cuts made by the Conservative government, such as those that weakened our official language communities.

I will go back to the first point, which is the restoration of these protections to ensure that we are protecting our fish and fish habitats, which is crucial to protecting the resource. That resource is precious and important to all Canadians. We benefit from that resource, and we cannot afford not to protect it. In the House, not too long ago, I presented a petition from my constituents Blair Eavis and Walter Regan about the conservation funding for the partnership program, which is important to continue as well.

Also in the legislation are some guidelines about issuing permits. There have to be guidelines, and they are very important. If it is a major project, we have to have a permit process. If it is a small project, then we would basically have a code of practice. This would actually help the industry, because the people in the industry would know there is a process in place. If they are going to bid on projects, they would know that these steps need to be taken, and therefore they would consider that when they put out bids. That is important, but it was not in place in the process.

When the minister considers issuing those permits, he has to consider what effect that would have on the fishing industry and the habitat, and whether there are alternate ways we could do these types of projects to ensure that we are balancing the economy, our resources, and the environment, which the Conservatives never did. That is a crucial issue that the past government did not do.

The minister would also be responsible for ensuring that the fish stocks are not depleted, and if they are depleted there has to be a plan in place to replenish that industry, because it is crucial. That is what it is all about: monitoring and making sure that we are safeguarding our resource, which is crucial.

To go further and continue with the transparency that our government has put forward since the beginning, we would have an official public registry. That registry would show what plans are in place to support, protect, and safeguard our industry. That would be public, so people would be able to see the plans and give feedback on those plans, which is crucial. Also, in that public registry we would see any permits that were issued, and on what conditions.

We would also see, which is very important, any agreements that may have been signed between the federal government and the provinces or the indigenous peoples. That is crucial. There is a very important piece about indigenous peoples' rights in this legislation, which was not considered by the past government in the last 10 years prior to our being here. This is what open and transparent government will bring, and we have done that on many occasions. Of course, we also had the political financing, which is another transparency legislation that we brought forward. There is access to information as well and the mandate letters that were made public. They were made public so that people would have an opportunity to speak on those issues.

This bill, to amend the Fisheries Act, would allow us to keep the fishery strong, but also to ensure that the environment is safe for a long, long time. These changes were crucial, and I am very proud of our government's commitment and our promise to move forward on this issue. In only two years, we are here with this legislation, which is extremely important.

The House resumed from February 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Oceans Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take us a bit further than Bill C-55. The Minister of Fisheries has thus far dealt with amendments in Bill C-68 and amendments to the Oceans Act in Bill C-55. He has not yet touched on the area that is of profound concern to people who want to see our fisheries areas protected and our oceans protected to protect the fish within those lines in a marine protected area on the map by really dealing with the threat of aquaculture in open waters in open pens.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can let us know when the minister and the parliamentary secretary will turn their attention to the threat posed by open-pen aquaculture of not-local species, with the contamination of sea lice and viruses that affect our wild fisheries.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise for a third time to express my support for Bill C-55 and to speak against the proposed amendment to refer the bill back to the standing committee for the purpose of reconsidering all of the clauses.

The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard has been given a clear mandate to protect Canada's three oceans, our coasts, our waterways, and our fisheries to ensure they remain healthy for the benefit of future generations, something I thought about today when I saw so many young people in our gallery. This is a commitment that I take very seriously and very personally.

As I said previously, when we debated the bill at second reading, I am extremely honoured that my first piece of legislation as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard is for such a worthy cause.

The Oceans Act is a fundamental tool that Canadians rely upon to ensure the future health of our marine ecosystems. I truly believe that at the end of the day, a pristine and abundant environmental ecosystem is our greatest underlying economic driver.

Specific to today's debate, the Government of Canada has committed to Aichi target 11 under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. As well, I just returned from the World Ocean Summit, where I was able to share the leadership that Canada had once again taken to protect our oceans.

In addition to this bill, we are returning lost protections and incorporating modern safeguards into the Fisheries Act through Bill C-68. We have committed to making the protection of our oceans a pillar of our G7 agenda. This includes leadership in four key areas, including ocean health, sustainable fisheries, addressing plastics, and building resilient coastal communities. We were applauded for making such significant progress on our targets.

As a government, we are committed to protecting 10% of our oceans and marine areas by 2020. When we took office, less than 1% of these areas were protected, but today we have protected 7.75%, representing hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of new protections, protections of which I know Canadians are proud.

Our three oceans are complex webs of ecological and human systems that need to be understood, protected, and in many cases restored. Marine protected areas and marine protected area networks preserve these ecological links and protect diverse marine ecosystems and species. We will continue to establish marine protected areas through science-based decision-making, transparency, and in a manner that advances reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

It currently takes an average of seven years to designate an Oceans Act marine protected area. It requires time to undertake scientific assessments and socio-economic studies, as well as conduct consultations with governments, indigenous groups, and stakeholders. These are important steps that cannot be eliminated as they ensure that a marine protected area achieves its intended objectives while supporting local culture, the economy, and other needs. That said, a very clear understanding of what needs to be protected typically emerges well before all of the data is compiled.

Amendments to the Oceans Act under Bill C-55 propose solutions that will help us protect critical and unique areas of our Canadian oceans faster, without sacrificing the necessary science and consultation processes. The amendments ensure collaboration continues, requiring provinces, territories, indigenous groups, industry, and other stakeholders to be part of both the establishment and management processes.

Essentially, Bill C-55 proposes amendments to the Oceans Act to provide an additional tool that will allow for interim protection of specific areas through a ministerial order. This interim protection will be done following initial science and consultations, which would take around 24 months.

Following this step, the full federal regulatory process would continue to formally designate the marine protected area within the next five years. These amendments would ensure that when needed, an interim marine protected area could be put into place. New activities that risk further harm to ocean ecosystems, habitat, or marine life would not be allowed to occur in these interim protected zones.

These amendments not only respect current activities but also the need to conduct comprehensive consultations and scientific research before the final marine protected area is established.

Therefore, the time frame to fully establish a marine protected area may still take up to seven years, but there could be some interim protections in place within the first two. No longer can a lack of 100% scientific certainty be used to delay or prevent the protection of a sensitive marine area. Right now there is no protection until there is full protection, which is a problem these amendments are effectively solving, a problem that is amplified by an ocean that is so quickly changing, along with our climate. This policy is entirely in lockstep with the precautionary approach, which is a founding principle of conservation in Canada.

To put it another way, an interim marine protected area would freeze the footprint of ongoing activities. Under this concept, only ongoing activities, which are those activities occurring one year before the interim protection is in place, would be allowed to continue. For example, current fishing activities, or fishing activities where a moratorium is in place but licences are still held would be considered ongoing activities.

To further support this new concept, which is integral to the creation of an interim marine protected area, Bill C-55 also includes amendments that would require application of the precautionary principle when deciding whether to designate new marine protected areas. That means incomplete information or lack of absolute certainty would not be justification for avoiding protection where there would be a risk to the marine ecosystem.

Bill C-55 also includes modernized, updated, and strengthened enforcement powers, fines, and punishments under the Oceans Act.

The proposed amendments to the Oceans Act have received broad support during outreach efforts to discuss the bill. Canadians recognize the amendments would not short-circuit the development of sound science or cut off people's opportunity to collaborate and be consulted in the development of marine protected areas. Instead, they would ensure protection would be put in place quicker, in the interests of all Canadians.

We would be able to act on initial science and information to help these areas safe while additional research, engagement, and regulatory processes would be worked through.

Supporting the health of our ocean is necessary to ensure that future generations will be able to rely on the unique and precious marine ecosystems and resources that underline our environment and economy. It should go without saying, but Canadians are counting on us to protect our oceans, a resource that at times we have too often taken for granted.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to congratulate the fisheries and oceans committee on the great work it has done on this bill and on additional studies it has taken on, including several fisheries and MPAs, which was raised by the previous member. An example of its extraordinary work is visible in Bill C-68, amendments to the Fisheries Act. The committee made 32 recommendations after examining the changes made to the act by the previous government. We now know all 32 recommendations were not only considered but incorporated into the act.

I was also very impressed by the committee's deliberations and thoughtful consideration of Bill C-55. It consulted broadly and incorporated amendments from colleagues on both sides of the House. This is the primary reason sending the bill back to committee does not make any sense. The committee has considered the legislation clause by clause and now it is time to pass it for third reading.

I invite everyone in the House to support Bill C-55, an act to amend the Oceans Act, and to oppose the Conservative amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a rare chance to be able to thank my friend from South Okanagan—Shuswap. He is quite correct. I had earlier today jotted down that we were moving to Bill C-55 this afternoon, and things do move quickly. We are on Bill C-68. Therefore, I regret that the Fisheries Act is moving so quickly, with time allocation on it. However, I support the bill.

I am so relieved to see the restoration and the protection of fish habitat in the bill. We have had the Fisheries Act since 1867. Protecting fisheries, including fish habitat, was a provision brought in by the current fisheries minister's father, the late and much respected Romeo LeBlanc. He also served as our governor general. Having those sections ripped out of the Fisheries Act in the spring of 2012 in an omnibus budget bill of over 420 pages that changed 40 different acts, with no consultation, not a single amendment allowed, and no proper hearings, was an abomination in this place. I am glad to see at least this part of it repaired.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would caution the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands not to get Bill C-55 confused with Bill C-68. Bill C-55 is the Oceans Act. Bill C-68 is an act to amend the Fisheries Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day here when members cannot have their question of privilege heard in this House. I respect your position, but when we have members standing on a point of order and simply being shut down, it is a dismal day for democracy in Canada. What we have seen this week with the government shutting down debate and calling time allocation on multiple bills has to make one wonder what it is that the Liberals are trying to change the channel on, and it is disturbing.

I will start on a lighter note, noting that this is the second half of a 20-minute time slot that I was allowed. I had 10 minutes yesterday. It has now been almost 24 hours to carry on this section of the debate. I was debating whether I should wear the same clothes so if the two videos get clipped together it does not look like I did a Superman change. Oh, pardon me, that would be a super-person change, or a super-people change.

It has been almost 24 hours since I began my speech to Bill C-55, so I want to recap a bit of what has taken place. In December 2016, I saw what the current government may intend to do with changes to the way marine protected areas are established in B.C., so I put forward a motion at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that the committee undertake a study on the criteria and process for establishing MPAs in Canada. That motion was accepted and approved by the committee members. We eventually got around to starting that study in about April 2017. We travelled to the north and to the west coast in June. We travelled to the east coast in the fall. As I said yesterday, we heard differing testimony on how the MPA process was working.

We heard that with the process that is taking place right now, in some cases, it took seven to 10 years to establish an MPA. That is a fairly lengthy time, but we heard that those MPAs that were created under that process were accepted by the communities and in fact in many cases were put forward by and promoted by the communities that were most affected. What we heard was that the proposed changes that Bill C-55 could bring forward would eliminate the opportunity for those fishers and those communities to have input into how those MPAs are created, and it was quite discerning. We heard that many times in Atlantic Canada and yet the current government, with full representation in Atlantic Canada, has chosen to ignore the testimony that we heard there.

The committee study on MPAs has been kicked aside and sidelined many times. We started a study on small-vessel licensing, which kicked the study aside. Now we are going to see legislation on Bill C-68 coming to the committee so the study on MPAs will be further kicked aside. I question whether the Liberals may be causing this because they do not want that testimony exposed to the public, and the recommendations that may come out of that committee study. The recommendations we would have seen would have indicated the problems with the new proposed process, so for some reason the Liberals are pushing aside that MPA study and the report that would result out of it, kicking it aside and fast-tracking by time allocation the debate on Bill C-55 so that we have no process of really exposing the issues and the problems that are in the bill. Again, it is an affront to democracy and just an example of the arrogance that the government has been showing over the past couple of weeks. It is really disturbing to me and should be disturbing to all Canadians.

There is another part of this scenario that we can only speculate on. Is there another reason that the fisheries minister wants to get this legislation out there and get it in front of the committee to tie up the committee's time? That may be because Conservative members on the committee have started to expose the surf clam scam.

One may ask what the surf clam scam is all about. The fisheries minister decided unilaterally to expropriate 25% of the surf clam quota from a holder in Newfoundland. He then issued that quota to a non-existent company that was established by close Liberal friends and family members. Unbelievable. The threads are starting to unravel on that surf clam scam.

I project that perhaps time allocation on Bill C-55 and Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, may be a cover-up process to take attention away from what really should be concerning, that being a perceived conflict of interest.

That takes us all the way back to the mandate letters that were provided to Liberal cabinet members by the Prime Minister, which indicated that there should be no actual or perceived conflict of interest and yet we have seen it happen time and time again with the government, not just perceived conflict of interest but actual conflict of interest. The finance minister was found in conflict. There are still questions around the Prime Minister, who was found guilty of breaking the law four times and had to address that with the conflict commissioner.

I will get back to Bill C-55 and some of our concerns, which I touched a bit on yesterday regarding wildlife management, fisheries management, totally protected areas, and no-take zones as they are being referred to in reference to the Oceans Act and MPAs.

Similar things to those no-take zones have been put in place on land and in parks across Canada and they have created problems. They have also taken place in the U.S. and we have seen problems. We heard testimony from a U.S. scientist at committee who explained what had happened with the California MPA process. It was absolutely devastating to the recreational fishery and the supporting sectors down there. There was a 20% drop in licence sales and vehicle sales relating to towing equipment for boats. It was absolutely devastating for that process. We cannot afford to see that same process take place here in Canada. We need full consultation.

This legislation would give the minister overarching power to decide to close an area on extremely short notice, only taking into account one year's previous activity within that area, not going back eight to 10 years to see what might have been there. I also spoke a bit about this yesterday. I spoke about how a halibut fishery had recovered and was going back to an area in Nova Scotia. Fishermen had not been able to fish there for five to 10 years but suddenly the halibut were starting to come back, so they were going back to fish in that area. As I said, fish move, fisheries move, and ocean currents change.

This legislation proposes to eliminate all of the background information that can be gathered, the process of consulting with local fishermen, local communities, and the science community for establishing what should be a well-received and well-accepted MPA, as has been happening in the process already.

We have also heard that there are other processes for protecting our oceans and a lot of those are in place already in Canada with rockfish conservation areas on our west coast.

Those areas are not MPAs, but now some are saying that just to meet our targets we should include those. I do not disagree with that. That is a good process. However, those conservation areas need to be established, have long-term goals, but also the long-term background, which the bill fails to allow.

It has been interesting to have make the same speech almost 24 hours apart.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Technically we can continue on with what we're doing. However, it's been the practice of committee...and of course we primarily go by convention in many cases. We would go to Bill C-68 given the fact of prioritization when we receive the order of reference from the House on that particular bill. I hope that provides more clarification for you.

Ms. Jordan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Bill C-68.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm seeking clarification, and I think you've provided some. Let's say this motion passes and then Bill C-68 is forwarded to this committee. What happens?

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments from the others around the room.

We've heard testimony in the first three meetings on how fishermen's lives and investments have been put at risk. They're risking by fishing on vessels that have been modified and later finding out they weren't modified. They're having to spend incredible sums to remodify their modifications. I can't understand why the committee members would not support moving forward on this motion and not ending the study entirely...but let's get going so that lives and investments aren't put further at risk by further delay. We know that it's inevitably going to come because of the time allocation on Bill C-68....

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

I think Mr. Miller brings up a good point when he talks about the intent of the motion if it's followed. The question is—and I wonder if Mr. McDonald realizes it—what could happen if this isn't passed. Perhaps I'd ask our clerk to clarify in that event.

Mr. Chair, as you know, several times I've brought up Bill C-68 coming to this committee. You've said we can't speculate. Fair enough, and we're still dealing with hypotheticals, but in the event that Bill C-68 does come to this committee, does that supersede the current studies? Maybe you or the clerk could give some clarification as to whether that's actually the case. The Conservatives have a good point.

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

Certainly, Mr. Chair. I by no means meant that this study should be over, but I can see the potential delays because of having to deal with Bill C-68 within committee. As we know, legislative business takes precedence over committee studies, so this process could be delayed by weeks or months, or possibly into the fall, because of the process of dealing with legislative business in the committee.

I certainly by no means wanted to imply that we were going to end this process, but I see an urgency and a necessity to address the inconsistencies between two federal departments that are causing great strife in Atlantic Canada, with fishermen, their families, and their communities. Those two ministries need to meet to start to resolve these issues sooner rather than later.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank our witnesses this morning for taking the time out of their busy lives to come in and testify before us today, but I'm going to use my time a little differently this morning, Mr. Chair.

During the course of the three meetings we've had on this study, the committee has received testimony from 20 witnesses. In the testimony, the committee has received evidence describing the federal government's misaligned processes, administered by multiple levels of federal government entities, for licensing of commercial fishing vessels.

At times, the evidence, including that from federal departmental officials, has been contradictory. Evidence has described a process administered by multiple federal entities that is inconsistent in a way that fails to ensure the safety or regulatory certainty for commercial vessels in Atlantic Canada.

It's reasonable for this committee to believe that risk to human life on board commercial fishing vessels can greatly be reduced in the process for licensing commercial fishing vessels if it is rationalized and harmonized among federal entities.

Rather than see this study derailed, in light of what's been taking place recently and the time allocation vote on Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act, which will be coming before this committee and which would disrupt this committee's activities for probably six or more meetings, I'd like to move the following motion so that action can be taken before further risk to life and the certainty of commercial and family fishing operations is put further at risk.

Therefore, I move: that, within 48 hours of passing this motion, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans send to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport a letter and attach to the letter the evidence received by the committee during meetings 87, 90 and 91; and that the letter respectfully request that the two ministers meet by April 10, 2018, within two weeks, to discuss the process of licensing commercial fishing vessels, and the applicable factors of vessel length, as administered by their respective departments; and in that letter respectfully request the ministers direct the appropriate representatives of their departments to meet to identify steps to resolve the apparent inconsistencies of the licensing process by April 24, 2018, within 4 weeks; and in that letter respectfully request that representatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport invite all holders of licences for commercial vessels issued by federal entities in Atlantic Canada to attend consultation sessions or submit input in writing so that all licence holders may provide input for improving the licensing process; and respectfully request that by June 5, 2018, within 10 weeks, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport provide the committee a written summary of input received and steps identified by the ministers and their departmental representatives to harmonize and rationalize the process used by federal entities to license commercial vessels and increase safety of those operating and working on those vessels; and respectfully request that the appropriate minister, or both ministers, initiate the regulatory and legislative changes required to implement the steps identified to harmonize and rationalize the process used by federal entities to license commercial vessels and increase the safety of those operating and working on those vessels.

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

Mr. Speaker, this will be the second time that my speech is cut in half because of debate closure for the day and I have to continue the next day.

This will be my first debate without a prepared speech, so I will be taking a bit of time to pause to make sure my thoughts are coherent.

First, I want to talk about the timeline of what has taken place over the last year and a half on the study of marine protected areas and this legislation.

I looked at the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and I saw a comment there about protecting Canada's coastlines. This was also a Liberal promise. The Liberals did not make any commitments. They only made promises, which they continue to break. There was a promise in that mandate letter to protect Canada's coastlines.

In December 2016, I put forward a motion in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that the committee undertake a study to look at the criteria and the process for establishing marine protected areas in Canada, to determine whether the process that had been taking place was an efficient and effective way of doing things. As members have mentioned, it sometimes took seven to 10 years for a marine protected area to be established.

The committee finally started that study in April 2017. We travelled north to Inuvik, Paulatuk, and Tuktoyaktuk, and talked to people there. They have established MPAs that were put forward by the communities. Those MPAs are supported by the communities, and they have been very effective. We also travelled to Prince Rupert.

In the fall of 2017, we travelled to eastern Canada, and what we saw there was a totally different story. Marine protected areas were being proposed or established by government without any consultation with the local fishermen or the local communities that depended on access to the resources in those areas. There is the odd one that was proposed by the community, and it is working, but we saw opposition to the way this was being put forward. There was no good consultation with the fishermen, who felt that their livelihood, their families, their boats, and their communities were being put at risk by the imposition of government over them. We have seen this process play out over and over, particularly with this government, with its “trust us; government knows best” attitude.

We are getting into a really scary situation. We see it with the values test in the Canada summer jobs program. We see it with Service Canada not being able to refer to individuals as Mr. or Mrs., Sir or Madam. These are values tests being imposed by a government that says Canadians should trust it because it knows best. Canadians are concerned with that. I am concerned with that. My constituents are concerned with that.

Conservatives truly care about the environment. My background is in conservation. That is how I arrived in the House of Commons.

My first interest in politics showed up in the 1990s, when a former Liberal government introduced a long gun registry. I owned one older deer hunting firearm. I went to the local fish and game club and asked what I would have to do to comply with a government that thought it knew best.

An older gentleman in the club said that I should become a member. Not being one to sit back and keep my mouth shut, within a few months someone said I should become a director. A couple of years later, people said that I should become vice-president. I worked my way through that organization, through the regional branch of the BC Wildlife Federation, and eventually became president of the BC Wildlife Federation for two years.

In that time, I found conservationists and Conservatives hand in hand. They were firearms owners, guys working with boots in the streams, doing wild game counts, actual work on the ground for fish, wildlife, and habitat. We did not dream about locking it up. We thought about using it so we were getting something from those resources to put back into them.

What the Liberals are proposing, without consultation, is identifying huge swaths of the ocean and locking them up, doing this only in consideration of one previous year of traditional use or existing use. In our travel to eastern Canada, we heard from fishermen who were now fishing halibut in an area where there had not been halibut in five to seven years. If an MPA had been established there as a no-take area to protect the halibut, people would not be allowed to fish.

The government is proposing to draw lines on a map to protect an area when everything is changing. Fish move, water currents change. The government would protect an area through a space on a map and a line on a map without taking the time that had been taken in previous governments and in previous roles. Sometimes it was seven to 10 years. That is not a very fast process, but when they were done, they were done well and they worked. That should not change. If it takes that long to do something right, then do it. A slap-happy, push it forward, bulldoze it through method is not the right way to do things.

I will get back to the committee and the study it undertook on marine protected areas. That study has now been pushed back and delayed. It may never see the light of day because of the time allocation. The Liberals have called time allocation on Bill C-55, to amend the Oceans Act, which deals with marine protected areas. They are calling time allocation on Bill C-68, to amend the Fisheries Act. Both of those acts will have to come before the committee. The committee has not been able to wrap up its study on marine protected areas, so the Liberals are bulldozing, steamrolling over a committee process that was put in place. Now is it going to be totally ignored by a government that simply tell us to trust it because it know best. The Liberals do not want to hear about the consultation. They do not want to hear the testimony that concerned fishers and communities have put forward. Why?

Are they pushing back because we have asked for half an hour with the public safety adviser? I propose that may be the case, but that should not be the way government operates. Governments should listen to the people. In this case, the Liberals are shutting us down. We are not going to be able to finish our study at committee and make the recommendations to the government. I imagine there would have been a long series of recommendations from that study. We have a number of members on that committee from Atlantic Canada. I do not think they liked what they were hearing about the proposed process either. The previous process may not have been perfect, but the proposed process really concerned them the most. They were going to be shut out. They were going to be disallowed from their current areas of access and from their current process.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure for me to rise and to consume about 30 minutes of this House's time on this issue.

I will couch my opening remarks by saying it was a privilege for me at one point in time in my life to earn a zoology degree in fisheries and aquatic sciences from the University of Alberta. I worked as a fisheries technician and on many fisheries experiments. I worked as a national park warden in Parks Canada enforcing the Fisheries Act, among other things, and of course as a conservation officer in the province of Alberta doing much the same, so I have a little working knowledge on this. I am proud to have folks like Dr. David Schindler as one of the professors I learned something from. If I told people when I was going to school, that would probably date both of us and I do not think that is a particularly constructive thing to do at this point in time.

Suffice it to say, I remained active. I was a fishing guide in the Northwest Territories while I was going to university. I spent a lot of time on Great Bear Lake, and of course on the north coast where the Coppermine River flows into the Arctic Ocean. I have maintained my love of the outdoors as an avid hunter and angler ever since. These kinds of issues are near and dear to my heart, especially when it comes to recreational fishing, or as it is more affectionately known, sport fishing.

These issues are very important. I will start by making some comparisons. When I was going to the University of Alberta years and years ago, there was a plan at that time by the World Wildlife Fund and the Canadian wilderness societies and so on that they wanted a 12, 75, 12 plan. They wanted to have 12% of all the land mass in Canada protected under the same kind of statutory protection a national park would have. That meant there would be no opportunities to do anything, no development and so on. There would be complete protection for that area. I do not want to call it conservation. I call it a preservation type of protection that they would have in these areas.

The other 75% of Canada would be considered areas that would be managed, like forest management areas. These would be areas where we would have human activity that would go on, but there would be zoning. Activities would be permitted, but they would be heavily regulated by the federal, provincial, or municipal government. Then about another 12% of our land mass at that particular point in time would be a complete disturbance areas. This would be areas for our cities, roads, major industrial developments, and so on.

I remember asking the question when I was in university if 12, 75, 12 was going to be enough. That adds up to 99, but members will get the point. As we have seen evolve through time, those numbers no longer hold true today with what certain groups are asking for. They are asking for more of that preservation land. They are asking for stricter regulations on the 75%. Of course, nobody wants to take responsibility for the 12% because that would mean we would have to tear down cities and do all those kinds of things in order to restore it back to its natural habitat, which is not a reasonable thing to ask people to do.

Who bears the burden then every time somebody asks for more protection? We have to take that protection out of that 12% or out of that 75% to add to the 12%. I am talking about the preserved areas. Who suffers the consequences of that? I am using this as an example on land to make my point later on about the protected areas and the marine areas. Who bears that price? It is everybody who lives in rural Canada. It is everybody who farms, everybody who relies on forestry, and everybody who is a fisherman, or a fisher person, or fisher peoplekind, depending on what the moniker of the day is.

The point is that everything we ask to happen in the natural environment generally happens outside the confines of city limits. This is not an aspersion on folks who live in cities, and I live in a city myself. However, having grown up on a farm, I understand every time somebody has to pay a price out in our so-called natural areas that price is borne by the people who live there or make their livings in these rural, remote, or non-city areas.

The same is going to actually hold true for those who earn a living in our marine areas. This would be our commercial fishermen. This would be anybody who does any tourism, anybody who does any type of business, and of course first nations people who earn a living off the coastal waters of our country. We have seen the absolute damage, the economic damage, that can be done to these communities when we do not get things right.

As we know, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is tasked with maintaining fish stocks. We know in Atlantic Canada, going back to the early 1990s, some of the issues that happened there when we applied a purely political decision over good science and technical information. I am referring specifically to the collapse of the cod fishery.

I was a fairly young man at the time. I was studying in university in the late 1980s and early 1990s at about the same time that the cod fishery was closed. I believe it was in 1993 when it was closed. It was closed because it was mismanaged. At that time there were over one million seals in the Atlantic Ocean. Today we have six million or seven million seals there. It was a big problem. The fishermen had to move to other resources, such as herring, lobsters, and other fisheries. They had to adapt to overcome the loss of the cod.

To this day we have had a moratorium. I want to talk about what it means. The moratorium on the cod fishery means that no one is allowed to do it, so the cod for all intents and purposes are preserved. The cod population stocks are under a preservation style of protection. Have the cod stocks actually come back? No, they have not. We have moved this from a managed fishery into a completely protected class and even that movement in and of itself has not had the desired effect or outcome that we wanted.

We have not stopped any of the other activity that happens off of the east coast. There are still ships coming in and out. I would argue we have lots of ships with foreign oil coming into the east coast. It would be nicer to have a pipeline going from Alberta to our friends in the east, but I digress. It is a much easier thing to manage than tankers full of oil coming in on the east coast. It would be interesting to see if we had a tanker ban on the east coast the same as we do on the west coast. It seems to be a bit of a double standard there, but I am getting off topic and I will come back to marine protected areas.

When we moved from a management mode of the cod stocks into a preservation mode, it did not solve the problem. I am not saying it was not the right decision, but it did not solve the problem because all of the other aspects of managing the cod fishery have now fallen by the wayside. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, rather than restoring the cod stocks or managing the cod stocks, and I am not saying they are not doing some of that work, but now it is more interested in working the fisheries currently before it.

Now the Liberal government has proposed moving to a massive increase of the marine protected areas in our coastal waters. I was lucky to be a member of the fisheries committee in previous Parliaments because of my experience. As a matter of fact, people used to laugh when they found out a farm boy from central Alberta was a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for all those years, until they found out I actually knew a little about fisheries, other than how bad a fisherman I am.

Notwithstanding that, I learned a ton over the years and I was very honoured to go with the standing committee on a trip up north. We went to places like Prince Rupert, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, and Paulatuk. We talked with the people who are going to be impacted by these marine protected areas there. The impacts and concerns are very real. People from local hunting and trapping associations up north came in droves to those meetings and made their voices heard. They are very concerned because they feel there has not been adequate consultation regarding some of the areas being proposed. There are very good questions about the risks of what is going to happen in the marine protected areas.

This is where we get to the conversation about what the international standard for a marine protected area is and how Canada is going to define a marine protected area. If we ask someone from the United Nations, that person would consider the marine protected area to be a no activity zone whatsoever. This is complete protection or what I referred to earlier as that preservation mentality. I am not saying it is right or wrong; I am just saying that is the mode most people would see when they hear about a marine protected area. They would see it as having the same protections that a national park would have.

Everyone knows that we cannot hunt in a national park. We cannot drill for anything in a national park. As a matter of fact, I have been an MP for 12 years and resort owners and so on in our national parks have not seen any changes over the last 12 years because it is so hard to get approval to get anything done in a national park. I am not saying it is right or wrong; it is just very difficult to do that because of the mandate Parks Canada has on its preservation, ecological integrity, and the other types of goals and ambitions that are laid out in the Canada National Parks Act.

Those same goals and ambitions are laid out in the legislative changes that are currently before the House with Bill C-55 and Bill C-68, which the government opposite just moved time allocation on, a bill that might be disastrous for the Alberta economy. It is just another straw on the camel's already broken back when it comes to the energy sector. However, I digress again and must return to Bill C-55.

With Bill C-55, the aboriginal groups, the Inuit, the people at the Prince Rupert Port Authority, the first nations groups, the Lax Kw'alaams and all the other groups we talked with out there are very concerned. PNCIMA was brought up. They are very concerned about the amount of foreign money that is coming in to influence policy decisions. The money coming in has been used by some aboriginal or indigenous groups out there to inadvertently stop what they thought was going to be an increase in the conversation. They realized they have sided with people who took money from a bunch of organizations that actually have a completely different mandate than what the first nations have. There is a court action happening right now where first nations groups in B.C. are raising funds to take the Government of Canada to court, citing all of the barriers it has put in place in the name of standing up for first nations, which will deprive them of economic opportunities going forward. This is something that is of very legitimate concern with Bill C-55 and the marine protected areas.

We have a tanker ban off the northern part of the west coast. Most people think that the entire west side of B.C. is coastal, but it is not. Just a little over a third of the west side of the province of British Columbia has access to the coast. The rest of it is in Alaska. We would have to go through Alaska in order to get some things done if we wanted to use the coastline in that case. We have a very small area to use along the British Columbia coast to begin with, and now a significant part of that coast is denied access, depending on what one is trying to ship or move.

I might be a bit cynical, but this is what the folks on the west coast and on the north coast who we met at committee are thinking. The folks up north want to be able to continue to hunt whales. One of the marine protected areas that the government is considering putting in place is right in the mouth of the Mackenzie River and the delta where it comes in. That happens to be an area of shallow water where the belugas come in. It is a safe place for the Inuit hunters to go. They go there every year to hunt belugas. If it becomes a marine protected area to protect the belugas, which seems to be a noble cause, it would exempt the Inuit from harvesting in that area. They would have to try and find those belugas somewhere else in order to maintain their traditional hunt. That is a problem for the first nations people there.

Are we going to create marine protected areas in Canada that do not actually meet the international standard of what is expected of us with respect to marine protected areas, or are we going to have a made-in-Canada solution, forgo our international obligations and then do our best? I am not sure what the government's intentions are with respect to that. It would be great to see. However, we seem to have a lot more questions than we do answers, and the legislation is not particularly clear on some of these questions.

I will go back to the port in Prince Rupert. We met with the port authorities there. They are already very much concerned. Most people in Canada do not know that most of the container goods that we see going through the western part of Canada on their way east—and a ton of containers that come to the west coast come in through Prince Rupert, which has a great container ability—go by rail through Canada all the way down to Chicago. This is supplying goods from the Asia-Pacific marketplace into central North America as a distribution hub. It is an amazing facility. It is a very small community. It is a great provider of jobs. There are great economic opportunities there.

There was a proposal for an LNG terminal in Prince Rupert. We know what happened with the LNG proposal. That seems to have gone by the wayside. Given the fact that there will be a tanker ban, there is no way anybody would even consider moving forward with an LNG terminal in that area.

If I were the kind of person who wanted to be bitter and vindictive about making sure that the tanker ban held its way for all time, I would consider putting a marine protected area across the Dixon Entrance and across the Hecate Strait. This would pretty much mean that particular area, depending on the provisions that were put in place for the marine protected area, could shut down shipping altogether in those areas, or at least really restrict what one is able to do.

This again brings me back to my point. What is a marine protected area supposed to do? Is it supposed to protect the water? Is it supposed to protect the species living in the water? Is it supposed to protect the benthic area directly below the water column along the sea floor? These are all questions to which we do not have answers.

If we look at the sunlit zone, which is the area where the human eye can see sunlight at the top of a water column, there is not a whole lot of activity there. There are some fish species, some algae, and some plankton. However, all of the stuff is very much moving as currents move in and out. Does it make any sense to try and protect a wave while it is a-wave? It does not make any sense at all. These things are going to move around the ocean. Are we protecting that area? Some would say yes. Some would say no.

Are we protecting a rearing area for whales or other types of migratory species that use the water? Are they going to be birds, fish, aquatic mammals, or terrestrial animals, where a certain part of their life cycle relies on the marine environment? Are we adequately taking into consideration where those protections should be best placed?

Are we taking a look at the littoral zone, and are we going to protect it? Are we going protect the benthic zone? Are we going to shut down commercial fishing, for example? Are we going to be shutting down dragging or trawling along the bottom of the sea for fish species? That is maybe a good thing, but maybe it is not. I happen to believe that, in certain cases, if it is done in the right place, protections on the bottom of the sea floor are great. They are great for the groundfish that live there, especially if it is an area rich in groundfish that usually stay in that area. An area of refugia actually creates species all around it.

I will go back to one of my jobs as a park warden, which was to patrol the north boundary of Jasper National Park on horseback. Why I ever gave that job up in the glorious Rocky Mountains riding horses, to this day I do not understand. However, my job was to protect the park boundary from poachers. Where did everyone go hunting for trophy rams or bighorn sheep? Well, they would go hunting where the rams were. The rams were in the national park, because they understood the refugia, and they would go back into the park any time they felt threatened. They knew where the boundary was. It was an interesting thing to watch. That area of refugia continued to populate the sheep populations as they migrated out, which is the same thing with other species.

This is not necessarily bad policy, but it is not an effective one-size-fits-all policy. It is going to work well for some species of groundfish, but it is not going to do anything for some species of fish that might migrate through or that do not use the area on a regular basis. We have to ask the question of whether the marine protected area is in the right spot.

I have a lot of questions about this proposed legislation and what the consequences of it might be. I have highlighted the fact that the cod fishery, taking the protectionist approach, has not exactly worked if we are not taking a serious look at management. When we put things into that category of preservation, it becomes very difficult to do any management, because we have to get double approvals for everything.

Imagine if Parks Canada said we need to shoot grizzly bears, wolves, and mountain lions in order to protect caribou. It is not unfathomable that this might be a desperation policy at some point down the road, as growth of the wolf, grizzly bear, and mountain lion populations continues to explode in the eastern slopes region of Alberta. These animals are everywhere, so much so that, in some cases, we cannot find any ungulates anymore. Rather than stopping economic activity such as oil and gas exploration or forestry, we are going to shut those industries down and not do anything at all about predator control.

I do not see some of my colleagues from Atlantic Canada who were here earlier, but I know that a lot of them, even though they might not say it in front of a microphone, hear the same things that I hear. I have been there many times with fisheries, and they are asking for control of the seal population in order to allow the cod stocks to come back. However, imagine a situation where we create a marine protected area around some of the islands where grey seals or harbour seals rear their pups. It comes down to the point that someday somewhere, someone will say we have to have the courage to manage these populations and do what is right.

Imagine trying to manage predator control in a protected area where the needs of the wildlife are put before the needs of everybody else, a fishery, or whatever the case might be. I have news for members. It is romantic to think we have the ability to have these protected areas and that they can operate in isolation from the rest of the world, but that is not the case. The bill before us could seriously limit the ability of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other organizations to effectively manage wildlife populations and allow other economic activities to grow. Therefore, the bill should not be rushed through Parliament. It should be given every opportunity, which is why I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

“Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for the purpose of reconsidering all of the clauses.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by addressing the statement that we misrepresented the actual progress that has been made with regard to marine protected areas. Up until the last election, less than 1% of our oceans and marine ways were protected, despite the fact that we are five years into a 10-year commitment to get to a protection level of 10%. Our government has doubled down our efforts and now has reached a point of 7.75% protection, representing hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of new protection, which I know for a fact Canadians are proud of.

Also with regard to transparency, what we will see, not just in the changes to the Oceans Act in Bill C-55 but also in the changes in Bill C-68 to the Fisheries Act, and Bill C-69, is that our government is sticking to and increasing our commitment to provide transparency. In the Fisheries Act, for example, a registry is being created. This is to make sure Canadians have all the tools they need to understand what the government is doing so that they can hold us to account. It is also to make sure people who are doing projects, whether big or small, have certainty around timelines and the like. That is the kind of transparent work that our government continues to do on these important bills.

Bill C-68—Time Allocation Motion

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly recognize the importance of consultation with indigenous nations as we develop amendments to something as important to these communities, and to the people in these indigenous nations, as the Fisheries Act.

Two weeks ago, in my hon. colleague's province of British Columbia, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of four of those indigenous nations. I am proud that over 200 indigenous groups submitted suggestions and ideas for amendments to the Fisheries Act during the consultative process our department undertook.

Some of the essential elements of Bill C-68 are deliberately designed to enhance that nation-to-nation partnership with indigenous people. For example, we are proposing new provisions in the Fisheries Act that would require the minister to consider adverse effects that decisions made under the act may have on the rights of the indigenous people of Canada. As affirmed by section 35, the minister would be obligated to consider, when making decisions related to fish habitat protection and pollution prevention, provisions in the act related to the traditional knowledge of the indigenous people of Canada. There are provisions to protect the confidentiality of the traditional knowledge provided to the government, except under very specific circumstances. There are provisions that would enable the minister to establish advisory panels, which would obviously include representatives of indigenous nations.

We think the legislation would modernize the nation-to-nation relationship our government is seeking to have with indigenous nations, which begins with the recognition of rights. That is something my colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, have talked publicly and to the government about for many months. We think the legislation goes exactly in that direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very rich that the minister stands here today and talks about our first nations. We just had an incredible ceremony for the Tsilhqot'in Nation in my riding. He talks about Bill C-68, his ministry, and how he and other ministers are willing to engage with first nations. The Liberals have a lawsuit with one of the largest first nations in the province of British Columbia, the Lax Kw'alaams, specifically over Bill C-68, and the other bill, Bill C-55, the lack of consultation, of listening, and the first nations assertion that the government is taking its direction from foreign ownership third party groups.

I want to offer the minister another chance to clarify his comments. We are standing today because the government is shutting down debate, not allowing the 338 members of Parliament from all sides to stand and voice their concerns for Bill C-68. Indeed, those who have some serious issues like the Lax Kw'alaams have now launched a lawsuit against the government.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referenced owner/operator. As I said in my response to my colleague from Avalon, this policy has been an essential part of the economic opportunities afforded to coastal communities on the east coast in Atlantic Canada and in Quebec. We have been encouraged by representatives of fish harvesters from all provinces on the east coast to strengthen these measures. I hope the amendments we propose in Bill C-68 are part of that work.

With respect to the west coast, I, too, like our colleague from British Columbia, have met with representatives of fish harvesters on the west coast, including indigenous communities. They have talked to me about the importance of them gaining greater ownership of the instruments that will allow them to be much more in control of the economic development of their communities. It is certainly true of indigenous nations, and they have different rights to access the fish than perhaps others

However, I would be wide open to having a conversation with my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam, but also other colleagues from British Columbia, including those in my own caucus, about how some of the benefits of this policy could be applied to British Columbia. I do not pretend that it is as simple as installing those provisions directly in the legislation, but he talked about a consultative process. The legislation is deliberately designed to be permissive so should British Columbia and the industry there want to look at this kind of legislative instrument, the provisions in the bill would be there, and we would look forward to those conversations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say on the record parenthetically that I find the use of time allocation, as happening almost on a daily basis these days, to be quite shocking. I know that when in opposition, the Liberal Party promised not to use time allocation. It seems things were so bad under the previous government that being less bad is good enough for the Liberals. I do not think that is good enough really. However, I cannot resist the opportunity to ask the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard a question about his quite excellent legislation.

I am glad Bill C-68 is before us. We need it desperately. However, is he open to an amendment on a particular section that I was pleased and surprised to see, which is the barring of taking cetaceans into captivity? Would the minister be open perhaps to adding language so the bill that is now stuck in the Senate, Bill S-203, could have key elements incorporated into Bill C-68, in other words not just capturing but keeping or importing?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;

and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, members are here to work on behalf of their constituents, and we will focus on the priorities that Canadians sent us here to focus on.

This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will begin debate at second reading stage of Bill C-71 on firearms. We will resume this debate next Monday and Tuesday.

Tuesday we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-68, the fisheries legislation. Also, following question period that day, we will deal with the ways and means motion on the budget tabled earlier this morning. Finally, on Thursday, we will commence report stage and third reading of Bill S-5, on vaping.

I would like to remind colleagues that we will have Friday sitting hours for Holy Thursday next week.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Minister, in those bills that were put forward in Parliament, Bill C-68 and Bill C-69, the language around free, prior, and informed consent was specifically not in there. This is language you're committing to that will be committed to in law. That would actually change even the work that's been done in Bill C-68 and Bill C-69. If you're committed to the implementation and putting that language in, why is that language of free, prior, and informed consent not in Bill C-68 and not in Bill C-69?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The pleasure is truly mine. I want to assure you of that.

I also want to join you, Chair, in saying how glad I am, Todd, to see you back in good health. I said to Todd that it's a hell of a way to lose weight. I thought your comments in the House of Commons yesterday, Todd, were very moving. It reminds us that we shouldn't wait for a difficult circumstance like that to befall a colleague and a friend to say and think those things. It's a chance for me to say publicly that I'm glad you're back and that you're healthy.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to, as you said, in very technical complicated terms, appear here on our departmental estimates.

As you can see, I am accompanied by the following members of DFO's senior management team and the Canadian Coast Guard: the deputy minister, Catherine Blewett, the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Jeffery Hutchinson, and the interim chief financial officer, Pablo Sobrino.

It's a pleasure to be here before your committee.

Allow me to take a quick moment to thank each and every one of you—the staff who work for our colleagues, members of Parliament, and also the committee staff—for what I think was terrific work done collectively on Bill C-55 on marine protection. I would note that a number of amendments in the end were incorporated in the legislation. I think it strengthened the bill, and I thank you for that important work.

I also want to thank you again, Mr. Chair, for the work you did in reviewing the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act. Obviously, at the department we work closely with members of the committee, with provinces and territories, indigenous groups, and with industry stakeholders across the country to ensure that the concerns and points of view that were expressed were taken into account as we drafted our amendments to the Fisheries Act. Many of our proposed changes or amendments in Bill C-68 are obviously inspired by the study, Mr. Chair, that your committee did and the recommendations that accompanied it. Again—and I've said it publicly in the House—I hope and believe that the bill will be referred to the committee in the near future. I look forward, as do my colleagues in the department, to working with all of you if you have suggestions on how we can strengthen the legislation. We're obviously interested in that conversation, and I look forward to those exchanges as well.

Mr. Chair, today we're here to discuss our departmental spending plans. I will provide you and your colleagues with a brief financial overview of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard's 2017-18 supplementary estimates (C) and 2018-19 interim estimates before speaking to a few recent accomplishments of the department.

The supplementary estimates (C) provide the resources for the department to launch, for example, the fisheries and aquaculture clean technology adoption program. You'll remember that this was part of budget 2017, in which there was an element for aquaculture and for the department to address the last ice area within Canadian Arctic waters.

In terms of our 2018-19 interim estimates, our initial ask to start the fiscal year amounts to $577.4 million, which represents three-twelfths of our approved reference levels.

I am pleased to say that our 2018-19 funding includes the following: $263.5 million in new funding for the oceans protection plan; new funding over a quarter of a billion dollars for the department to continue carrying out its mandate; $58 million in new funding for the Atlantic Fisheries Fund for this fiscal year; and $41.5 million for the renewal and expansion of indigenous fisheries programs and initiatives.

There's no question that the demands on our oceans and marine resources are higher than ever before. Our government's historic investment of $1.5 billion in the oceans protection plan will make our coasts cleaner, safer, and better protected. In collaboration with other departments and indigenous and coastal communities, we're well on our way to developing a safer marine transportation system that strengthens Canada's economy while preserving and restoring marine ecosystems.

Through the oceans protection plan and in all of our work, our government recognizes the importance of indigenous peoples in protecting our coast, addressing climate change, and the designation of new marine protected areas.

I am very pleased to say that, by the end of 2017, Canada had surpassed its domestic goal under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to protect 5% of marine and coastal areas. In fact, we have protected 7.75% of marine and coastal areas.

This achievement was made possible thanks to sound science and to sincere engagement with Canadians, indigenous groups, industry leaders, and environmental organizations that care passionately about Canada's oceans.

Our nation's prosperity depends on making sure that the benefits of a growing economy are felt by more and more people, with good, well-paying jobs for middle-class Canadians.

This is especially important to the more than 76,000 Canadians working in commercial fishing, aquaculture, and processing jobs, many in coastal and indigenous communities. I don't have to tell the people around this table, who in many cases—perhaps with the exception of Mr. Miller—represent communities along Canada's coast and remote communities.

Often the fishery and related industries are in fact the only or the most significant source of economic activity in these communities. That's why our government is focused, for example, on the Atlantic fisheries fund, which I announced in 2017. It's designed to encourage new and innovative ways to harvest, process, and deliver high-quality, sustainably sourced fish and seafood.

Other provinces, notably the Province of Quebec, have reached out to me about the possibility of negotiating a similar fund for their fishing industries. Obviously, it will be a pleasure for me to work with Minister Lessard and our colleagues from Quebec on that initiative. We remain open to looking at every possible opportunity on all of Canada's coasts that would in fact improve economic opportunities for Canadians.

I will stop here, Mr. Chair.

In your opening remarks, you said that my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, will be tabling the Main Estimates in April to ensure better alignment with Budget 2018.

This important change in timing is a key pillar of his estimates reform, which will ensure that we, as parliamentarians, are well-positioned to study documents that will be substantially more meaningful, relevant, and pertinent.

It would be a great pleasure to come back to talk to you about the Main Estimates at that time, if you wish.

Mr. Chair, with that, I wanted to leave some time for questions. I assume all of your questions will be very specific, technical questions related to supplementary estimates (C), and if that's the case, I said to Pablo that I would be happy to ask him or the deputy minister or the commissioner to answer. I will respond to the compliments that members will have with respect to my work as minister or the government's overall work, and those very technical questions on spending I could perhaps leave to the CFO or others.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Impact Assessment Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people, and thank them for their generosity. Meegwetch.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Davenport for splitting time with me. The circumstances are not those that led me to feel particularly relieved or happy, but I am grateful for the civility of giving me 10 minutes. Otherwise, I would not be able to speak at all, because of the egregious use of time allocation on an omnibus bill. I never expected to see omnibus bills with time allocation after the change in government.

This is three bills put together: the National Energy Board Act changed, the Navigation Protection Act changed, and the Environmental Assessment Act overhauled. The fourth piece that had been running along in tandem, through the great judgment of the Minister of Fisheries, is Bill C-68. It stands on its own, and it is an excellent piece of legislation.

However, with the time available to me, I am going to be able to speak only to the impact assessment piece of this omnibus bill, which I am afraid falls below any standard of acceptability and should trouble deeply any Liberal who stood in this place and voted against Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012. We stood together with every single Liberal MP and every single New Democrat against the destruction of decades of environmental law. How that process has been captured by the same mentality, values, and principles that led to Harper destroying these acts, so we now have a repackaged version of those same principles of eroding environmental assessment, is something that the Liberal caucus should try to figure out. I hope it will lead to changes in committee.

With the time available to me, I will quickly review my background in environmental law. I happen to be an environmental lawyer. It is an even weirder fluke that when I was 22 years old and a waitress and cook, I participated in the very first environmental assessment panel hearing in Canadian history, in 1976. It was in Cape Breton. It was about the Wreck Cove hydroelectric plant. I have participated in dozens since.

Ten years after that, I was in the office of the Minister of the Environment. I was actually a senior policy adviser, the person who took the quest from Environment Canada from a wonderful senior civil servant named Ray Robinson, who headed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in those days, and we took to the Privy Council Office the request to legislate. Up until then, we had been operating under a guidelines order that required environmental reviews, but it was a bit uncertain in its full rubric. Some people thought it was a guideline and therefore was not binding. We got permission to legislate. Subsequently, I resigned from my job with the Minister of the Environment when the minister violated the environmental assessment review process guidelines in approving dams without permits.

This is just to say that I did not only recently come upon my commitment to proper and thorough environmental assessment in Canada. It is non-partisan and goes back decades.

Now, what happened under Bill C-38 was the repeal of our environmental assessment process and its replacement with a rather bogus process. We can compare Bill C-69 to the bogus process in Bill C-38 in 2012, or we can compare it to what is needed. It is all well and good for the federal Liberals to say to us today that they did a lot of consultation. It is true. There were 21 cities with public hearings, and over 1,000 people showed up to a superb expert panel on environmental assessment. The question before us today is why their recommendations were ignored.

I am going to read, one at a time, the recommendations that were ignored. There are many. In previous debate in this place, when the bill was first put forward, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment claimed I was wrong in my assertion, which I think is fact, that the environmental assessment expert panel was ignored. It is really important to understand the point of environmental assessment. I will just go back a bit and say that this is one of the pieces of Harper-think that have survived into Liberal-think.

Environmental assessment has never been about a green light or a red light, yes or no, or whether the project goes ahead or not. It is primarily a tool for good planning. In the entire history from 1976 to 2012, when Harper repealed the act, only two projects were ever given a red light. I will say that again. From 1976 to 2012, with the thousands of environmental reviews that were done, only twice did a federal-provincial environmental review panel say that a project was so damaging that it could not be mitigated and the panel had to say no.

It has primarily been about studying a process thoroughly, studying a project thoroughly, and deciding that we can mitigate the damage if only the proponent would agree to better scrubbers or change the location slightly. In the course of the review process, many projects were improved, the damages mitigated and reduced, and in the end a much better project was accepted. This has never been primarily about how to get to yes or no faster. That is what Harper thought, and apparently that thought process has somehow infested some ongoing decision-making process within government. An environmental assessment is about good planning.

Until 2012, the Environmental Assessment Act said that the purpose was to get in and review a project, “as early as is practicable in the planning stages of the project and before irrevocable decisions are made”

Let me quote what we heard from the expert panel on what an environmental assessment should contain. It did agree that it should be called “impact assessment”. That is one piece they could claim.

Page 5 states that the impact assessment authority “should be established as a quasi-judicial tribunal empowered to undertake a full range of facilitation and dispute-resolution processes.” This has been ignored. Members have heard about the expert panel the government sent around the country, with a thousand people participating and with 800 submissions. Their recommendation was not to have ad hoc panels where people are pulled in, with different projects always having different panels, but to develop expertise through a quasi-judicial tribunal. Ironically, this was also the advice from the red book Liberal platform of 1993.

The second point is to have time limits and cost controls that reflect the specific circumstances of each project, not the current one-size-fits-all approach, which was an innovation under Bill C-38. This is a key point. Projects need to be reviewed whether they are big or small. The effect of Bill C-38, which Harper brought in, is this. The previous era had seen approximately 4,000 projects a year reviewed, most of them with paper-screening exercises that did not take much time. After Bill C-38, the number shrank from 4,000 a year to fewer than 100 a year. The Liberals have gone with perpetuating the fewer than 100 a year. This is how they have done it, by ignoring this advice.

The panel stated that there should be a review when there are federal interests, and that “federal interests include, at a minimum, federal lands, federal funding and federal government as proponent, as well as”, and then there is a list: species at risk, fish, marine plants, migratory birds, indigenous issues, and so on.

This piece of legislation ignores anything except the project list. That was an innovation of Bill C-38. There are no law list reviews requiring that if the navigable waters act or the Fisheries Act requires a permit from the minister there be a review, and no requirement that when federal money is spent there be a review. That is the advice the government got from its expert panel, which it ignored.

The expert panel also said clearly that there should be no role at all for the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or the offshore petroleum boards. It pointed out that “the federal system prior to 2012 had decades of experience with delegating final decision-making to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission...and the [NEB]” without those agencies meddling in the environmental assessment.

What is happening under Bill C-69 is like a shell game. We are told it is one independent agency, except that when it is reviewing pipelines the panel must be comprised of people who are sitting members of the NEB, now called the Canadian energy regulator. If they are reviewing offshore petroleum operations in Atlantic Canada, the panel members must come from the offshore petroleum boards, which by legislation are required to expand offshore oil. It is an embedded conflict of interest in the legislation.

The atrocities continue, with respect to indigenous rights. How is it that the Minister of Fisheries can put before us Bill C-68, which has strong language to protect indigenous rights? Bill C-68, in section 2.3, “Rights of Indigenous peoples of Canada”, makes it clear that the act cannot derogate from indigenous rights. Section 2.4 states that it is the duty of the minister when making a decision to “consider any adverse effects” on the rights of indigenous peoples.

This piece of over-discretionary political masquerading of environmental assessment in Bill C-69 merely states that “the impact that the designated project may have on any Indigenous group” is a factor to be considered. As a former litigator, I can tell members that the courts do not regard indigenous rights as a factor to be considered as protecting indigenous rights.

This bill gets an F. At committee, let us please get it to a C+.

[Brent Parker]

I'll add to that.

I have a different perspective on Bill C-69. As you heard from the first panel that was here, Department of Justice and CIRNA are leading the overarching approach with the principles guiding the governments writ large, but the way in which that has tangibly played out in a very real initiative is with the introduction of Bill C-68 and also Bill C-69.

with the principles guiding the governments writ large but the way in which that has tangibly played out in a very real initiative is with the introduction of Bill C-68 and also Bill C-69.

A number of different acts were all introduced as a comprehensive package. We worked on it very closely with NRCan, DFO, and Transport. There was horizontal coordination, a team, a lot of the elements that you highlighted in trying to ensure there's both an action plan that put it onto the table but that also is supporting it in the strategy going forward. There's enabling legislation but implementation and policy support will follow in a coordinated manner.

[Robert Lamirande, Director General, Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I would also like to acknowledge our presence on the unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples.

I would like to thank the chair, vice-chairs, and committee members for the invitation to speak to you today to support your study of Bill C-262 and for the opportunity to elaborate on the suite of programs, policies, and legislative initiatives under the purview of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard that have made and will continue to make advances toward reconciliation with the indigenous peoples of Canada.

I am Robert Lamirande, the director of indigenous affairs and reconciliation directorate at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I would like to introduce my colleague, Marc Sanderson, acting director general, national strategies of the Canadian Coast Guard.

My directorate is responsible for providing policy advice on indigenous fishing and other matters toward advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples; negotiating and implementing program, treaty, and other constructive agreements on Fisheries and Oceans management; promoting fisheries related economic opportunities through programming to support indigenous capacity to fish safely and effectively; and building relationships and partnerships with indigenous communities through effective engagements, which we do hand in hand with the national strategies directorate of the Canadian Coast Guard.

We do this work because the sustainable use of the fishery resource, the protection of fish and fish habitat, the conservation and management of our oceans, and the safety of those on the water are a priority for the department—a priority held in common with indigenous communities.

And because Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard have presence in many coastal and rural communities across Canada, we have worked hard with indigenous communities and groups to collaborate and partner on all aspects of our operations. These relationships are comprehensive, complex and dynamic. They are adaptive to the capacity of each indigenous community or group to participate in economic opportunities and in co-management.

We are now on a clearer path to a renewed, nation-to-nation, crown-Inuit, and government-to-government relationship, one that builds on the relationships and partnerships developed over the past decades. These relationships with indigenous communities are the touchpoints through which we will collaborate to articulate what reconciliation means in the context of Minister LeBlanc's portfolio.

This includes those changes to programs, policies, and laws necessary to demonstrate that we are moving to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This commitment to reconciliation is guided by the principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. These principles, as you know, are themselves guided by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples.

I want to highlight for you how Fisheries and Oceans Canada has worked in collaboration and in partnership with many indigenous communities. Through the innovative and successful Atlantic and Pacific integrated commercial fisheries initiatives, Fisheries and Oceans Canada provides commercial fisheries access, business management capacity, and training needed to build self-sustaining, indigenous-owned and operated commercial fishing enterprises.

Through the aboriginal fisheries strategy and the aboriginal aquatic resource and oceans management programs, Fisheries and Oceans Canada helps indigenous groups acquire the scientific and technical capacity, means, and training to meaningfully participate in fisheries, oceans, and habitat collaborative management, including employing aboriginal fisheries guardians.

Budget 2017, a year ago, has taken these programs a major step forward, investing over $250 million over five years and $62 million ongoing annually. This includes ongoing funding for the Atlantic and Pacific integrated fisheries initiatives and northern expansion through a new northern integrated commercial fisheries initiative.

As we embark on the renewal of these programs, we are also undertaking a review to see where and how these programs can be strengthened in collaboration with the National Indigenous Fisheries Institute, a technical organization established in May 2017 whose board is made up of experts from national and regional indigenous organizations. The institute is enabling the co-development, co-design, and co-delivery of our indigenous programs.

However, working collaboratively and in partnership with indigenous communities is not focused solely on fisheries.

The Oceans Protection Plan, for example, is enabling indigenous communities and groups to meaningfully participate and partner in Canada's marine safety system, from waterways management to emergency preparedness and response.

We are working with indigenous communities and partners to create a new indigenous chapter of the Coast Guard Auxiliary in British Columbia. And discussions with other indigenous communities are exploring opportunities to establish additional auxiliary units in the Arctic and in British Columbia to bolster responses to emergencies and pollution incidents.

A national strategy on abandoned and wrecked vessels will build an inventory of the problem vessels, and a risk assessment methodology. Indigenous communities will be invited to participate in these assessments and to help prioritize interventions.

Through engagement with indigenous communities in British Columbia, the Canadian Coast Guard has launched an environmental response officer recruitment program. We are also nearing completion of a process to recruit Inuit students for a new rescue boat station in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut.

Ongoing training programs across the country will provide participants with the knowledge, skills, and hands-on experience to enable them to play a greater role in marine safety in their communities in a safe and effective manner.

As you know, reconciliation also means self-determination of indigenous communities often but not exclusively through negotiation and implementation of treaties. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is participating in over 40 active rights reconciliation self-government negotiations with indigenous communities on fisheries and oceans matters.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is also making systemic changes to better enable collaborative partnerships with indigenous peoples, and we have done so through important proposed legislative changes: Bill C-55, An act to amend the Oceans Act ; Bill C-64, An act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels; and Bill C-68, An act to amend the Fisheries Act. Proposed amendments to the Oceans Act will strengthen, among other things, the ability to designate marine protected areas on an interim basis and, as with all marine protected area designations, partnering with indigenous communities is the foundation for the successful protection of these unique aquatic ecosystems.

The proposed Wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act, under the Minister of Transport, with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, would enable, among other things, agreements with a government, council, or other entity authorized to act on behalf of an indigenous group to exercise the powers and perform certain duties or functions of the minister.

The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act and the programs enabled by these changes include certain amendments specifically aimed at advancing reconciliation, including new tools to enhance opportunities for partnering with indigenous peoples in the conservation and protection of fish, fish habitats, and shorelines; and amended provisions to enable agreements with indigenous governing bodies and any body, including a co-management body, established under a land claims agreement, to further the purpose of the act. Such agreements could enable the declaration of the law of an indigenous governing body, including a bylaw, to be equivalent in effect to a regulation under the Fisheries Act.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard have advanced and will continue to advance reconciliation through concrete changes to programs, operational practices, and legislative frameworks that give voice to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As we move forward we will seize on the relationships and partnerships we have with indigenous communities to articulate renewed nation-to-nation relationships with indigenous peoples within the mandates of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Thank you.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

We had two bills tabled just recently, Bill C-68 and Bill C-69. The government has committed to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Certainly, there are parts of those bills that talk to indigenous rights, but there was no language included in terms of the UN declaration, so despite the government's commitment to indigenous peoples in Canada, it tabled two important pieces of legislation that made no mention of these concepts, other than perhaps that they are going to aspire to getting this.

Can you tell me why was that missing from those pieces of legislation? I would presume that the justice department reviews these pieces of legislation in terms of these overarching commitments by the government.

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, I must say I am astonished that the minister is so unfamiliar with the content of the bill she is attempting to rush through the House on this day. This is an omnibus bill, but it is not, as she claims, a bill that brings together four pieces of legislation. If she were aware, Bill C-68 is the Fisheries Act and it was not lumped together with Bill C-69, which is an omnibus bill and requires proper study. It is offensive. If it were good legislation, I might get behind rushing it through, but it is decidedly not good legislation and it must not be rushed. Bill C-68 is good legislation and the fisheries minister, lucky for him, does not have to wear the rest of this package of hybrid Harper-Liberal strategy that will make a mess of our environmental assessment.

Here is some gender analysis on this day that we are expecting a gender budget. For an omnibus bill including legislation that would normally be presented by the male Minister of Transport and another piece of legislation that would normally be presented by the male Minister of Natural Resources, why does she suppose they picked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to wear the whole thing? They are eroding her political capital by having an omnibus bill where she is the only target.

Bill C-68—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Impact Assessment Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue something. Bill C-69 is an omnibus bill changing three bills. I should stress that Bill C-68 on the Fisheries Act gets it exactly right and keeps the promise to restore lost protections. Bill C-69 does not.

What we keep hearing from the government side is that there was listening and there was a great deal of consultation. There was a great deal of consultation, but there was not much listening. We had two high-powered expert panels convened by the Liberal government, one on environmental assessment and one on the National Energy Board. Both expert panels gave detailed advice for what should take place.

There was no formal response, ever, to those high-powered, and I imagine high-priced, efforts that had cross-country hearings. Their recommendations were not heeded at all in what we have here. I could detail the many ways in which they were not.

Perhaps the hon. member could explain to me why the government commissioned two expert panels to tour the country and provide advice, if it intended to give it no weight whatsoever in drafting new legislation.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I wish to acknowledge that we are all on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples. On this historic day, the Government of Canada has committed to developing a new recognition and implementation of an indigenous rights framework.

I stand here today to address this chamber in support of Bill C-69, a legislative initiative that is a key priority of our government. We are keeping our promise to Canadians. We are putting in place better rules to protect our environment and build a stronger economy. After 14 months of hearing from provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, companies, environmental groups, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we are making real changes.

Bill C-69 aims to restore public trust in how the federal government makes decisions about major projects, such as mines, pipelines, and hydro dams. These better rules are designed to protect our environment while improving investor confidence, strengthening our economy, and creating good middle-class jobs. They will also make the Canadian energy and resource sectors more competitive. We are working to build on Canada's strong economic growth and historic job numbers.

Today we are keeping our promise to Canadians. We are putting in place better rules to protect our environment and build a stronger economy. After 14 months of hearing from provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, companies, environmental groups, and Canadians across the country, we are making real changes. The legislation we are introducing today aims to restore public trust in how the federal government makes decisions about major projects, like mines, pipelines, and hydro dams. These better rules are designed to protect our environment while improving investor confidence, strengthening our economy and creating good middle-class jobs. They will also make the Canadian energy and resource sectors more competitive. We are working to build on Canada’s strong economic growth and historic job numbers.

Our government understands the importance of the resource sector to our economy. Over $500 billion in major resource projects are planned across Canada over the next decade. These projects would mean tens of thousands of well-paying jobs across the country and provide an economic boost for nearby communities and our economy as a whole, but we cannot get there without better rules to guide our decisions around resource development. Unfortunately, the Harper government gutted environmental protections and made changes to the environmental assessment process that eroded public trust in how decisions are made.

Unfortunately, the Harper government gutted environmental protections and made changes to the environmental assessment process that eroded public trust in how decisions are made.

Canadians became concerned that project approvals were based on politics rather than robust science. There were concerns that changes were putting our fish, waterways, and communities at risk and we are not taking into account the climate impacts of projects. They were also concerned that the views of communities and indigenous peoples were not being heard. This lack of trust resulted in polarization and paralysis. Projects stalled and resource development became a lightning rod for public opposition and court challenges. Billions of dollars of investment were put in jeopardy, raising concerns for investors and shareholders. Ironically, the Harper government's changes made it a lot more challenging for good projects to get built. Weaker rules hurt both our environment and our economy.

Since we formed government, we have worked very hard to restore public trust while providing certainty to business. In January 2016, we introduced interim principles to guide how our government would review proposed major projects until we could put better rules in place. We knew we could not keep approving projects under the Harper government's flawed rules, but we also knew that we could not put our economic development on hold for two years while we worked on the new rules.

Our recent principles were the first part of delivering on one of our high priority platform commitments: to review and fix Canada's environmental assessment process and to restore confidence in how decisions about resource development are made. Those interim principles made it clear that decisions would be based on robust science, evidence, and indigenous traditional knowledge; that we would listen to the views of Canadians and communities that could be affected by proposed projects; that indigenous peoples would be consulted in a meaningful and respectful manner; that decisions would take into account the climate impacts of proposed projects; and that no project already under review would be sent back to the starting line.

Our government did not stop at the interim principles. In November 2016, we also announced a $1.5-billion oceans protection plan. Through that historic investment we are creating a world-class marine safety system while protecting our coastlines and clean waters for generations to come. Then in the summer of 2016, after a year of negotiations with provinces, territories, and indigenous leaders, we announced the first ever made-in-Canada climate plan. Our national climate plan builds on the actions of provinces and territories and provides a clear road map as to how we will cut carbon pollution and move together toward a cleaner future.

Using the interim principles, and building on the foundations of our oceans protection plan and climate action plan, we moved forward with approving new major projects worth billions of dollars to the Canadian economy and thousands of good middle-class jobs across the country. These projects are clearly in the national interest, and because of the steps we have taken to date, we are confident they can be built in a way that protects our environment and communities. We are committed to seeing them built.

The better rules outlined in Bill C-69 build on improvements we have already made and on the feedback that we received from Canadians over the last 14 months. We heard loud and clear that Canadians want a modern environmental and regulatory system that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures that good projects go ahead in a timely way to create new jobs and economic opportunities for the middle class. We heard from investors and project proponents that they want a clear, predictable, and timely process. That is what our better rules provide.

First, these better rules will rebuild trust. When it comes to resource development, we cannot get very far if people do not trust the rules and the way governments make decisions. The same goes for companies. They need to know what is expected of them from the start and that the process will be predictable, timely, and evidence-based. That is why our top priority with the changes we are proposing is increasing transparency and rebuilding trust.

To rebuild trust, we will increase public participation in project reviews so that Canadians can help shape the project design, provide input into the project plan, and assess the science used to make decisions. We will create a new early engagement phase, to ensure that indigenous peoples’ rights are recognized and respected, and that we work in partnership from the outset; and that communities will have their voices heard from the start.

We will create a single agency, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, that will lead all impact assessments for major projects, to ensure the approach is consistent and efficient.

The impact assessment agency of Canada will work with and draw expertise from other bodies, such as the Canadian energy regulator, which is currently the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and offshore boards, but the final decision on major projects will rest with me or with the federal cabinet, because our government is ultimately accountable to Canadians for the decisions we make in the national interest.

Second, decisions on projects will be transparent and guided by robust science, evidence, and indigenous traditional knowledge. We will also increase Canadians' access to the science and evidence behind project proposals and make easy-to-understand summaries of decisions publicly available.

Third, we are expanding project reviews to assess what matters to Canadians. The new impact assessment will look at a project's potential impacts, not just on the environment but also its health, social, gender, and economic impacts over the long term as well as the impacts on indigenous peoples. We will also evaluate projects against our environmental obligations and national climate plan.

Fourth, we will advance Canada's commitment to reconciliation and get to better project decisions by recognizing indigenous rights and working in partnership from the start. We will make it mandatory to consider indigenous traditional knowledge alongside science and other evidence. Indigenous jurisdictions would have greater opportunities to exercise powers and duties under the new impact assessment act, and we would increase the funding available to support indigenous participation and capacity development relating to assessing and monitoring the impacts of projects.

Fifth, project reviews will be completed through a timely and predictable process. The new early planning and engagement phase would provide clarity on what is required and more certainty about the process ahead. Shorter legislated timelines for the project review phase will be rigorously managed to keep the process on track. A more efficient and predictable process will lead to more timely decisions.

Finally, we will streamline the process and coordinate with the provinces and territories to reduce red tape for companies and avoid duplicating efforts in reviewing proposed projects. Our goal is one project, one review.

We have also announced that we are seeking Canadians' feedback on how we will change the project list regulations that define the types of projects that would be subject to impact assessment. The project list aims to make it easier for everyone to understand when the new rules will apply, providing certainty that both Canadians and companies need and expect.

The Harper government's project list was a grab bag of projects developed in a non-transparent way, and based on political motives, not the public interest. The project list is meant to identify the types of projects that pose significant risks to the environment in areas that fall under federal jurisdiction. These projects will always require federal review.

We want to hear from Canadians on the criteria to revise the project list to ensure that they are more robust and effective and that they include criteria such as environmental objectives and standards for clean air, water and climate change.

The new rules outlined in Bill C-69 must undergo a thorough review in the House and the Senate until they come into effect. Existing laws and interim principles for project reviews will continue to apply to projects under review.

In terms of changes to other statutes as part of our government's regulatory review, we are also proposing changes to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, and in Bill C-68, to the Fisheries Act, as was announced by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard last week. These changes would better protect waterways, fish, and fish habitat.

The Canadian Navigable Waters Act will restore navigation protection for every navigable waterway in Canada. Changes to the Fisheries Act will add important new safeguards for our fisheries, including measures to rebuild damaged fish stocks and restore degraded habitat, ensuring that our fisheries and environment are protected for future generations.

Of course, none of these proposed changes mean much without providing the extra capacity needed to deliver on our commitments. That is why we are investing up to $1 billion over five years to support the proposed changes to impact assessments and the Canadian energy regulator; increased scientific capacity in federal departments and agencies; changes required to protect water, fish, and navigation; and increased indigenous and public participation.

I am extremely proud today that we are delivering on one of our major campaign promises. I want to thank Canadians from coast to coast to coast for all of their valuable input which will help ensure better rules to make our environment and grow the economy.

We know that the changes we are announcing today in Bill C-69 will not satisfy everyone. People who tend to distrust business and want no project to go ahead will say we are doing too little to protect our environment. Those who want every project to go ahead whatever the environmental cost will say we are doing too little to support resource development. However, the better rules we are announcing today in Bill C-69 reflect what we have heard overwhelmingly and consistently from Canadians over the past year and a half.

Canadians want a modern environmental and regulatory system that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures good projects can go ahead, which creates middle-class jobs and grows our economy. Canadians understand that better rules will make us more competitive, not less. Canadians understand that the environment and the economy go together.

Fisheries Act

[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.

[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, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to speak to Bill C-68 and its amendment to the Fisheries Act, especially given the opportunity I have had for the past two years to serve on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I want to take a moment to salute all of my colleagues on that committee, because all of them have demonstrated deep concern for the health of our fisheries and the communities that rely on them. We could have different views on what should be done or how it should be done, but the collegial approach to our deliberations has produced recommendations that will stand the test of time. In fact, all of them in one way or another are reflected in this legislation.

I also particularly want to salute our friend and colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, who may be watching, bored to tears, as he is on the mend from a significant health scare. We certainly look forward to getting him back into the saddle again.

A year ago this month, our committee tabled in the House its sixth report, titled “Review of Changes Made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act: Enhancing the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat and the Management of Canadian Fisheries”. The study was prompted by ongoing concern from a broad range of stakeholders about decisions made by the previous government that, to many, had the effect of stripping habitat protections from 98% of Canada's lakes, rivers, and streams.

Coincidentally, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, on which I also sit, examined the changes the previous government had made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Again, most stakeholders reacted to those changes with concern, in the belief that various works could have taken place without environmental reviews.

Throughout these studies, efforts were made to understand the reasons behind the changes made by the Harper government. We felt it was important to ensure that, where appropriate, measures that improved processes while preserving safeguards were maintained in the interest of modernizing the oldest legislation in Canada.

However, our review did shed light on a couple of critical issues.

One of the notable changes made to the act in 2012 was that of focusing its protections on the productivity of fish that are part of a commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fishery, or fish that support such a fishery, rather than on all fish and fish habitat, as was previously the case.

In addition, prior to the 2012 legislative changes, the act contained prohibitions against killing fish by any means other than fishing, and against carrying on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, a prohibition commonly known as HADD. In 2012, those two provisions were replaced with a single new prohibition against carrying on “any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery”.

As a term, “serious harm” struck many as being very subjective. The committee heard from witnesses who said that it created confusion, leading to uneven application of the regulations at best, or at worst possibly allowing damaging activities to take place.

The 2012 amendments to the Fisheries Act removed the protection for fish habitat from subsection 35(1). Witnesses submitted that this amendment shifted the focus from fish habitat protection to fisheries protection, which offered substantially less attention to fish habitat. Many believed that applying the term “serious harm” only to fish could allow the disruption and non-permanent alteration of habitat.

According to Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders, a research scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, B.C., the requirement for the death of fish to be deemed “serious harm” created a problem. Dr. Miller-Saunders noted that fish that are stressed in one environment could become physiologically compromised but might not immediately die within the habitat where the initial stress took place. Their compromised state could leave them unable to adapt or thrive as they move to new habitats, disconnecting the original stress from the weakening or death of fish.

Dr. Miller-Saunders noted that the 2012 changes might not protect fish stocks that were once abundant but became degraded to the point that they were unable to support a commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fishery. In essence, the fear was that once a stock was no longer useful to humans, it might be left on its own, unprotected.

Our committee heard a great deal about the degradation of the DFO's ability to do the necessary science and to monitor compliance with protection regulations. Thus, when the time came to make changes, yes, indeed a lot of the science would not necessarily have been there.

The hon. member for Beauséjour, Canada's fisheries minister, reported that the number of fish habitat protection officers had been reduced from 63 to 16 in the previous government's final years. He noted that from 2010 to 2015, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' budget was cut by $35 million, which led to the loss of almost 1,100 positions, including over 300 scientists.

Remediating that situation started two years ago, with the government's initiative to hire 135 scientists to boost the DFO's capacity, and the allocation of an additional $197 million to the department in budget 2016.

Let us go now to Bill C-68 itself. After extensive consultations, and with the standing committee's recommendations, this legislation establishes new criteria for decision-making, one of the key ones being an increased reliance on scientific information, but information bolstered by the traditional knowledge of our indigenous peoples and the experience of our fishing communities. This decision-making would look beyond the commercial factors that appeared to dominate the previous government's approach, to include the social and cultural impacts of the choices we make.

Clearly, this means that we have to talk among ourselves more often: scientists, academics, advocacy organizations, and the people whose livelihood and quality of life depend on our fisheries.

Just as we have to have broad-based processes above the waterline, we have to maintain care and concern beneath the water, care and concern beyond the commercial considerations, to entire ecosystems. Every fish, every plant needs to matter.

A potent tool at the disposal of the DFO and the minister in their decision-making is the application of the precautionary principle, understanding that we may never know conclusively what is behind an emerging situation in the ecosystem, and appreciating that an emergency usually cannot wait for the science to lead us to the fine points of a response. The precautionary principle mandates action.

The government's response, even before Bill C-68, was Bill C-55, which would give the minister the authority to designate interim marine protected areas, allowing time for science to reconcile evidence that we have a potential crisis on our hands.

Of course, Bill C-68 itself would restore protections that were perceived to have been either lost or seriously weakened by the changes in 2012. No longer will we focus on the subjective matter of “serious harm to fish”. No longer will our care and concern extend only to fish that are useful to humans. No longer will we be uncertain about how and where habitats will be protected.

Prohibitions are restored against causing the death of fish other than by fishing, and the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat. In our standing committee's study, we often heard that we simply cannot consider the impact of each individual project or activity but have to consider the cumulative effects of industrial activities, public works, and recreational projects such as private docks on fish, their habitat, and the freedom to navigate.

At the same time, our committee considered the need to avoid causing undue delay to important municipal works, for example by requiring full environmental reviews for repairs to existing infrastructure. Bill C-68 introduces measures that allow the minister to issue permits for designated project types and to establish standards and codes of practice to provide proponents with more certainty in the planning, scheduling, and implementation of their projects.

I have selected only the issues that stood out in the notes I took at our standing committee's hearings, but many other important and positive aspects of Bill C-68 will undoubtedly be covered by my colleagues as this debate continues.

There is a lot to celebrate in this legislation, and as much as I am privileged to have made a contribution to its creation, I believe that once the process is done, this whole House will be justifiably proud of its passage, because so many of us care so much about the future of our lakes, rivers, streams, and oceans, and all the creatures and people they serve.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the floor for her work on this, and for bringing in both Bill C-68 and Bill C-69.

My riding of Kootenay—Columbia was Conservative for 21 years. Quite frankly, it was the Conservative government's attack on environmental legislation, including the Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Act, and the Environmental Assessment Act, that led to the change in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia.

I was a regional manager with Fish and Wildlife for southeastern B.C. from 2002 to 2009. At the time, there was a DFO office in the Kootenays that had four staff working in it. They showed me a staffing chart. They were supposed to go to 12 staff, but by the time 2015 came along, there was not one DFO staff left in the Kootenays.

Would the member support re-establishing a DFO office in Kootenay—Columbia in the southeastern part of B.C.?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the easy answer to my colleague's question is that yes, this will cause negative problems. It will cost the consumers, who are Canadian taxpayers, more for the product, in this case hydro.

The changes in 2012 were done for a specific reason. They were done to still have a process where approvals could get done properly, but there were timelines put on them. I always point people who are opposed to anything and everything, and in this case, the people behind this bill, to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. For 25 years the government, environmentalists, and other organizations held up businesses who were willing to invest in the project. Really, all that the government was saying in 2012 was to set a reasonable timeline and tell the companies yes or no, not maybe. Tell them one way or the other, and if the answer is no, they will accept that. Then they will take their money and invest it in other Canadian projects, which is only good for jobs, business, and the economy. That is what this is about. However, Bill C-68 reverses that and makes it longer and more onerous.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today, but I am not pleased about the topic or Bill C-68. This is a large bill that would have huge impacts on fisheries and fish stocks across Canada. The bill would also have wide-ranging implications for economic development, farmers, rural municipalities, and more, and I will get into that in detail.

As a relatively new member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I was not on the committee when it studied the 2012 changes that were made to the Fisheries Act. However, I would like to focus a good chunk of my comments on the testimony that was heard during those hearings.

The committee started its study in October 2016 and presented a report to the House in February 2017. The committee heard from 50 different witnesses during the study and received over 188 submitted briefing notes. It was a very comprehensive study and I think would have been a useful tool for the government to use when it was drafting this proposed legislation. The study directly looked at the changes that the previous government made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act, which were changes that significantly improved the Fisheries Act.

One of the significant changes made in 2012 was a shift away from what is commonly referred to as “HADD”, which stands for harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. It is contained within proposed subsection 35(1) of the bill, where it states:

No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

Essentially this means that any sort of development that could be seen to be harmful, altering, disrupting or destroying fish habitats, would be subject to an immense amount of review and red tape and could be stopped or prohibited. Furthermore, it is unclear what constitutes fish habitat. It was found that DFO and others played fast and loose with this term, and used a broad definition to apply this to waterways that really had no impact on fish stocks. This system was ineffective, a nightmare for development, and had no measurable success in protecting fish populations.

Of the things that were affected the most by this, I have some on my farms. They are waterways after a very heavy rain or first thing in the spring runoff, but other than that, they are dry and able to be farmed the rest of the year. However, the same things applied to them as what would apply to, say, the St. Lawrence River, which is totally ridiculous.

The change in 2012 brought in a much simpler and effective definition to ensure that fish were protected but that reasonable projects could still move forward. This new definition was as follows:

No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.

This definition is much more effective and provides certainty and clarity for developers, farmers, fishermen, first nations, and more.

In the report from the fisheries and oceans committee, the third recommendation stated that:

Any revision of the Fisheries Act should review and refine the previous definition of HADD due to the previous definition’s vulnerability to being applied in an inconsistent manner and the limiting effect it had on government agencies in their management of fisheries and habitats in the interest of fish productivity.

Therefore, I am slightly confused as to why we are now seeing what looks to be a return to HADD in Bill C-68. It does not make any sense. The testimony is there in black and white, and that testimony, of course, came from witnesses.

For example, as I mentioned, the committee heard from 50 different witnesses and received more than 188 submitted briefing notes. Not one single individual or organization was able to present the committee with any scientific or legal proof of harm that was a result of the changes made in 2012. We all know that, at the time, the environmental associations and others threw their hands up in the air, yelled, screamed, and kicked that these changes would be the death of all fish in Canada, but the proof is just not there. Six years later, I think our fish are doing pretty good. However, it is my distinct fear that the government is simply returning to the pre-2012 provisions just to appease these groups.

The return of HADD in Bill C-68 would undoubtedly be used as a way for opponents of projects to prevent development projects from moving forward. Just look at the pipeline that was discussed in depth yesterday. By returning to this system, a system that had proven to be ineffective, the government is playing right into the wheelhouse of those who seek to halt, delay, and do whatever they can to stop all forms of development in the country. That has to end.

One impact that is not always clear to many is the impact farmers face due to the Fisheries Act, and it will be 10 times worse under a system that uses the HADD definition. When farmers are looking to expand or develop their farmland they can get caught up in reviews of their projects under the Fisheries Act. A return to HADD would make the lives of farmers much more difficult.

When testifying before the committee, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated that prior to 2012 there were lengthy bureaucratic applications for permitting and authorizations, but the 2012 changes drastically improved the timeliness and cost of conducting regular maintenance and improvement activities to their farms. CFA expanded on this by stating that it is the CFA's position that a complete revert—which we are getting from the government now—to reinstate all provisions of the Fisheries Act as they were, would be unproductive, would re-establish the same problems for farmers, and would provide little improvement. That goes back to the example I used of intermittent waterways on our farms being treated like they were fish habitat.

What is ironic about the attack on farmers in the bill is that today is Canada Agriculture Day. As we should be doing every day, let us recognize the important work that farmers do and ensure that their voices are heard. Farmers do not want to return to a pre-2012 system. In fact, no one but those that oppose development do. The government should stop catering to these interest groups and abandon this plan.

The reason these changes came about was members of Parliament from all parties came together for the rural caucus to come up with ways to improve things overall, whether it was agriculture, rural health care, or whatever. The changes that came from the bill in 2012 came out of discussions there. Just because the government has groups of people who are against anything going on in the country, to appease them, to try to get their vote, it is saying, “Okay, we'll give you what you want.” That is not the way to do business or to govern.

It is not just farmers that have concerns though. The Canadian Electricity Association said that Bill C-68 is “one step forward but two steps back”. It went on to state:

CEA is particularly concerned that the government has chosen to return to pre-2012 provisions of the Fisheries Act that address “activity other than fishing that results in the death of fish, and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat”. In practical terms, this means that virtually any action, without prior authorization, could be construed as being in contravention of this Act. Consequently, the reinstatement of these measures will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities, and unduly delay and/or discourage investment in energy projects that directly support Canada’s clean growth agenda and realize its climate change objectives.

To make a long story short, this is bad news for Canadian development, and will have no positive impact on the protection of fish populations in Canada. I urge the government to revisit the return of HADD and amend the legislation to ensure that economic development and environmental protections go hand in hand and not head to head.

I sit on the committee with my hon. colleague, the member for Avalon. I know he has the best interests of fish at heart, but I would ask him to consider agriculture in this. The examples are these intermittent waterways that are put back in the way they were before, which is just not right. It is a direct attack on agriculture and does not do anything for the environment, fish, or any other thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this last question was about self-reporting and the belief that it was actually removed. If members would look at subclause 25(4) of Bill C-68, it states:

Every person shall without delay notify an inspector, a fishery officer, a fishery guardian or an authority prescribed by the regulations of the death of fish that is not authorized under this Act

That is still self-reporting. It is still there. It has not changed. Therefore, how can the hon. member opposite try to say that was restored or changed?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that my hon. colleague mentioned technical briefings to understand Bill C-68. I assure him that I did not need a technical briefing. I was so relieved to read legislation that made sense again.

When I was in this House in 2012, when Bill C-38 was tabled at first reading, it was over 440 pages long and changed 70 different pieces of legislation. We were never offered a technical briefing. There was a rush to push it through. Former fisheries ministers, two former Conservative fisheries ministers and two former Liberal fisheries ministers, ministers Fraser, Siddon, Dhaliwal, and Anderson, were united in saying that what was happening was the gutting of the Fisheries Act.

I would ask my hon. colleague to reflect that perhaps this legislation coming forward to re-establish the protection of fish habitat and to re-establish fundamental notions that we protect our fisheries and fish, regardless of whether they are destined for human consumption, would be an improvement in Canada's ability to steward the natural environment. We, as Canadians, hold an obligation to take care of these living marine resources far better than we have in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

I would first like to extend my best wishes to the fisheries minister. It is good to see him here in the chamber as he perseveres through the health challenges of life. Even though we may exchange barbs and strong differences at times, at the beginning and end of each day, we are all Canadians with families, friends, and loved ones. I wish him well.

I would also be remiss if I did not also wish my good friend and colleague, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, a speedy recovery. We all know his determination will drive his recovery as he continues to advocate for his constituents and all Canadians.

Much of what is in Bill C-68 is aimed at one objective for the Liberal government, the perpetuation of the idea of lost protections. I propose that this idea is based on false and unsubstantiated claims, and I will speak today to how those claims have not been proven or substantiated.

The Fisheries Act is one of the oldest federal statutes in Canada dating back almost 100 years. Amendments have been made to the act from time to time, and whether the act actually included a purposes section or not, the overall principle of the act has been to manage and protect our fisheries.

As we know, Canada is a vast country with coastlines and fisheries on three different oceans covering a multitude of species, some sedentary and others very migratory. Canada also has a vast array of fisheries, varying from small local clam beds to fisheries for cod and salmon extending over hundreds of thousands of square kilometres. Managing all those fisheries is complicated by the very fact that some of the most sought after species are very migratory. Some fulfill their life cycle over vast expanses of oceans, while others migrate from freshwater to marine environments and back again.

Over the years, federal governments have taken different strategies on managing Canada's fisheries. Some management strategies have been successful, while the failure of others has been self-evident. What has been consistent is that successive governments have attempted to maintain the health of our fisheries so they are all conserved and managed in ways that allow perpetual value to be drawn from our oceans and fisheries resources. Our prosperity as Canadians depends on the sustainable management of these resources to support fishers, harvesters, and the communities that depend on them for the benefits of their subsistence.

Changes made to the Fisheries Act in 2012 and amendments in 2013 were developed to address long-standing weaknesses evidenced by the inconsistent interpretation and application of the pre-2012 Fisheries Act. In studying the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans heard from Canadians that the pre-2012 act required amendments to modernize it and make it more relevant and functional for those who live under the act every day.

Input from Ducks Unlimited Canada stated that under the previous Fisheries Act, many of its conservation projects and activities that sought Fisheries Act changes to restore, enhance, or manage wetland habitat were deemed to be “fish habitat destruction” by DFO. In other words, these projects that could have improved our habitat and fisheries were not allowed under the pre-2012 definition. As such, the effect of the previous Fisheries Act limited this conservation organization's ability to “deliver new conservation programming designed to protect and conserve habitat that is essential to waterfowl and other wetland-dependent species, including fish.”

This is the reality of the previous prohibitions of the Fisheries Act. These are prohibitions that the government is seeking to restore in the bill. What we are presented with in Bill C-68 are proposals to amend the Fisheries Act, including some seeking to restore the previous elements of the act that had proven to be dysfunctional. The bill has a significant number of proposals. In fact, there are 58 pages of proposed amendments, not including the 13 pages of explanatory notes and revisions.

In poring over the bill over the past week, many questions have come up, which will likely take time to be answered by the ministry, by the minister, or eventually by the courts.

As parliamentarians, we are provided technical briefings on bills that come before the House. It is a privilege that we do not take lightly. These technical briefings are meant to provide us as legislators answers to some of the difficult questions that are hidden within draft legislation.

I must say that after attending a technical briefing on Bill C-68 earlier this week, there are more questions than answers received. I have heard from stakeholders, Canadians who live under the Fisheries Act across Canada, who also have a significant number of questions, and as a result, reasonable concerns related to the bill.

How will habitat banks be established? There seem to be no parameters. Much of this is left to be within regulations that no one has seen any drafting of at this point. How will those habitat banks be monitored and validated? Again, there is nothing specific in the proposed act, and it is all left open to what it might be down the road. There are many questions but so few answers.

What class of projects will qualify as designated projects, meaning which ones will or will not have prior approval? There are no answers.

What is the definition of an “ecologically significant” area? I found the definition within Bill C-68 to be very vague. There was no specific direction as to what might or might not be considered an ecologically significant area. Would this be an area that may hold a few goldfish or would it be a key component to a spawning area for some of our precious salmon stocks? There are no definitions within the act.

What information factored into ministerial decisions will the minister be able to withhold from Canadians with a direct interest in the decisions? We see portions of the proposed act that say information to the minister may be held confidential and not released. What about the proponent whose project is held up and has no access to know what information or what area of information might be withheld from them?

Who will be able to establish laws over fisheries and oceans? How will consistency be ensured to ensure that a patchwork of legal regimes is not created across Canada? There were provisions in the previous act where laws regarding fisheries were shared with the provinces under agreements. We also see this now as a possibility with first nations. We welcome the involvement of first nations in the management of our fisheries, but with the multitude of different first nations across the country, there are questions from people who may potentially be impacted by this as to how they would monitor these new laws that might be in place. Who would oversee them in general?

Again, on the new laws that may come into place, who will enforce laws of the various jurisdictions that the bill proposes to recognize? We do not know whether that would be under the laws of Canada, under the laws of the provinces, or under the laws of other bodies that may be created to create laws, which the bill would enable them to do.

Again, how will those laws be applied and enforced beyond Canada's 200-mile economic zone to the entire continental shelf? I do not know if anyone has addressed that point in the debate on Bill C-68. It proposes that the Fisheries Act apply to all waters on the continental shelf, beyond Canada's 200-mile economic zone. These are the types of questions that may only be determined through committee work and the further development of regulations, but this may eventually end up in the courts, and it could be years down the road before we have answers.

There are many proposals in this bill related to indigenous communities and their participation in the management and conservation of fisheries. The Conservative Party of Canada's policy declaration clearly supports the economic sustainability of indigenous communities. I believe that the fisheries could be a driving factor in sustaining those indigenous communities. However, the ambiguity of this bill's provisions for indigenous communities is not helpful. In fact, it may be counterproductive.

First nations, harvesters, and processors all need certainty of access to the resource to retain investments and to remain competitive in what is an ever more competitive world market. I have been meeting with stakeholders over the past few months, and their biggest concern is certainty of access to the market, but more so, certainty of access to the product, whether it is fish products, finfish fisheries, aquaculture, or other types.

Already I am hearing from indigenous organizations that work in fisheries that this bill is deficient in defining the essential details of what it proposes for indigenous communities. It is safe to say that the government's response will be something along the lines of, “Just trust us.” We have seen what the government does when we agree to just trust it. It has a Prime Minister who has been found guilty of breaking Canadian law four times, yet there are no consequences.

A significant number of indigenous governments and fisheries organizations have valid reasons for doubting the sincerity of the government. I will share with the House one example of how the government undermined the trust of indigenous peoples in the review process that led to this bill.

In 2016, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard directed the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to undertake a study to review the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act and to table a report early in 2017. As such, a motion was passed to undertake a study and to table the report by January 30, 2017. Once the study was under way, it became very clear that the deadline imposed by the government was insufficient for the task at hand or for the process of consultation created by the government. The minister's office even put out a news release stating that feedback from public consultations would be provided to the committee for consideration in its report. That news release was revised a second and third time, but the original said that all feedback would be provided to the committee.

Opposition members of the committee tried repeatedly to pass motions for an extension of the study deadline. The government members on the committee eventually agreed to add four meetings, or two weeks, to the deadline. Indigenous fishery stakeholders were invited to participate in consultation sessions and to submit briefs for the committee's review of the Fisheries Act. In fact, through a participant funding program alone, 54 different indigenous groups received funding to assist in the preparation of their submissions to the committee. These 54 groups received over $900,000 to produce their briefs. What happened to their input? How did the government treat their consultations? Sadly, due to the government's refusal to extend the committee study deadline, these 54 briefs arrived after the committee held its last meeting for the study on December 12, 2016.

This is how the government has undermined the relationship with indigenous communities in the review process that led up to this bill. Indigenous Canadians deserve better. The government has repeatedly stated that this bill is necessary to restore so-called lost protections. I have asked the government for proof of harm resulting from these so-called lost protections numerous times. In response to one particular Order Paper question, the government indicated that it could not produce any proof, because the department did not have the resources or the mandate to make that determination. There we have it. This bill is meant to restore something the government cannot produce any proof of.

The minister made claims of face-to-face consultations when he appeared at the committee on November 2, 2016, yet an Order Paper question response, dated March 22, 2017, months after the minister stated that he was having face-to-face consultations, contradicted this, stating that no face-to-face consultations had taken place. So much for consultation, transparency, and accountability, a trend we see with the Liberal government.

Why should Canadians, indigenous or non-indigenous, trust the government's motivations in this bill? The proposed alternative measure section states:

No admission, confession or statement accepting responsibility for a given act or omission made by an alleged offender as a condition of being dealt with by alternative measures is admissible in evidence against them in any civil or criminal proceedings.

This is an absolute disconnect with accountability. The minister or ministerial staff do not have to disclose information or consequences to proponents. This is a case of a law being implemented with no consequences for breaking the law. Tie this to the fact that the Prime Minister has been found guilty of breaking the law on four counts, yet there are no consequences laid out in the law.

I also have concerns about the establishment of advisory panels, which would be remunerated and paid expenses. This sounds like typical Liberalism: creating additional layers of bureaucracy with no stipulations developed regarding membership, frequency and location of meetings, remuneration amounts, or any of the usual measures put in place to avoid runaway spending and lack of accountability.

Proposed subsection 8(1) of the bill sets out the establishment of fees for quotas, and proposed section 14 establishes the setting out of fees for conferral. In other words, more fees would be passed on to permit or authorization holders. Proposed section 14 would also create the ability to have fees for regulatory processes, with no parameters given as to who may be charged and how much. Proponents should open their wallets, because the government wants to empty them before anyone starts.

There are significant sections in the 2012 revisions to the act that gave the minister the ability to designate ecologically significant areas. This section has been retained. Many pieces of the 2012 legislation have been retained in this act. However, it will take more time to flesh them out and see what was done in 2012 that has been retained and is recognized as good work.

Sections 4.1 to 4.3 of the 2012 revisions provide the legal framework to guide future agreements with provinces to further the purposes of the act. They also allow the Governor in Council to declare that certain provisions of the act or its regulations do not apply in a province if a federal-provincial agreement provides that a provincial law is equivalent to the provisions of the federal regulations. This segment is retained in Bill C-68 and would be further extended to situations where there is an agreement with a recognized indigenous governing body.

The standing committee also heard from the Mining Association of Canada on the changes made to the act in 2012. I quote from Justyna Laurie-Lean, of the Mining Association, who said that the changes in 2012 have, “in practice, broadened the circumstances in which the section 35 prohibitions apply and increased the circumstances in which an authorization and offsets are required.”

These are only some examples of why I say that claims of lost protections are false and unsubstantiated. Many of the recommendations of the standing committee have been implemented. One of them, recommendation no. 3, was that the original definition of HAAD be revised before being reinserted.

As members can see, there are many more questions about this bill. I look forward to questions from my colleagues and to furthering this document in committee.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on Bill C-68 today to talk about the changes to the Fisheries Act.

People are probably wondering why a prairie boy from Manitoba is getting up to talk about fisheries. I want to remind everyone here that I am the proud representative of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, which is home to Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba, the Winnipeg River, Lake St. Martin, and the communities around them.

I represent over 1,000 commercial fishers, fishing families that make their living off that freshwater fishery. Lake Winnipeg is a three-season fishery. Fishers are on the ice in the winter, spring, and fall. Those families depend on the fishery. There are 23 small craft harbours on Lake Winnipeg alone. This is a great natural resource that deserves protection.

That is why Conservatives, I in particular, support protecting fish habitat and we support protecting the commercial fishery and the recreational fishery, which are also important to my riding. People come from all over the world to enjoy catching trophy walleye and northern pike. Some of the best channel catfishing in the world takes place in the north Red River in my riding. We are quite proud of the area. It is a fishery that we want to protect.

I have grave concerns with what the Liberal government is proposing. The Liberals have gone back to the future, to the old days when it was going to use a stick to hammer users of the land, hammer communities, to hammer down and whack-a-mole, so to say, any farmer, any municipality that was trying to do any improvement or developments.

The Liberals are also going to penalize clean energy like hydroelectric power. In my almost 15 years as a parliamentarian we have been dealing with the impact on protected fish habitat of doing hydroelectric generation in the development of those dams and the impact of federal regulations on them.

It is a stick here rather than a carrot. When the Conservatives were in government, we were proud to work with stakeholders, recreational fishers and commercial fishers. We were proud to work alongside municipalities to adopt best practices and to provide the enhancement dollars needed to protect fish habitat. We saw the greatest benefits using a carrot rather than a stick to reward good behaviour, to enhance fishery protection, and to protect natural ecosystems. That generated results.

The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard announced $284 million for enforcement, for putting more fisheries and oceans inspectors out across the Prairies to tell municipalities they cannot do this, to stop farmers from draining their flooded fields, and to try to protect some fish habitat in the bottom of a ditch.

That did not work back in the nineties. It did not work in the early 2000s, and that is why the Conservative government put those enforcement officers where they were needed the most, where we saw overfishing, where we saw destruction of habitat, especially in British Columbia, where they enforced the legislation the way it should have been enforced, not by harassing municipalities, farmers, and other resource users.

We do not need more bureaucratic red tape. What we need is a government that understands the needs of all stakeholders and that wants to work together collaboratively to provide the best habitat and the best environment to protect our fishery.

The Liberals may have introduced more dollars for bureaucratic red tape but they cut spending from existing habitat protection programs. The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa and others in our caucus worked long and hard to bring about the recreational fish habitat protection program, a program that provided dollars to little wildlife organizations to protect habitat, mainly for angling, and a lot of it happened in our little lakes and estuaries along the bigger waterways. That program benefited both the commercial fishery and the aboriginal fishery. They were able to capitalize on the increased fish stocks and the habitat protection that happened, the natural groins going into our lakes, rivers, and oceans that allow that nutrient load to be soaked up through the marshlands and the swamp.

The Liberal government killed the wetland conservation program, which was really important, not just from the standpoint of fish habitat protection and protecting the habitat for upland game birds and wetland game birds like geese, ducks, and prairie chickens, but it also provided dollars to encourage land-use owners to keep those wetlands, because they are not just the kidneys but the main reciprocals for aquifers across this country, to feed the groundwater and build it up. It is shameful that the government is virtue signalling, telling people it is going to do more to protect fish habitat, when, in actuality, it has killed programs, reduced the dollars available to enhance and protect fish habitat, and will be spending more taxpayers' dollars on more red tape and bureaucracy.

There would be regulations, but we do not know what those regulations are going to look like yet. We have a case where the government is going to place more rules and regulations on municipalities, rural communities, first nations, and resource users, including clean energy producers like hydroelectric power, and in Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, rather than adopt best practices. That is what Conservatives encouraged when we were in government. If municipalities were going to have to clean ditches, they would be told this is the time of year to do it and this is how to do it. They did not have to file a whole bunch of paperwork and hire engineers or environmental consultants to do these environmental assessments to get through the DFO checklist.

We also know that there are going to be more costs on municipalities. Every project they have to do would require them to do duplicative work and provide background documentation to the federal and provincial governments. There is no clarity in the bill as to how to get rid of the redundancy and all of the costs that are going to be borne by the municipalities, cash-strapped municipalities trying to serve their ratepayers.

I am an agriculture producer and my son-in-law is a grain farmer and one of the greatest things we deal with in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is flooding, excess precipitation, whether it is from snow runoff, excessive rain, or downstream flooding coming down the Red and Assiniboine Rivers from the United States and western Canada. We are at the bottom of the Lake Winnipeg basin, so we have to deal with this excess moisture. Farmers have to have the ability to drain their lands, do flood mitigation, and stop the harm and damage that happens.

We lived through this in the 1990s under the Chrétien government. When farmers tried to dig drains to draw the excess moisture away from their fields, which was drowning their crops and livelihoods and that could possibly bankrupt them, DFO was there to hammer them over the head with a big stick telling them they could not do it. They were fined and penalized and their projects were stopped. We have to adopt best practices to ensure that people can live on the land. I am scared that this is just another Liberal policy that is anti-farmer and anti-rural municipalities.

Finally, fishers have not asked for these changes. We already know that under the old system, we saw no results, the system the Liberals had back in the 1990s and early 2000s. We are going back to the future, where this is not resolved. My friend just said that there are no metrics on how to manage the actual result. If there are no results, then how would this benefit commercial fishers? How would this benefit aboriginal fishers and commercial fishers who enjoy angling and our waterways?

I ask the government to look at this in detail to ensure that it is not being overly bureaucratic, that it is not adding more red tape to an already very onerous system, and to ensure that rural Canadians and communities, whether they be aboriginal, agriculture producers, or fishers, are all able to benefit from this, and that extra costs are not being layered upon municipalities and provincial governments, so there can be drainage, flood mitigation, and flood protection unhampered by an overzealous federal government.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, the previous government, which the member was a part of, as was I, as members of the British Columbia caucus, saw great rollouts in the salmon foundation and other really great initiatives.

Then we see where politics enters the fray. When we have something that is understood to work, where we have volunteers on the ground making this thing work in British Columbia, Bill C-68 and the rationale behind Bill C-68 should be to fund it some more, because it is going to work so let us keep it going. We have seen the opposite happen with the Liberal government retracting funding for things that do work. It is a strange thing that is hard for British Columbians in general to understand.

Does the current government understand what recreational fishing is, and not just recreational fishing but preserving fish, and not so that nobody can ever fish again? Again, we are getting concerned with marine protected areas that actually protect areas from people fishing. That is not what our goal should be. Our goal should be to protect the fish so we can go fishing, not the opposite.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member's kids fish. That is a great example of why we want to keep fishing a viable thing in Canada and ensure we can have it for our future generations.

There is a key part to this conversation on Bill C-68 and that this great legislation will be a fix-all of all the problems. I have been reading multiple articles, but one article said that it was not a matter of legislation; it was a matter of implementation. If we need to fix our implementation to ensure that better results will ensue, we need to look a bit closer at what that would look like, rather than throw money at a completely different group, do something completely different, expecting to have a great result. Implementation is the issue here and we need to get to the bottom of how to implement a good process in Canada.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

First, I would like to highlight a comment made by my colleague from the Lower Mainland. He said that they wanted to make the act even better than it was before. I agree with him. It was pretty good. Back in 2012, the changes we made under our previous government were substantive.

Being the parliamentary outdoor caucus co-chair, we deal a lot with fishing, specifically recreational fishing. If people were lucky enough to get out last weekend to do some ice fishing, good for them. I did not have time. However, a lot of the time we have as families together, we to do exactly that.

However, it always seems a little disingenuous of the Liberals across the way when they cannot just say that they are doing something good for fisheries or they are doing something positive in Bill C-68 without giving us a shot. I would like to argue about that and defend our record.

We started a very substantive program, the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. We provided millions of dollars to basically local organizations to help people who were interested in seeing their own rivers and tributaries have a sustainable fishery for recreational fishers.

An article from 2015, which references the OFAH, a non-partisan group, states:

...the largest the largest non-profit charitable fish and wildlife conservation organization in Ontario, applauds the federal government’s decision to substantially increase the funding to the highly successful Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnership Program by providing an additional $15 million over two years.

When it mentions the federal government, it is referring to the Conservative government. This is just one announcement of many. The article goes on to say, “Ours was one of 96 projects from across Canada funded in the first year of the program.” We are talking about millions of dollars.

Some people think that just the odd person goes out and fishes on a weekend, but recreational fishing generates over $8 billion in annual economic activity. Frankly, we like the heritage part of it. Personally, I like going out to fish. However, the economic activity is something to support, and that is what we did in the previous government.

For the Liberals to say that Bill C-68 is a great saviour of recreational fishing in Canada is a stretch. A lot was done before. Can a lot be done? Absolutely. We are all concerned about the numbers of fish we see in certain tributaries off the west coast and east coast, and we want to do all we can. The Conservatives and Liberals can agree upon that. To say that the previous government did nothing is not true.

I want to speak a little about Bill C-68 and what it seeks to do. This is where the previous government had it right.

The Liberals always seem to want to increase bureaucracy. They are talking about funding different groups to study what is normally done by volunteers right now. A group in Valemount does a great job of establishing salmon and fish habitat in the rivers and doing what it can to build fish ladders, etc. A lot of it is done by volunteers. It is done by local people who are interested in fishing or who just want to see a healthy fish habitat in their local community of Valemount.

However, the Liberal government is now seeking to dump a bunch of money into funding different target and study groups, spending money on what is already being done by volunteers today. Again, I would question its logic of funding things that work quite well on their own right now, being driven by volunteers. Volunteers are a good thing. They are there because they are interested and want to make our rivers and streams a better place for fish. Again, why are the Liberals throwing more money at a situation, which does not always make it better?

We see a number of challenges with returning stocks, depending on the rivers. We see efforts needing to be made. With Bill C-68, the Liberal government is maybe trying to do something that is better, but building a bigger bureaucracy will not help one fish in one river, especially in my home province of British Columbia.

We support a strong conservation effort generally. I know the member who will speak after me is an avid fisherman. Most of our speakers grab a rod and reel, so we really do care about preserving the numbers, especially the returning fish. We absolutely support any efforts that would substantively increase the numbers returning and substantially help recreational fishers access particular lands.

One item of concern, which is not really related to Bill C-68 but does relate to recreational fishing in Canada, is marine protection areas that the current government is seeking to challenge for recreational fishers in the province of B.C.

The Liberals say that they are for fisheries, et cetera, but fisheries are meant to be used by the people. Any kind of restriction of that fishery is a concern for Conservative members on this side of the House. We are definitely concerned for the long-term future of recreational fishing, the history that it brings, and all the great experience families have. We fished a couple of years ago with my kids and they all caught a fish. It was a great experience. It was one of those memorable moments of our summer of 2016.

I wish the government would spend money where money is well-received, which is literally by the fish in streams. Back in the mid-1990s, I had the pleasure to work as a carpenter on a fish ladder in a fish creek area to the north of where I live. I saw the effort that went into that by people who cared about the stream and having a sustainable fishery. A lot of that effort was done by people who were volunteering and doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, not just for a paycheque.

The government should look at what works in the current system with conservation groups in British Columbia, my home province, in Atlantic Canada, and across the Prairies. In whatever province, there are people who like to fish. I would look at what is already working. The government should do more of that as opposed to trying to change the whole regime. I do not think that is a great way to spend money and it is not a great way to have a sustained fishery in our country.

The goal for everybody in here is to try to achieve a sustainable fishery so our kids, our grandkids, and our great-grandkids can fish well into the future. I know that is the goal of our members and I know it is the goal of some across the way. Again, we want to ensure that when the government spends taxpayer dollars, it spends them wisely, not just throwing dollars at a problem expecting them to stick, and not fix it.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important speech and his comments to the government which really does not listen.

I wonder if the member could comment on a statement by the Hon. Sergio Marchi from the Canadian Electricity Association. He is a previous Liberal cabinet minister. He said that Bill C-68 “represents one step forward but two steps back”. He went on to say:

In practical terms, this means that virtually any action, without prior authorization, could be construed as being in contravention of this Act...will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities, and unduly delay and/or discourage investment in energy projects that directly support Canada’s clean growth agenda and realize its climate change objectives.

Here we have a government that is not listening to the conservation side of things, first nations, and is not listening to the business side of things.

I wonder if the member could comment on how much work has to be done in committee to get the bill right.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in favour of Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence.

I would like to point out at the onset that we welcome the legislation to restore HADD, harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, to the act. We believe the Liberals should have done this immediately following the last federal election. There is no excuse for waiting.

Back in 2012, when the Conservative government gutted habitat protection from the act, 600 scientists and four former fisheries ministers, including two Conservatives, wrote to the government, stating that the changes in the act “would be a most unwise action, which would jeopardize many important fish stocks and the lakes, estuaries and rivers that support them.” They were right.

Over the past six years since these changes, the number of charges relating to a violation of the new section 35 under the weakened Fisheries Act legislation was zero. That means since 2012, there have been no charges. This, despite the fact that according to documents obtained by the Vancouver Sun in 2016, there were almost 1,900 complaints.

The vague language in the Conservative bill made it impossible to prove that a project would kill fish. Once habitat protections were restored to the act, we believed a thorough review to improve and modernize the Fisheries Act would engage Canadians, would be based on science, indigenous, and community knowledge, and the precautionary principle would have been undertaken, immediately after the 2015 election. That would have been the responsible thing to do, but here we are today, two years later, and finally we have this legislation.

The Fisheries Act is the key federal law for fish habitat protection and one of the key laws for marine biodiversity, and is an essential part of Canada's environmental safety net.

When announcing this legislation, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard said that he was open to amendments that would strengthen the bill. Therefore, we will be proposing amendments for consideration.

In Bill C-68, the definition of fish habitat is improved by referring to the water fish need for survival. However, the proposed amendments do not include explicit legal protection for environmental flows, the amount and type of water needed for fish and aquatic ecosystems to flourish.

What are environmental flows? The Brisbane Declaration provides the most widely accepted and applied definition. It says, “Environmental flows describe the quantity, timing, and quality of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems.” Another document, which discussed the Brisbane Declaration, stated, “environmental flows are essential for providing both direct and indirect benefits on which current and future generations rely.”

We heard from Linda Nowlan of West Coast Environmental Law about the importance of protecting environmental flows at fisheries committee. She testified:

....the act must protect key elements of fish habitat, including environmental flows. The Fisheries Act should provide a legally binding national flow standard to conserve the quantity, timing, and quality of water flows, also known as environmental flows.

CSAS scientists point to this issue as a deficiency in the current regime and say that a national standard is needed. The act should define conditions of flow alteration that constitute HADD based on science advice from the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat and used by DFO. Our brief contains more information on that. These are key changes, and if enacted, they will demonstrate the government's commitment to modernize the act.

I certainly agree with her, and on this would encourage the government to review West Coast Environmental Law Association's brief, “Habitat 2.0: A New Approach to Canada's Fisheries Act”, which includes an entire section on the importance of environmental flows.

One of the greatest disappointments of the legislation is that it would not remove the promotion of unsafe salmon farming practices and farmed salmon as a product from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans mandate, which in turn would lower impacts to wild salmon.

The government should be commended, however, for its commitment to the precautionary principle but it needs to show it with action.

The precautionary principle recognizes that in the absence of scientific certainty, conservation measures can and should be taken when there is a lack of knowledge of a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the environment and/or resources using the best available information. Under this principle, the trigger for government action to protect wild salmon is for science to demonstrate the existence of more than a minimal risk.

In my province of British Columbia, the evidence has been piling up. Graphic videos have surfaced of virus-laden bloody discharge from farmed salmon processors spewing directly into the ocean, where wild salmon migrate, blood which has been confirmed to be infected with the highly infectious virus piscine reovirus, or PRV.

CTV's W5 covered first nations' occupation of open-net salmon farms on the west coast, as the minister knows. It showed footage that contained graphic images of deformed farmed salmon and spoke about the disastrous effects of spreading disease, which, on an industrial scale, has an impact on our wild salmon population.

The documentary relayed the struggle of environmental activists to remove open-net salmon farms from wild salmon migration routes, highlighted how the farms were spreading dangerous viruses like PRV to wild salmon, and how their expansion had correlated to the dramatic decline of B.C.'s wild salmon fishery. Further, the documentary showed how the salmon farm industry colluded with government to deny what DFO had already confirmed, and that is that PRV is present in farmed salmon and is spreading to wild salmon.

In British Columbia, Gary Marty, the head scientist-veterinarian in charge of testing for disease also co-authors industry-boosting papers with Marine Harvest, the largest player in the B.C. industry.

Clearly, the federal government is in conflict because the department's mandate contains a provision to promote the salmon aquaculture industry. This goes against the Cohen Commission recommendations, specifically recommendation 3, which says, “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 the W5 documentary, the minister said that the government was committed to not expanding the industry until the science was settled. Even the department's own scientists have shown PRV and HSMI have entered the wild in the Pacific Ocean. How much more risk do we need to demonstrate before it takes action? Clearly, this industry presents more than a minimal risk. It is time to get these diseased-ridden farms off of the wild salmon migration routes.

Last week, I was copied on a letter to the Prime Minister from Chief Ernest Alfred of the 'Namgis First Nation. He wants the Prime Minister to know why they walked out of his town hall meeting in Nanaimo. It is an important message that everyone in government needs to hear. I would like to read it onto the record. It states:

Open letter to the Government of Canada

Dear Mr. [Prime Minister],

I've been asked to provide an explanation as to why our People walked out of the Town Hall in Nanaimo. Important statements needed to be made to your Government, and on behalf of our People, I'd like to strongly express our total frustration for not getting the chance to address our serious concerns.

Representatives of numerous First Nations can be clearly seen seated in front of the giant Canadian flag. I am dressed in a Peace Dance Headdress. One that we use to show our peaceful welcome, and resolve. I am also wearing a woven cedar bark tunic used in war. My peace headdress was quickly removed after we left the building. A symbolic act to show the total lack of respect being shown our Nations. In our territorial waters off the Broughton Archipelago, war has been declared against us, and the livelihoods of our coastal People.

168 days ago, we started Occupations on the fish farms in our territories. Our mission has been to peacefully record, report and protest the illegal practices in our waters. This mission is not a new one. Our People have been demanding the removal of these feedlots for over 30 years. Until now, we have never had an investigation into fish farm operations in this manner before. This self-regulated industry cannot be trusted with such important information. To be very frank, we have become more than frustrated and impatient. During the last 168 days, we've seen Fisheries Officers only twice. There is no problem with Piscine Reovirus, and that is because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been trying to hide it. [The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans] has teamed up with Marine Harvest and is fighting us in Court. It seems to me that the Government of Canada is attempting to reconcile with Norway but using our territory to do that. That is wrong! Our waters have never been surrendered, neither has our lands and our hereditary rights to oversee them.

The very status of fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago have come into serious question. A Norwegian Invasion has taken place in our waters and we have been forced to act to defend our investments in wild salmon. Eviction notices have been given, heavy RCMP involvement, arrests, B.C. Supreme Court proceedings, lost aquaculture industry status and reputation, Government reviews and investigations have had little or no influence on the reckless practices of the aquaculture industry, within our territories. In fact, the companies have restocked almost all the fish farms in our waters, against numerous warnings of serious consequences. We have had enough!

First Nations People, environmental groups, ecotourism organizations, and countless wild salmon economy contributors, from one end of the Province to the other, have shown us their full support and solidarity. Emails of support continue to pour in from all over the world. It seems as if British Columbia's fish farm industry has the world's attention. Meanwhile, I find it troubling, sad and embarrassing that we do not have the attention of the Federal Government of Canada. We are all saying the same thing.

Our wild salmon economy must be protected. The jobs that fish farms provide will still be there when the farms are moved to shore using closed containment technology. The economy that is so important to your government will return along the west coast. Fish farms do not create jobs - Fish farms have killed jobs along the coast!

The Federal Government must remove the open net fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago that have remained in the territories of 6 allied Nations without the consent or consultation for over 30 years. Immediate action is required if the Federal Government has any hopes of reconciliation in our territories.

With all due respect, stand with us!

Sincerely, Kwakwabalas

Chief Ernest Alfred

Swanson Island Occupation--'Namgis First Nation

Clearly, first nations have had enough. How can a government that purports a true nation-to-nation government relationship with first nations ignore these pleas for action? It is shameful. I implore the government to listen. No more studies, no more words, it is time for action. Please meet with them.

In 2017, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans studied the Fisheries Act. The New Democratic Party of Canada submitted recommendations to be incorporated into the Fisheries Act in order to fully modernize it. We recommend that in order to advance the nation-to-nation relationship with first nations, a new modernized fisheries act should: one, recognize indigenous rights in the act; two, move beyond delegation to work with first nations as full partners in fisheries management; three, recognize first nations' right to commercial trade and barter opportunities; four, include guiding principles of reconciliation that allow for and promote consent-based shared decision-making processes, for example, co-management or co-governance with first nations, and that have the flexibility to reconcile pre-existing sovereignty and first nations jurisdictional authority; five, expand factors considered in decision-making to include principles of sustainability, including ecological integrity and cultural sustainability, indigenous law, protection of inherent aboriginal rights, and the principles found in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and finally, ensure meaningful consultation, accommodation, and a consent-seeking process with first nations to build new regulations.

I hope those recommendations can be incorporated into Bill C-68 at the committee stage.

Another concern we have is that Bill C-68 gives the minister too much arbitrary power to authorize harmful development and industrial projects. I hope the government will consider amendments to update language in the bill to require decisions based on scientific evidence rather than the minister's opinion. Let us put science in and keep the politics out.

Martin Olszynski, an assistant professor in law at the University of Calgary, an expert in fishery law, agrees. He is quoted in DeSmog Canada as saying:

[T]here's an unfortunate use of "discretionary language, meaning that many components of the proposed legislation are basically up to the opinion of the minister—and requiring no specific evidence.

He went on to say:

For example, there's a section about implementing measures to manage the decline of fish stocks. The newly amended legislation includes the phrase “if the Minister is of the opinion that a fish stock that has declined to its limit reference point or that is below that point would be impacted.” That's not satisfactory for some.

In the same article, Brett Favaro, research scientist at the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University said:

I was hoping for a line that was not “if the minister is of the opinion that a fish stock has declined”, but “if the fish stock has declined as determined by the best available evidence then there should be measures in place aimed at rebuilding the stock.”

I am hopeful that we will be able to clean up some of these language issues at committee.

Bill C-68 also enacts the NDP recommendation to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on rebuilding. We recommended that in order to prioritize the protection of fish and fish habitat, a new modernized Fisheries Act should mandate rebuilding fish stocks when they have fallen below healthy levels and mandate a report annually to Parliament on the status of Canada's fish stocks and the management decisions made for stocks in critical zones.

In October 2017, Oceana Canada released a comprehensive review of the state of Canada's fisheries and the first annual assessment of how the government is managing them. The results were alarming. They revealed that Canadian fisheries are in serious trouble with only one-third of stocks considered healthy and 13% of those in critical condition. Further, 36% could not be determined due to insufficient information.

Although the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada reported 19 Canadian marine stocks in critical condition, Oceana found 26 in its analysis using the same sources of information. At the time of the report, Dr. Robert Rangeley, director of science, Oceana Canada stated, “What's more concerning is that there are only three plans in place to rebuild these 26 dangerously depleted populations."

It is shameful that Canada lags behind international standards of sustainable fisheries management. In countries where governments are legally obligated to rebuild, fish populations have bounced back. The numbers are impressive. Mandatory rebuilding in the United States has meant that in the last 20 years, 43 stocks have been rebuilt. Those stocks now generate on average 50% more revenue than when they were overfished.

This is the first time rebuilding of depleted fish stocks has been included in Canada's Fisheries Act; however, details on rebuilding will be in the regulations. This does concern me, but if those regulations are strong, with timelines and targets, and if they consider the impacts of climate change and species interactions, we will be on a path to success.

I will finish with a quote by Susanna Fuller from the Ecology Action Centre, who agrees. She stated:

We will continue to advocate that the regulations require timelines and targets as well as an ecosystem approach to rebuilding, taking into account impacts of climate change and species interactions.

I am—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand in the House and speak about the new Fisheries Act. I have had numerous interactions with the minister over my time in Parliament and I know his heart is in the right place. I do have some issues with the new Fisheries Act, however. My background is in fisheries. I have a graduate degree in fisheries biology and have been active in the field of fisheries science for over 20 years.

I also sat on the fisheries and oceans committee in the previous government and for two years of the current government and was involved in the hearings regarding the new Fisheries Act.

The Fisheries Act was written in 1868 and had three fundamental functions: the proper management and control of fisheries, the conservation and protection of fish, and the protection of fish habitat and the prevention of pollution. It was considered one of the strongest pieces of environmental legislation that Canada had, but it evolved over the years to such a point that when we were in government we had to make some changes to the old Fisheries Act.

The courts had determined that what was considered fish habitat was expanded and expanded so that almost all of Canada became fish habitat. Therefore, the act became quite unwieldily and these were some of the problems with the act. This is from a paper that I wrote in 2001 for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy where we looked at the current Fisheries Act. That was about the time when, what we called back home, the “fish cops” descended on prairie Canada and wanted to inspect every drainage ditch that every producer had put in place. The old Fisheries Act created a lot of uncertainty and created more uncertainty in the development process in prairie Canada, especially for rural communities. It was very unclear as to who had jurisdiction over natural resource development.

It had a wide scope. The definition of fish habitat under the old act included entire watersheds and extended the reach of the federal government to policy areas such as watershed and land use planning, areas where DFO clearly lacked expertise. Again, we are going back to this old regime. The program removed any regulatory discretion since all fish habitat was considered important. There was no ranking of significant fish habitat versus habitats that were less significant.

Canada is a very large place. In my province of Manitoba, for example, we have 100,000 lakes and no one can know everything about all these water bodies. I think Ontario has 250,000 lakes. We look at our coastlines, and the amount of fish habitat and fisheries water in Canada is absolutely enormous. Most of these fish populations are fairly poorly studied, and because of that, all water bodies are presumed to be fish habitat until proven otherwise.

Under the old act and again with the new act, the costs of compliance are not considered and for poorer rural municipalities the costs of compliance under the old act and probably under the new act will add a major burden. It also adds to the regulatory burden. The new act is layered on top of other regulations and I am going to return to this very important point later.

Ironically, the old Fisheries Act actually threatened existing conservation programs. There are many angling groups that work very hard to enhance and improve fish habitat. When a fish habitat is enhanced and improved, I guess that is an alteration. For example, in my constituency the walleye is considered the most valuable fish. One way to enhance walleye populations is to take trucks on the ice in the middle of winter, put gravel on the ice, and when the ice melts the gravel sinks and voila, there is a new walleye spawning area and it increases the population of walleye. One wonders if that is an alteration of fish habitat. I guess it is, but again, this will inhibit very important conservation programs. Again, we think that the new act would have these same attributes.

As I said in my question for the minister, in 2009 the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development conducted an audit under the old Fisheries Act. Again this is the regime we are going back to and this is what the auditor found in 2009:

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada cannot demonstrate that fish habitat is being adequately protected as the Fisheries Act requires. In the 23 years since the Habitat Policy was adopted, many parts of the Policy have been implemented only partially by Fisheries and Oceans Canada or not at all. The Department does not measure habitat loss or gain. It has limited information on the state of fish habitat across Canada—that is, on fish stocks, the amount and quality of fish habitat, contaminants in fish, and overall water quality. Fisheries and Oceans Canada still cannot determine the extent to which it is progressing toward the Policy’s long-term objective of a net gain in fish habitat.

The auditor went on to point out, “There has been little progress since 2001, when we last reported on this matter.” Therefore, the old way of doing business clearly failed.

We are going back to the old definition of fish habitat. Bill C-68 says that fish habitat means spawning grounds and any other areas, including “nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas, on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.”

The key word is “indirectly”. Ultimately, every drop of water, unless it is evapotranspired, flows into a smaller waterway, then to a larger waterway, and then eventually to an area where fish exist. The word “indirectly” means that basically all of Canada would become fish habitat. The lawn on Parliament Hill would be fish habitat. Therefore, clearly, such a wide definition of fish habitat would give great licence to fisheries officers or as we call them back home “fish cops” and could cause some grave difficulties for communities and municipalities.

This wide definition of fish habitat was emphasized over and over by witnesses at the fisheries and oceans committee, of which I was a part of. I sat through every single meeting during the revisions to the Fisheries Act that the government was proposing.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is the largest farm group in Canada. Mr. Ron Bonnett is the president and also an active farmer in Ontario, and these are his comments regarding the pre-2012 Fisheries Act:

The experience that many farmers had with the Fisheries Act, unfortunately, was not a positive one. It was characterized by lengthy bureaucratic applications for permitting and authorizations, and a focus on enforcement and compliance measures taken by officials....

Many farmers were then relieved when the changes that were made just a few years ago [by the Conservative government] drastically improved the timeliness and cost of conducting regular maintenance and improvement activities to their farms as well as lifting the threat of being deemed out of compliance.

Mr. Bonnett went on to point out:

There are also many accounts of inconsistency in enforcement, monitoring, and compliance across Canada with different empowered organizations, which led to a confusion and indiscriminate approaches to enforcement and implementation. Even at the individual level, there were different interpretations of the act based on one's familiarity with agriculture....

It is CFA's position that a complete revert to reinstate all provisions of the Fisheries Act as they were would be unproductive, would re-establish the same problems for farmers, and would provide little improvement in outcome for the protection and improvement of fish habitat. Human-made water bodies such as drainage ditches simply should not be treated as fish habitat.

He went on to talk about the Fisheries Act of 2012 that we put in. He said:

The current streamlined approach is working far better for all and efforts should continue this approach....

Overall, any changes to the current Fisheries Act [2012] should be considered as to how they will support outcomes-based conservation rather than a process-oriented approach.

This is a very important point. Here is a farmer saying that the old Fisheries Act actually inhibited conservation projects that the agriculture community wanted to implement on their own land. The old act, which sounds like the new proposed act, was process and process, and enforcement and enforcement. If we really want to improve fish habitat, then we should get out there and improve it, but it is going to be very problematic whether projects like these will be allowed to continue.

Again, regarding the changes that the Conservatives made, Mr. Bonnett said, “There are still some challenges when you have multiple jurisdictions working on that”, but again, he says the Conservatives Fisheries Act 2012 “has improved dramatically from what it was.”

Regarding the old act, Mr. Bonnett had this to say:

...we saw a lot of inconsistency, depending on the DFO office. One would come in and say, no, there's no problem, go ahead. Another one would come in and it would be a whole bureaucratic process that you had to go through. I guess that would be the caution about just putting HADD back in place without having some clear and enforceable guidelines that spell out how you treat a municipal drain.

It is important to talk about the issues agriculture had with the old Fisheries Act. I and many others on this side of the House represent agricultural communities. I saw first-hand, prior to my becoming a member of Parliament, the problems the act created.

What did we do to modify the former Fisheries Act? In the old Fisheries Act, there was equal consideration of all fish species and all fish habitat. We focused on the sustainability and ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries and on effective management of key threats, such as aquatic invasive species.

Going back to the old act, all projects were reviewed for any impacts on fish and fish habitat, and advice was provided on a project-by-project basis. We went to the effective management of projects linked to fisheries of commercial, recreational, and aboriginal importance through the adoption of tools.

In the old act, there was duplication and overlap between federal and provincial review processes. Our act, the Fisheries Act from 2012, relied on best place delivery and partnerships with third parties.

As I said, it goes back to the old way of doing business. Interestingly, in 1986, the department wrote “Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat”. I gather that it is still DFO's fish habitat policy. It is a great piece of work, done when Mr. Tom Siddon was the minister.

The 1986 fish habitat policy talks about the national application of the Fisheries Act. It says:

The policy applies to those habitats directly or indirectly supporting those fish stocks or populations that sustain commercial, recreational or Native fishing activities of benefit to Canadians.

That was the vernacular in 1986. Fisheries and Oceans Canada recognized its responsibility to protect and increase fish stocks. That first sentence is interesting. Our act, the Fisheries Act from 2012, is directly in line with the fish habitat policy in 1986, which talked about specific fisheries being protected through the protection of their habitat.

It goes on:

In addition, Fisheries and Oceans recognizes its responsibility to protect and increase fish stocks and their habitats that have either a demonstrated potential themselves to sustain fishing activities, or a demonstrated ecological support function for the fisheries resources. In accordance with this philosophy, the policy will not necessarily be applied to all places where fish are found in Canada, but it will be applied as required in support of fisheries resource conservation.

Our Fisheries Act of 2012 was actually in line with current departmental policy. This is why the act, as we wrote it, was well received by industry groups, rural communities, farm groups, angling groups across the country, and many others.

When we held our hearings at the fisheries committee, we asked a clear question of many of the witnesses who were obviously not in support of the Fisheries Act, 2012. We asked them if they could prove that there were any impacts on fish populations in Canada as a result of the changes made by the Fisheries Act, 2012. Naturally, there was a lot of hemming and hawing and saying they did not have enough information and that there was not enough time. On and on it went, but not a single witness could point to any fish population in Canada that was negatively affected by the changes embedded in the Fisheries Act of 2012.

Again, I am going to talk about the pros of the Conservative approach to fisheries conservation. We much prefer the direct approach to enhancing fish habitat. We created a program that was actually enabled by the Fisheries Act of 2012, called the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program, through which we partnered with fisheries conservation groups across the country. They provided half the funds for the work and the RFCPP provided the other half. Well over 800 fisheries enhancement projects were undertaken and successfully completed across the country.

I would note that the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program is being sunsetted by the current Liberal government. Is “sunset” not a nice word? It implies sitting on the beach with a cool one and watching the sun go down. Actually, this program has been shot down and is going down in flames. There are hundreds of angry groups across Canada whose mission is to do direct conservation and enhancement of fisheries across the country that will now not be provided with support.

I would point out something about Atlantic salmon, a fish that is obviously near and dear to the minister's heart, I would hope. Our fisheries and oceans committee did a major study on Atlantic salmon, and not a single recommendation from that study has been implemented. We recommended a seal reduction program. We recommended a significant increase in the striped bass harvest. We also recommended that diplomatic action be taken against Greenland for overfishing our Atlantic salmon. Nothing has been done.

Here is a clear case of the minister talking a good game about caring for fish, but there is a fish right in his backyard, the Atlantic salmon, of importance to thousands of anglers and businesses in his region, and nothing is being done to help that particular fish species.

However, over $200,000 or $300,000 is going to the fish cops. I would rather see direct programming that would help Atlantic salmon stocks, and other stocks across the country, to rebuild.

I am pleased that there is a provision in the proposed act to talk about rebuilding stocks. I like the habitat banking portion. Hopefully the government will be open to some amendments on that and open to some ideas on how it could be done, because a number of us have a few thoughts on that. Again, all that money is going to enforcement when there are groups, like the Miramichi Salmon Association, which I belong to, and the Atlantic Salmon Federation, that do things like create cold water refuges for Atlantic salmon so the fish can summer better and survive better than they would otherwise. We hope that projects like that could go on.

Bill C-68 is part of the Liberal plan to kill development. The Prime Minister's principal secretary, Mr. Gerald Butts, once said: “The real alternative is not an alternative route, it's an alternative economy. We don't think there ought to be a carbon-based energy industry by the middle of the century.” I am sure the thousands and thousands of middle-class Canadians who work in the energy industry will be very disappointed to know that this is the thinking in the Prime Minister's Office. The ultimate agenda is to severely restrict Canada's energy industry.

I want to quote the Canadian Electricity Association. It is headed by the hon. Sergio Marchi, who said:

In practical terms, this means that virtually any action, without prior authorization, could be construed as being in contravention of this Act. Consequently, the reinstatement of these measures will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities, and unduly delay and/or discourage investment in energy projects that directly support Canada's clean growth agenda and realize its climate change objectives.

Of course, the other shoe to drop is how investment is leaving Canada. Suncor CEO Steve Williams said, in a headline that reported what Suncor's activities will be, “Suncor to shun major new projects amid Canada's 'difficult' regulatory environment”.

I had the honour of working in the oil sands in 2009-10. I lived in a camp for an oil sands project. There were people from all walks of life. People talk about the industry as if it were some kind of bad word. The industry is workers and people. There was a young dad saving for his child's education, a young couple saving for a down payment on a house, and a senior couple saving for a dignified retirement. These are the kinds of people who work in the energy industry. These are the kinds of people who will be hurt by this excessive regulatory process that is killing energy and natural resources jobs across the country. I am afraid the new Fisheries Act is just part of that, so I will be unable to support it.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

moved that Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to speak in the House of Commons on this important legislation. You, Mr. Speaker, are a former minister of fisheries and oceans yourself and will understand the significance of the Fisheries Act in communities like the ones you and I represent, so it is a privilege for me to have this opportunity to stand in the House.

Canada is uniquely blessed with an abundance of freshwater and marine coastal areas that are both ecologically significant and linked to the economic prosperity of Canadians. Our government knows that we have a responsibility to steward these resources for future generations while maintaining economic opportunities for many people and communities who depend on them.

In my mandate letter, the Prime Minister asked me to restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards into the Fisheries Act. In 2012, the government got rid of a number of fish habitat protection measures without engaging indigenous peoples, fishers, scientists, conservation groups, coastal communities, or the general public in any meaningful way and without their support. What made that decision even more unacceptable was the fact that the changes were buried in a 430-page omnibus bill in the hope they would slip by unnoticed. Canadians definitely noticed.

Indigenous and environmental groups were especially concerned with changes made to the act and rightly perceived those amendments as weakening what should be of shared concern for Canadians: the protection of fish and fish habitat. Industry partners were thrust into uncertainty with regard to their responsibilities under the act.

Our government has worked and consulted with a broad range of Canadians, and we encouraged everyone to be part of this important conversation. Provinces, environmental groups, fishers associations, indigenous groups, and thousands of Canadians helped shape the amendments currently before the House of Commons.

The proposed amendments to Bill C-68 are part of the government's broader strategy to review environmental and regulatory processes and cover several key themes, including partnership with indigenous peoples; supporting planning and integrated management; enhancing regulation and enforcement; improving partnerships and collaboration, including with industry; and monitoring and reporting back to Canadians.

The Fisheries Act is one of Canada's oldest pieces of legislation. It was enacted shortly after Confederation. It has been amended very little since that time, which is why it needs to be updated and modernized. To that effect, Bill C-68 adds new provisions dealing with the objectives and considerations that must be examined in the decision-making process under the act. The proposed objectives seek to create a proper management and control framework for fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, particularly through pollution prevention.

The new considerations under these amendments are designed to clearly guide the responsibility of a minister of fisheries and oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard when making decisions under the act. Bill C-68 proposes amendments that would restore protections for fish and fish habitat to ensure that these protections apply to all fish. We are reintroducing the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, as well as the prohibition against the death of fish by means other than fishing.

We are also introducing measures that would allow for the better management of projects that may be harmful to fish or fish habitat through a new permitting scheme for big projects and codes of practice for smaller ones, so that industry partners, as well as everyday Canadians, can be certain about their responsibilities but not unreasonably burdened when undertaking small, local projects.

In the past, uncertainty in the act has caused some uncertainty among project proponents with respect to their obligations and responsibilities. The proposed amendments create regulatory authorities that will make it possible to establish a list of designated projects, including the commitments and activities that will still require a licence.

Our goal is to streamline these processes, and we will be engaging with provinces and territories as well as indigenous peoples and stakeholders to decide which kinds of projects should be on the designated project list.

We are also formalizing the creation of a proponent-led habitat banking regime. Habitat banking is an international best practice for offsetting project impacts where a freshwater or marine area is created, restored, or enhanced by working to improve fish habitat in advance of a project's impact.

Habitat loss and degradation as well as changes to fish passage and flow are all contributing to the decline of freshwater and marine fish habitats in Canada today. It is imperative that Canada restore degraded fish habitats. That is why amendments to the Fisheries Act propose requiring the consideration of restoration as part of project decision-making.

These amendments provide clearer, stronger, and easier rules to establish and manage ecologically significant areas and provide stand-alone regulations to protect sensitive or important fish habitats. Given the important ecological characteristics of sensitive areas, certain types of work and activities may be prohibited and others may be identified as being subject to a special information gathering under a new authorization regime.

During the review of the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act, we heard over and over again about the need to improve access to information on government activities related to the protection of fish and fish habitat. Indigenous communities, industry associations, environmental groups, universities, and my colleagues on the House of Commons standing committee all talked about the importance of transparency in the decision-making process under the act.

In order to re-establish public confidence, we are proposing amendments to establish a public registry, which would be available online. By enabling greater transparency, the registry would allow Canadians to hold the government to account in its federal decision-making with regard to fish and their habitat.

Fisheries resources and aquatic habitats have important social, cultural, and economic significance for many indigenous peoples. The respect for the rights of indigenous peoples as well as taking into account their unique interests and aspirations in fisheries-related economic opportunities and the protection of fish and fish habitat are important means of renewing our relationship with indigenous peoples.

For instance, the Fisheries Act is being amended to require the minister to consider any potential adverse effects resulting from decisions the minister might make in accordance with the rights of Canada's indigenous peoples, as set out in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In addition, our government recognizes the importance of the traditional knowledge of Canada's indigenous peoples in sound decision-making regarding fish and fish habitat.

Indigenous peoples across Canada, and other Canadians from coast to coast to coast, can rest assured that the government will act to protect the confidential traditional knowledge that indigenous people would share with the government under the provisions of this legislation.

Many indigenous communities are in close proximity to areas where projects that may affect fish and fish habitat are proposed, and many communities see new roles for themselves in how these decisions are made.

We have proposed long-overdue amendments that would provide for the making of agreements with indigenous governing bodies to further the purposes of the act, as we have done in the past with provinces and territories.

There are currently no legislative or regulatory requirements in place with respect to the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks.

The commissioner of environment and sustainable development, as well as our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, have recommended that any revisions to the Fisheries Act should include direction for the restoration and recovery of fish habitat and fish stocks.

Environmental groups have also called on the government to adopt measures aimed at the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks within the Fisheries Act. This is why we are proposing amendments that would require decisions affecting a stock in the critical zone to consider whether there are measures in place aimed at rebuilding that stock, and, when a minister is of the opinion that habitat degradation is a cause of the decline of the stock, whether measures are in place to restore such habitat.

This positive obligation on governments and greater transparency, we believe are essential to strengthening the Fisheries Act.

We also heard Canadians' views on other important issues related to the Fisheries Act. Although the number of aquariums that keep cetaceans in captivity for public display has fallen overall, this is still a sensitive issue that Canadians are deeply concerned about.

Our government recognizes that it is now wrong to capture these magnificent creatures for public display. Consequently, we are proposing amendments to the Fisheries Act that would prohibit the capture of a cetacean when the intent is to bring it into captivity, except in circumstances where the cetacean is injured, in distress, or in need of rehabilitation.

The Senate has, for a long time, done good work in respect to this important issue. I want to salute former Senator Wilfred Moore of Nova Scotia and others in the Senate who have continued to press this important issue in the minds of Canadians.

Some 72,000 Canadians make their living from fishing and fishing-related activities. Most of them, including self-employed inshore harvesters, are part of Canada's growing middle class. In many places across Atlantic Canada and Quebec, the fishery is the economic, social, and cultural heart of communities. As the fisheries minister, one of my duties is to ensure that these important traditions endure. However, threats remain to this way of life. Fish harvesters, particularly in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, have told us time and again that they need greater protection for their economic security, and they need help to ensure their economic independence.

It was clear to me that these important policies, like the owner-operator and fleet separation policies, were being circumvented by controlling agreements, which threaten the independence of the inshore and midshore fleets by removing the control of licences from individual harvesters to larger corporate interests. The amendments we are proposing would entrench existing inshore policies into law, with all the legal enforcement power required to protect small coastal communities and independent inshore harvesters.

I stand firm in supporting the economic and cultural fabric of these coastal communities. Our government has recognized that a licensing regime that supports independent inshore harvesters is critical to the economic livelihood of these communities and the families and Canadians who depend on them.

As I said, we looked at ways to strengthen the independence of the inshore sector and enforce the act more robustly. That is why we are proposing amendments that enshrine a specific power in the Fisheries Act, rather than a policy, in order to develop regulations that support the independence of inshore commercial licence holders. The amendments proposed today would entrench into law the power to make regulations on owner-operator and fleet separation policies in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

In so doing, this act helps to protect middle-class jobs in our coastal communities by ensuring that present and future fisheries and oceans ministers may consider the preservation and promotion of the independence of licence-holders in commercial inshore fisheries in the decision-making process.

I want to thank a number of organizations that have played a key role in these amendments with respect to owner-operator and fleet separation. The FFAW, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, le Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels de homard du sud de la Gaspésie, the Gulf Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board, the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, and the Canadian Independent Fish Harvester's Federation have been instrumental in this important work.

Fishing can be a dangerous occupation, involving many risks not only for fish harvesters, but for the marine environment as well.

With the unprecedented death of 12 North Atlantic right whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence from June to September last year, we know that Canadians expect prompt and urgent action by their government. This is why we are proposing amendments to the Fisheries Act that provide a new fisheries management order power to establish quick and targeted fisheries management measures. These measures will be used for 45-day increments where there is a recognizable threat to the conservation and protection of our marine ecosystems. The proposed fisheries management order power is meant to address emerging issues when a fishery is already under way and when time-sensitive and targeted measures are also paramount.

In my mandate letter, I was asked by the Prime Minister to increase the proportion of Canada's marine and coastal areas that are protected to 5% by the end of 2017, and to 10% by 2020, which is the target we are now on track to achieve. I am pleased to report to the House that we have not only achieved our 2017 target, but we will continue to work diligently to ensure that we surpass the 10% commitment through the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

To help us fulfill these international commitments and obligations, we are proposing amendments to the Fisheries Act that provide ministerial authority to make regulations to establish long-term spatial restrictions to fishing activities under the act specifically for the purpose of conserving and protecting marine biodiversity.

We are also proposing amendments that will strengthen the act. During the many public engagement sessions that were held, Canadians made it clear that they wanted to see more fishery officers, conservation officers, and patrols, as well as more offenders being caught and punished.

To incorporate modern protection mechanisms into the act, some amendments are being proposed to clarify, strengthen, and modernize enforcement powers under the act, for example by empowering fishery officers to intercept any vessel or vehicle and require it to be moved to a place where an inspection can be carried out.

The proposed amendments also seek to increase the authority of the courts with respect to seizure and forfeiture under the act, and allow the use of alternative measure agreements to address certain contraventions.

As I mentioned earlier, the Fisheries Act is one of the oldest and most important environmental laws in Canada. It was passed in 1868, just one year after Confederation, and did not change much until the late 1970s, when habitat protection provisions were first added by one of my predecessors, who, coincidentally, was my father, Roméo LeBlanc.

Then, as now, the act remains a model among Canada's environmental laws. That is why we have ensured the amendments we have introduced to the Fisheries Act include updated and modern tools that are the hallmarks found in other environmental legislation. We are proposing modern provisions such as the power to create advisory panels, fee-setting authorities, and provisions respecting the collection of information.

I consider myself privileged to stand in this House, as my father did in 1977, to introduce amendments to the Fisheries Act that served his generation. I hope that this new modernized act will live up to my father's legacy and do for our generation what he and the previous Parliament did for theirs.

[Anna Johnston]

It's finding them, and again, this might be a legislative measure. I know that in Bill C-68, the amendments to the Fisheries Act, and Bill C-69, the proposed impact assessment act, there are provisions requiring consolidated databases of information, and also under the Navigation Protection Act.

It could be quite easy for an amendment to be made to this legislation to similarly require a consolidated registration database of all registered vessels, which would probably clear up a lot of the issues.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue our debate on the NDP opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-50 on political financing.

Monday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days. On Tuesday, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-68, the fisheries legislation. On Wednesday, we will call the environmental assessment bill, which was introduced this morning.

Fisheries Act

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)