Evidence of meeting #69 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Colleagues, may I group some of these clauses? In part 3, we go right to clause 169.
Could members indicate to me which clause they wish to speak to next? May I group clauses 53 to 60?
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Could you repeat that question? I'm still catching up, being new to this committee.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
In part 3 we have clauses 52 to 169. Clause 52 is carried. I'm just wondering if I can group some of the clauses, or if members wish to speak to each one. Members have been indicating to me, for instance, if they wish to speak to clause 57, and then I will group clauses 53 to 56, and then we take a vote on that.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I believe we missed a couple of NDP amendments earlier that we didn't finish. There were three that were not bulked into....
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Yes, they were amendments NDP-16, NDP-21, and NDP-35.
Ms. Leslie, just indicate which clause you'd like to speak to.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
(Clauses 53 to 132 inclusive agreed to on division)
We will go to clause 133, and we'll start with Ms. Leslie.
(On clause 133)
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move that Bill C-38, in clause 133, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 151 with the following:
to fish is the death of or adverse health effects on fish, including reproductive or developmental effects, or any adverse
We think this amendment is incredibly important to the budget bill. It is basically the result of a lot of testimony we heard at committee as well as a lot of what we've been hearing, quite frankly, in communities, in the news, and from our constituents.
The problem with the budget bill, the way the changes to the Fisheries Act are written, is that it actually removes the obligation to protect fish habitat. This is extremely serious, because the result is that the act won't say it protects fish. What it says is that fish can't be killed, essentially, but it doesn't say that fish can't be maimed or that their growth can't be stunted or that their ability to reproduce can't be affected or impacted. It also doesn't say that their habitat or the fish they rely on to eat or the other kinds of food they eat have to be protected.
I think this is very serious. This is exactly the issue we heard the former fisheries ministers come out against. And we've heard from a number of people who share that concern.
The Fisheries Act is one of the strongest environmental protections we actually have in Canada. We heard some incredible testimony, some quite moving testimony, I'd say, from Will Amos, at Ecojustice. He talked about the Fisheries Act, this part of the Fisheries Act, being part of the fabric of who we are as Canadians. It came about because of the sawmills on the Ottawa River. People living along the river realized that the sawdust from these sawmills was ending up in the river and was killing the fish habitat in the river. That was actually the genesis of this. He talked in such a moving way about how it's not just a piece of legislation; it is about who we are. It is about standing up for our environment and protecting our backyards—essentially this whole country is our backyard—and it is a very strong piece of environmental protection.
The other problem with the changes to the Fisheries Act we heard about was that the impact, as long as it's temporary, is fine, but we don't know what “temporary” means. What does “serious harm” mean? What do all of these things mean? It's very hard for us to figure out the definition of many of these terms in the new budget bill.
Would it be temporary to, say, in Halifax, give a licence to a developer to infill the Bedford Basin and build a condominium on the infill? As long as it's in the clause with a 99-year lease, and as long as the clause says “and the condo developer shall then return it to its original state”, is that temporary? Arguably, it is. Arguably, maybe that's not considered permanent.
When it comes to serious harm, we need to broaden the definition of serious harm to include the health effects on fish generally, non-permanent harm, and the destruction of fish habitat. What we're trying to do is encapsulate all of that in one amendment by broadening the definition of serious harm so that we take permanence into account. We take into account destroying the habitat, destroying the place where fish reproduce, and destroying the food they rely on to stay alive.
I'll wrap up with a little piece of testimony from David Schindler, who spoke at the finance subcommittee. He talked about the experimental lakes he was working on. They were actually doing testing on acid rain. He said they had an experimental lake set up where they tested the effect of acid rain on fish. They found that the acid rain didn't kill the fish, but it killed their entire food source, and the fish starved to death.
The way this budget bill is written, that can happen. If we're not going to protect fish habitat, we may see fish starving to death. We may see the next generation of fish being destroyed.
I'm hopeful that with the amount of attention this provision has received publicly, at committee, and in the media, government members will vote with us to broaden the definition of “serious harm”, because I think it's the right thing to do.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
I have Mr. Hoback, please.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair.
I guess I'll just go back to the experience I have in my province of Saskatchewan, in my riding of Prince Albert, and the impact of what is happening at present.
We heard testimony in the subcommittee from Mr. Orb. He talked about the rigmarole and the process they had to go through to put a culvert into a dry ditch.
There's nobody in Saskatchewan who wants to see any type of reduction in fish habitat. In fact, if you take in my riding, the town of Nipawin has some of the best fishing festivals, with different events, all summer long. They take that very seriously. But what was happening was that we were seeing people going to the nth degree to stop projects that would end up going on anyway. They were adding a considerable amount of cost to a project when there was no reason or rhyme for doing that. That, to me, just explains why some of these changes need to be done.
I wouldn't get too excited about this, thinking that we're going to lose all the fish next year and that we're not going to have anything to fish, because in reality, that's not true. I think the reality is that we're just balancing the act to reflect what it needs to reflect. I think that's what we're seeing here, Chair.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Hoback.
I will move to the vote on NDP-37.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clauses 133 and 134 agreed to on division)
(On clause 135)
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I move amendment LIB-2, Mr. Chair, that Bill C-38, in clause 135, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 154 the following:
6.2 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of these rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Brison.
Ms. Leslie, I believe you wanted to speak to this as well.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
I was happy to see this amendment in here. I think it's a great attempt to fix one of the biggest problems of this piece of legislation. A non-derogation clause is pretty standard form to ensure that when you're writing a piece of legislation it doesn't accidentally trample aboriginal rights.
It is a really succinct, clean way of doing things. There are so many pieces in this bill where we're not sure what the implications of the language will be. I think a bold statement in the budget bill saying that you can't read into this as trampling on aboriginal rights is the right thing to do.
I'm not an expert in non-derogation clauses, but reading it on its face, it seems like pretty standard writing, so I think it is the appropriate language that we need for this bill just to make sure we don't do anything accidentally, because I certainly know the government wouldn't want to do that.
Thank you.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Ms. Leslie.
I have Mr. Brison again, and then Mr. Adler.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
In response to Ms. Leslie, and I appreciate her support and her party's support for this amendment, I must say I disagree with her on one point, when she says that she is certain the government would not want to do this, because National Chief Shawn Atleo said, when he was before committee, that in its current form, part 3 of Bill C-38 clearly represents a derogation of established and asserted first nations rights. That is in part a response to that, and I appreciate Ms. Leslie and her party's support for this understanding of the importance of making it clear.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
June 4th, 2012 / 6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to speak on LIB-2.
Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. As a matter of law, references to section 35 do not need to be included in the act. There are different views of the intent and purpose of non-derogation clauses, and these different views tend to create confusion and uncertainty. For that reason, non-derogation clauses should be avoided.
The Fisheries Act is a law of general application, the key objectives of which are to conserve and protect fish and fish habitat and properly manage and control fisheries for present and future generations. This involves the balancing of many competing interests, and guidance provided by the courts allows for this balancing. The inclusion of a non-derogation clause could seriously compromise the ability to balance competing interests and conserve the resource; therefore, we do not want to risk this by putting in this clause.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Adler.
We will then move to a vote on LIB-2.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 135 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 136 to 141 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 142)
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We have NDP-38 in the name of Ms. Nash.
Ms. Nash, do you want to move that?