Fisheries Committee on May 22nd, 2018

[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.

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

Madam Chair, good morning and forgive me but I need to put on the record that if I want to exercise a right I would ordinarily have at report stage, that right was removed by the motion this committee passed which requires me to be here at clause-by-clause if I want to put forward amendments. I don't move the amendments, so it's a difference from the original sketching out of the rules. I'm in a very different position in that all my amendments are deemed to have been moved. I can't withdraw them; I can't do anything about them. I get to speak to them. These are the terms of the motion, and it's identical in every committee, which has the effect of restricting my rights, and it increases my workload—that's just a side complaint—because I also have Bill C-69 for the rest of today.

Let me put this forward very quickly, because I do believe this is a good bill and I hope we'll pass it expeditiously, but it can be improved.

My amendment PV-1 is to respond to a number of witnesses who we heard at committee, particularly West Coast Environmental Law, whose brief looks at the importance of the concept of environmental flows and water flows, and expands our understanding of what “habitat” means by replacing, under the purposes of the act, subsection 2(2) with the following:

For the purposes of this Act, the quantity, timing and quality of the water flow that are necessary to sustain the freshwater or estuarine ecosystems of a fish habitat are deemed to be a fish habitat.

I note, Madam Chair, that my friend, Mr. Donnelly, has a similar amendment, but either one of them would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

On that note, if PV-1 is adopted, NDP-1 cannot be moved, as there is a line conflict. Also, if PV-1 is defeated, so is NDP-1, as they are identical.

Is there any discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Arnold.

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

Madam Chair, if the amendment should carry, I'd like to propose a subamendment first. The subamendment would be in the fourth line of the proposed amendment where it says “estuarine ecosystems of a” and would insert the word “natural” before “habitat are deemed to be a fish habitat”, so it would be “a natural fish habitat”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Is there any debate on the subamendment?

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Madam Chair, I'm wondering if Mr. Arnold or our legislative clerk could define what is the difference by adding “natural”.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Being a proceduralist, I won't be able to tell you that, but maybe the experts across the way can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Are there any departmental officials who can answer that question?

Mr. Winfield.

[Nicholas Winfield, Director General, Ecosystems Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

It is extremely difficult to define a “natural” ecosystem, because many water bodies have had some form of human alteration at some point in time. That becomes the challenge of using the term “natural”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Mr. Hardie.

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

Yes, I think the subamendment might preclude protection from something that had been remediated or basically improved through habitat banking, etc. To put the condition of a “natural” one in there might limit what in fact could be protected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Mr. Arnold.

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

This brings up the reason I believe there needs to be some delineation in this proposed amendment: to delineate from drainage canals that are done to protect municipalities and to protect farmers who need to drain their fields. These drainage ditches often become fish habitat but never were before they were artificially introduced.

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Because of the conflict, NDP-1 will no longer be voted on.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3)

We have a number of amendments.

We will start with NDP-2. If NDP-2 is adopted, NDP-3 and CPC-1 cannot be moved, as there is a line conflict.

Mr. Donnelly, would you like to speak to NDP-2?

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

Madam Chair, I would like to withdraw this amendment, as it's covered in NDP-3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you.

Mr. Arnold.

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

Madam Chair, don't you need unanimous consent to withdraw?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

I'm being told that technically he does not need unanimous consent because it was not moved. He withdrew it.

If NDP-3 is adopted, CPC-1, PV-2, and CPC-2 cannot be moved, as there is a line conflict.

Mr. Donnelly, would you like to speak to NDP-3?

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

Madam Chair, I think NDP-3 strengthens the purpose clause by adding “rebuilding fish stocks” and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Ms. May.

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

Madam Chair, since I won't be able to speak to this after this vote and your motion requires that I speak to every amendment if I choose to, I just want to say that I think it's an extremely important amendment in order to ensure that we're recognizing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I think it's consistent with all the good work that has been done on this act so far.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Mr. Arnold.

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to propose a subamendment to proposed paragraph 2.1(b) of this amendment, that the word “proper” be stricken. It simply indicates that possibly things are not being done properly now and is a very subjective term.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Shall the subamendment carry?

(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now go to CPC-1. If CPC-1 is adopted, PV-2 and CPC-2 cannot be moved, as there is a line conflict.

Mr. Arnold, would you like to speak to CPC-1?

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

Madam Chair, I think the amendment is self-explanatory. It's combining the purposes into the act. I would like to move a subamendment, similar to the one on the previous amendment, that we strike the word “proper” for the same reason, that it's a subjective term.