Evidence of meeting #95 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was habitat.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Minister.
Minister, I would say, in looking at campaign platforms, election promises, and statements that were made, that the overall goal in this revision of the Fisheries Act is so that you can claim you've restored lost protections. Is that correct?
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Again, “claim” has a negative connotation that I certainly wouldn't ascribe myself to. I don't think it's a claim that, when we were in third place in the House of Commons, we made a series of commitments to Canadians and went from third to first with a majority government. We intend to honour those commitments that we made, Mr. Arnold. In fact, many of the people who looked at this legislation when it was introduced in February commented positively on how the lost protections that were deleted by the previous Harper government in 2012 were not only restored effectively but modernized. That's why I think this legislation strikes the right balance.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
This is where I'll interject, Mr. Minister, with all respect. In 2016 I submitted an Order Paper question, which your government answered, and your signature is on it. In that question, one of the sections, section (b), was this: What harms or proof of harm to fish and fish habitat, attributed to the previous government changes to these two acts, exist? I'm referring to the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Act. The answer to that was “The department has not been either resourced or mandated to conduct this type of comprehensive monitoring and has not undertaken specific monitoring or analysis to compare the impacts of the changes to the act.”
You had no proof of any harm. You could not provide it, even when I asked for it in an Order Paper question. There was no proof of any harm from the previous changes. Now you've embarked on a 60-plus page bill chasing ghosts. How do you consider that to be efficient use of parliamentary time?
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
I never thought that it was particularly useful to chase ghosts, Mr. Arnold. I don't know if other people are doing that. I'm certainly not doing that.
What I'm doing is saying to Canadians that the previous government not only deleted legislatively and weakened legislatively the environmental and fish and habitat protections in legislation, but the previous government also proceeded to massively slash the budgets available for enforcement, for conservation and protection officers, for science, for habitat protection—
Conservative
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Arnold, I'm trying to answer your question and you're interrupting me again.
One of the things that makes it hard to quantify.... Although massive public opinion and expert evidence was that those changes were negative in terms of protecting fish and fish habitat, if you proceed to massively reduce the ability of habitat protection officers, conservation and protection officers, and slash the budget also for scientists, then necessarily it makes quantifying what would be an abstract concept more difficult.
What I can tell you, Mr. Arnold, is that Canadians responded extremely negatively to those changes, and our government committed to restoring the protections, but also to modernizing those protections. I would submit that this is exactly what we've tried to do in this legislation.
Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.)
Thank you, Minister.
We go for seven minutes to Mr. Donnelly, please.
NDP
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?
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Donnelly, thank you for your support of this legislation. You and I have had a chance to discuss it. I think the New Democratic Party can and should be an ally for us in trying to get the right balance and improve this legislation. Your support at second reading certainly was important for us. I want to honour that support by working with you if you have specific suggestions like that one.
As I said, I don't sit as a voting member of this committee, so I want to be careful when you ask if I'm open to amendments when this committee ultimately does its clause-by-clause work and considers amendments. It's more a question that should and can be put to your colleagues on the committee.
On the specific suggestion of the specific element you raised with respect to cumulative effects, I think one of the challenges in the past—and I saw this when I sat in that very seat on previous committees in the last Parliament—was that when colleagues had suggestions to improve the legislation and amendments, necessarily because of the legislative process and the House of Commons Library of Parliament staff who work with MPs to draft the text of amendments and so on, they often arrived at the last minute.
The Department of Justice, in advising my department of the government, identify technical problems, and then colleagues—colleagues in this room—may decide that because of a technical problem a particular amendment shouldn't be considered or supported at that time. What I'm saying to you, and I'm saying to all members, is that I certainly am sensitive to strengthening those provisions if it can be done in a proper way, as you and I have talked about before. If there's a way that we can work with you, I will be able to ask the Department of Justice to give me, and I would share it with you, that technical advice on how a particular amendment may interact with other clauses of the bill, and then you can consider, obviously, how you want to factor that advice into whatever amendments a colleague would choose to propose. If it, in a sense, short-circuits that last-minute confusion, where amendments may be defeated or not considered in a proper context, and if I can in any way work with you and other colleagues in a transparent way before the clause-by-clause process would begin, or notice has to be given, I would be happy to do so.
NDP
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.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
As I say, Mr. Donnelly, a lot of those came from environmental groups, industry groups, and the fish harvesters themselves. I'm hoping that all of us receive some of those encouraging suggestions from myriad different groups as well.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Definitely. We certainly have and we'll put those in, in a timely manner, and get the wording, obviously, through the standing committee, but in other ways as well.
Following-up on that, Minister, would you support amending the Fisheries Act to strengthen provisions around environmental flows and fish passage?
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
The top-line answer, Mr. Donnelly, would be yes, but obviously—
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
—when I say yes, it's subject to the right language. That would be an example where perhaps the committee can make some suggested improvements.
NDP
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?
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Again, I don't want to be technical. Whether I'm open or not to amendments is really irrelevant, because I won't actually be voting at this table on those amendments. I just want to be clear. I'm interested in those amendments. As minister, with the benefit of departmental staff, the Department of Justice, I would support looking at ways to strengthen that exact provision, the third item you mentioned around rebuilding.
I want the committee to properly be seized of its own work and do its work separate and apart from what personal views I might have.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
I would be happy to work with you on that if, again, we can provide advice, and you'll decide how you want to dispose of it.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Fair enough. I know the committee will do its good work. I'm sure you have some influence over the legislation.
Liberal
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I'm going to continue in that vein.
Minister, are you open to amending the act to bring the owner-operator policy to the west coast, since you've strengthened it on the east coast?
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Whether I'm open or not will not be relevant when your committee is voting on these amendments.
I'm very proud, obviously, of owner-operator fleet separation policies, and the impact it's had on Canada's Atlantic coast. I've said before that it applies in Quebec. Politics has made Quebec a central Canadian province. Geography makes it an Atlantic Canadian province as well. I often say that to our colleagues from Quebec.
You're a member of Parliament from British Columbia, and we have colleagues at this table, as well, who serve from that province. I'm open to understanding how we can create the circumstance for the industry. Harvesters who have spoken to me from your province are interested in benefiting from those policies.
I want the legislation—and that was our suggestion in the amendments you have before you—to be permissive if the circumstances in your province are appropriate for those policies to apply or to be phased-in over time. The legislation contemplates that, because it would be a regulatory provision made under the act.
In a sense, we have contemplated that, but we wouldn't presume that it would be the first place we'd apply it. We'd apply it where it has existed, I would argue, successfully, namely on the Atlantic coast. I'm wide open to figuring out how some of those benefits, which would be appropriate to British Columbia, could be applied to your province as well.
NDP
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.