Debates of Feb. 13th, 2018

Fisheries Act

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contribution to this debate, and also his work as the B.C. caucus chair.

The member raised a very good point that regulations are important but measures have to be there that send a signal to the wider audience, particularly in British Columbia, that they are important and that the government is thinking of them.

The government gave $400 million, in last year's budget, to the east coast for innovation in aquaculture and for innovations in fishing off the shore of the east coast. In British Columbia, what did it do? It tried to cancel a popular salmon process fund to restock our rivers and streams with salmon.

First, does the member believe that the government is treating British Columbia, on the issues of fisheries, fairly? Second, does he think this legislation does anything to change the image that I have in my mind?

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, in good part the legislation we have before us today reflects some of the changes that were required because of the previous administration's changes that it brought in, I believe within budget legislation. We are looking at restoring the lost protection, for example, to fish habitat. The bill also provides that the government modernize the legislation a little more by bringing in some additional protections. Along with this, there are a substantial amount of financial resources that would be made available.

Looking at the importance of the industry, not only for today but into the future, I wonder if my colleague would not agree that investing in and protecting fish habitat is the right thing to do. My friend and colleague talked about how wonderful the industry is in our home province of Manitoba, and I concur. There is so much potential, but there is an expectation that we do what we can in terms of the protection of habitat, as an example. This proposed legislation is going to go a long way in giving the power to the minister to take such actions, so that in the long run we will have a healthier fish stock and healthier environment.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member is misinformed. There is no call for this proposed legislation. It will not increase protection. All it would do is increase regulatory barriers. All it would do is provide more enforcement and more Fisheries and Oceans officers running around the province of Manitoba, and anywhere else in this country, stopping farmers, fishers, and industry from moving ahead.

The big problem is that the Liberals do not seem to understand that we had the right mechanisms in place already. They might want to virtue signal that they are trying to do something to protect fish habitat and for environmental purposes, but they are undermining rural communities, industry, and fishers. They have been working so hard for so long to enhance habitat to make sure we protect our wetlands and that we increase fish stocks.

By working in a collaborative approach, we can do more in adapting best practices to ensure that projects such as building new ditches, repairing a bridge, or putting in place a new culvert are done without having to go through all the red tape that the Liberals want to force upon our municipalities and our citizens.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a former Penticton city councillor, I have experienced this first-hand. There was a developer who put aside tens of thousands of dollars to have access through a new stairway to Campbell Mountain, which was highly desired by the area. Our planners asked for clarification from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. However, the site was within a certain proximity to a creek. The reason we were told we could not go ahead was because there was a body of water adjacent to the proposed stairs. It was an old water hole of a golf course. Therefore, when the member cites that the people in Ottawa or in far-reaching areas are pushing buttons and demanding that people do something in the rural areas, he is exactly right.

In my area of British Columbia, I have met with stakeholders. They are specifically asking for action on the Cohen commission and not for this kind of legislation. Does the member agree that the government should be more focused on the priorities of stakeholders, whether it be in my area or his own?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a municipal councillor, the member has lived through the horrors, the cost, and the headaches of having to deal with DFO over things as ridiculous as a water hole on a golf course. I experienced that myself in my riding, where farmers who were flooded all of a sudden had carp swimming out of Lake Manitoba across their fields. Now, is that fish habitat? It has fish on it. The legislation would give power to the government to say that it is fish habitat and it cannot be touched.

We have white mullet, which we call sucker fish back home, that swim up the ditches every spring in the runoff to spawn. Does that stop the cleaning out of the ditch in the fall when there are no fish in it? I do not think it should, but the powers given to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would give him the type of capability to stop regular planning and resource use on the prairies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

It is a privilege for me to speak in the House on two important elements of the proposed Fisheries Act amendments. Both of these new elements would support conservation of marine biodiversity, and address threats to the conservation and protection of our marine resources and the proper management and control of our fisheries in a nimble and flexible way.

To develop our proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act, we closely considered recommendations from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and we consulted broadly with Canadians, partners, indigenous groups, and stakeholders. In parallel to this important work, we have been advancing efforts to achieve Canada's marine conservation targets, surpassing our government's commitment to protecting 5% of our marine areas by 2017, and moving forward to protect 10% by 2010.

The first of the new proposals under the amended Fisheries Act that I will speak about today responds directly to a need that we identified as part of our marine conservation targets engagement session, while simultaneously contributing to the modernization of the Fisheries Act.

Our government announced on December 21, 2017 that we have conserved 7.75% of Canada's marine space. We worked very closely with our partners at Parks Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada, provincial, territorial, and indigenous governments, and other indigenous partners and stakeholders to achieve this significant marine conservation milestone.

We continue to do so, as work under our ambitious five-point plan to meet the marine conservation targets continues. This plan includes, one, completing marine protected area establishment processes that were already under way before Canada established its interim 5% target and reaffirmed its 10% objective; two, protecting large offshore areas; three, protecting areas under pressure; four, pursuing legislative amendments that are now known as Bill C-55; and five, most relevant to the discussion at hand, advancing other effective area-based conservation measures.

The term “other effective area-based conservation measures” may sound complicated, and even hard to say, but the concept is simple. It is well recognized and used in international forums. The term refers to managed areas other than marine protected areas that offer real protection to marine biodiversity.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans developed rigorous science-based criteria for identifying these areas and have used these criteria to evaluate existing fisheries area closures for their contributions to marine biodiversity conservation. Fisheries and Oceans managers and scientists also adhere closely to these criteria when establishing new fisheries area closures that contribute to biodiversity conservation. Using this approach, I proudly recognize the current 51 fisheries area closures as marine refuges that play an important role in conserving Canada's precious marine biodiversity from coast to coast to coast.

Canada's marine refuges include the recently announced offshore Pacific seamounts and vents closure, which protects hydrothermal vents and rare and regionally unique seamounts on Canada's west coast. Off the coast of Nova Scotia, the Emerald basin and Sambro bank sponge conservation areas protect globally unique concentrations of species of glass sponge, known as “Russian hat” sponges.

In Canada's eastern Arctic, the Disko Fan conservation area protects overwintering habitat for narwhal and concentrations of corals. The coral species found there include the bamboo coral, which is one of the slowest-growing and longest-lived coral species in Canada, and which has not been found anywhere else in the world to date.

This is a small sampling of the marine refuges that help to safeguard our unique and valuable marine ecosystems on all three of Canada's oceans.

Currently, marine refuges are established through licence conditions and variation orders made under the Fisheries Act. These tools have an important place in fisheries management, but although they can be for long-term periods, they are not specifically designed to address long-term biodiversity objectives. As we have engaged with our partners and stakeholders on our approach to meeting Canada's marine conservation targets, they have raised this concern, and we have listened.

Under the amended Fisheries Act, a new authority has been proposed, which would allow for regulations to be put in place to restrict specified fishing activities for the purposes of conserving and protecting marine biodiversity. This regulatory tool will be complementary to our marine protected area tool under the Oceans Act legislation. Both tools are used to protect important species, habitats, and features. The main difference between the two tools is that the new regulatory authority under the Fisheries Act would be used in cases where fishing activities pose a specific threat to the important elements of biodiversity that have been identified in an area; whereas a marine protected area under the Oceans Act can be applied to a variety of human uses as needed.

The new proposed authority would provide us with additional flexibility to develop prohibitions that are tailor made to address the protection needs of a particular area. The government would apply this new regulation-making authority to our existing marine refuges, and in doing so would replace the current approach of outlining these fishing-related prohibitions or restrictions in licence conditions and variation orders.

This new approach would secure the biodiversity protections afforded by these marine refuges over the long term. These regulations could also be developed for any new marine refuges moving forward. We take our 2020 marine conservation commitment seriously, but this new regulatory tool would do much more than help us to meet our 10% target.

Marine refuges established under this authority would support our broader marine conservation work, ensuring that our oceans continue to be rich in marine biodiversity and support sustainable use for future generations of Canadians. Marine refuges will play an important role in the marine protected networks which are being developed on all three of Canada's coasts. Their establishment will also support implementation of the policy for managing the impacts of fishing on sensitive benthic areas over the long term.

This targeted regulatory tool to establish marine refuges for the purpose of biodiversity protection would help to modernize the Fisheries Act. It would make it very clear which management measures are contributing to long-term biodiversity protection and, in doing so, would enhance transparency and effectiveness of fisheries management.

I would now like to talk about the purpose of another proposed provision that could be used, among other things, to enhance biodiversity protection. This other amendment would enable my staff to respond quickly and effectively to urgent and unexpected threats to the conservation and protection of fish that may arise in our oceans and put some of our most treasured marine life in jeopardy.

Top of mind for me and many Canadians, when we think about our ocean conservation needs, is the unexpected movement of the North Atlantic right whale population into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the unexpected and unprecedented losses of that endangered species that have occurred over the past year. A new proposed tool under the Fisheries Act would allow the minister to put in place targeted short-term fisheries management measures quickly and effectively to respond to urgent threats such as those being faced by the North Atlantic right whale.

When a threat to the conservation and protection of fish arises during the fishing season, we currently issue amendments to the licence conditions and make variation orders. However, just as these tools are ill suited to addressing long-term biodiversity objectives, they are also not designed to be put in place for immediate actions to address all urgent and unanticipated threats. These tools are meant to address issues related to the sustainable use and proper management of fisheries resources. Also, the process to implement a change in licence condition is burdensome, often takes time, and variation orders are limited in scope by the regulations.

Changes to the act would allow us to introduce targeted restrictions to fishing activity in urgent situations. Some of the threats that the North Atlantic right whale faced in 2017 are examples of urgent issues that could be addressed by this tool.

I will conclude by saying that the new proposed tools under the amended Fisheries Act would allow us to respond effectively and flexibly to our long-term marine conservation needs, as well as to unexpected, short term, and urgent threats. These are two pieces of the broader Fisheries Act amendments that I have the pleasure to support today. This is a concrete way to incorporate modern safeguards into a strengthened Fisheries Act.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to a question that one of my colleagues asked the member for Central Nova with regard to the minister's discretionary powers.

Under the bill, decisions can be based on the minister's opinions and not necessarily on scientific evidence. The member for Central Nova answered that such discretion could be a positive thing as long as the public has faith in the minister and decisions are made in a transparent way.

However, what happens if a new party takes power, if the new minister's personality is completely different, if there is not as much transparency, and if the public does not have as much confidence in that minister?

Does the member think that the law should clearly stipulate that decisions must be based strictly on scientific evidence?

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

Mr. Speaker, representing a coastal and rural riding, I can say that many of the stakeholders on the fisheries side have been very supportive of the Fisheries Act and the changes that are being proposed. For example, Melanie Sonnenberg, the president of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation, said, “This is quite pivotal for us.... It means stability for our community as we go forward.”

We are a government that firmly puts science and evidence in every decision we make and we think that is absolutely critical. Even when there is a change of government, Canadians expect that all governments would make policy decisions based on scientific evidence, but also in deep collaboration with key stakeholders, whether they be indigenous stakeholders, the fishers, the municipalities, or members in coastal communities. That is what has been done in the development of this Fisheries Act because I have heard that from many people, not only in my riding of New Brunswick Southwest but at different annual general meetings.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is really about a balancing act, respecting the fact that we want to encourage and promote activities such as fishing, but at the same time, making sure that we have legislation in place to protect the environment and to protect future generations to be able to continue to use this environment that we have now.

I am wondering if the member could speak to how important it is to achieve that balance and where we have come from, with what the Conservatives did in 2012, to where we are today with this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, from the comments I have heard in my riding, certainly the cuts made by the Harper government were not supported. One of our campaign promises was to look at the Fisheries Act. Recently I have been blessed with a new granddaughter and I believe that there has to be a balance between the environment and the economy, and also working closely with stakeholders. I can say that I am very proud of so many of the fisheries groups in New Brunswick Southwest and elsewhere that do so much work on their own to maintain and respect the long-term resource of our marine protected areas.

I would also like to comment on the North Atlantic right whale in terms of a balance. Clearly, after the 17 deaths that we saw in 2017, there is an imbalance there. Canadians from coast to coast to coast and citizens around the world are looking for us to show leadership on the prevention and the protection and recovery of North Atlantic right whales. That is a balance and is something that we have to consider very seriously.

From the work that has been done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans through the minister, much work has been done with round tables regarding the North Atlantic right whale and at those discussions there has been the topic of the Fisheries Act and the importance of it for protecting the long-term recovery of the North Atlantic right whale, where we have less than 450 surviving today.

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

Mr. Speaker, since being elected as the member of Parliament for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, I have had the opportunity to meet with many organizations and individuals that the Fisheries Act directly impacts.

This includes organizations such as Watershed Watch, Alouette River Management Society, Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society, the Katzie First Nation, local stream keepers, municipal governments in both Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, and individuals such as Jack Emberly, who is a local author and environmentalist, and Julie Porter, who studied ecological restoration at Simon Fraser University.

My riding is a watershed community that is home to many passionate, hard-working people who are trying to protect our environment and water systems. They were all eager to educate me on fish and fish habitats in various instances such as the many roundtables I hosted, cleaning up the Katzie slough, or counting fish with stream keepers. I will never forget trying to canoe in our local waters where the invasive species of plants and algae were so dense we could barely paddle through.

In all of these consultations, common expressions of sadness, disappointment, and even anger were apparent. The Fisheries Act had been gutted entirely, and left these groups with little support or good, clear legislation. It is time to change this and to fix the Fisheries Act.

In June 2016, the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard announced a comprehensive review of the Fisheries Act, and this gave my community hope for better legislation. After hearing and engaging with constituents on fish policy at large, I submitted a report with recommendations to the minister. Fish and fish habitat are part of the livelihood and identity of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. Therefore, fish and fish protection policy directly impact both the environment and prosperity of my community.

I rise today in support of the proposed Fisheries Act amendments, which would introduce key measures to ensure our fishery resources are available for generations of Canadians yet to come. Today, through proposed amendments to the act, the government is moving to restore lost measures that would protect fish and their habitat, and to modernize safeguards for the challenges we face in the 21st century.

More than protecting further loss of these resources, we are also introducing measures that would help restore them. These actions would help maintain biodiversity and would also generate positive economic spin-offs for the fisheries. Such dual benefits reflect the goal of sustainable development, a healthy environment, a prosperous economy, and a vibrant society for current and future generations.

All told, the fisheries sector is valued at $13 billion, and employs some 72,000 Canadians. Our fisheries are an economic driver in rural communities on all three coasts, including in many indigenous communities. That is why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans supports an economically prosperous fishery, while retaining conservation as its top priority.

The cultural impact of the fisheries may be harder to measure in dollars and cents, but is no less important. For some families in coastal communities, fishing has been a way of life for generations. Indeed, for many indigenous peoples, fishing traditions extend back millennia.

In developing the Fisheries Act, the government understood that the fisheries contribute to rural and indigenous communities in both tangible and intangible ways. In keeping with the principles of sustainable development, we sought to achieve a balance between environmental, economic, and social imperatives. In this way, we could help preserve the integrity of the fisheries in the years ahead.

There is no single threat to the sustainability and productivity of our fisheries. Damage and loss of habitat, aquatic invasive species, and changes to freshwater flow all contribute to the decline of freshwater and marine fisheries. Indeed, restoring habitat provides an opportunity to redress past negative impacts.

The proposed Fisheries Act identifies four key areas that would require consideration of fish and habitat restoration measures: stock rebuilding; factors to consider when issuing permits and authorizations; ecologically significant areas; and the making of regulations. Let me take them one by one, starting with fish stocks.

The proposed act will support the restoration of degraded fish habitats. Of course, the department already works to repair past impacts and help restore depleted fish stocks. However, these activities are not integrated into key areas of its mandate. The new act would address this gap. Under the proposed amendments, when making decisions that would impact a depleted stock, the minister would need to consider whether measures are in place to rebuild that fish stock. In addition, the minister shall take into account whether these measures are in place to restore degraded fish habitat where the minister is of the opinion that the loss or degradation of fish habitat has contributed to a stock's decline.

The second area for consideration of fish habitat restoration is the list of factors the minister must review before making decisions about permits, authorizations, or regulations. The proposed amendments add a new factor for the minister to consider: do the planned offsetting activities give priority to the restoration of degraded fish habitat?

The third area for consideration of fish habitat restoration is the creation of ecologically significant areas. These areas are intended to protect sensitive and important fish habitats by prohibiting certain types of activities. The proposed amendments would make provisions for these sensitive areas clearer, stronger, and easier to implement. I will give an example of how that process might work.

Working with partners, including indigenous groups, the department would identify potentially ecologically significant areas. Together, they would identify the best way to protect fish habitat and what activities the minister could approve. If the minister believes that habitat restoration is required to meet prescribed objectives for conservation and protection in ecologically significant areas, then a fish habitat restoration plan must be published on the public registry. Not only would this approach go a long way in restoring habitat, it would also promote greater engagement with partners, as well as greater transparency with Canadians around the entire decision-making process.

The fourth and final area relates to the authority for making regulations for the restoration of fish habitat. This regulation-making authority can be exercised when it supports the conservation and protection of fish. These amendments help the department pursue the overall policy objective of restoring the ecological integrity of degraded or damaged aquatic habitats. Collectively, they give the department legislative authority to advance restoration planning, regulate harm to aquatic habitats from proposed development projects, guide habitat offsetting efforts, and work with multiple partners to achieve these objectives.

Together, these proposed changes to the act would help achieve three important results. First, they would help protect biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems, which leads to more stable and resilient biological systems that can better withstand impacts related to development projects. Second, they would help build healthier and more abundant fish stocks, which in turn would make fisheries more resilient and lead to greater potential long-term economic gains. Third, the proposed changes would contribute to the sustainability of the fish stock and continued economic prosperity in Canada's fishing communities.

Coming from my riding, which is a watershed community, my constituents have spoken to me loud and clear. This is something that is not only wanted but is needed in my community and communities across this great nation. I urge all hon. members to join with me in supporting these much-needed amendments.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked my Liberal colleagues the same question several times.

The third recommendation in Commissioner Cohen's report indicates that the Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ mandate the promotion of salmon farming, because when farmed salmon are discharged into the ocean, they infect wild salmon with a virus and end up harming marine biodiversity.

It is worrisome that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is turning a blind eye to Commissioner Cohen's recommendation, even though it is aware of the situation. Is it not rather odd and even irresponsible that the government is not following up on this recommendation, especially since it is seeking to reinstate the legislation on fish and fish habitat protection?

If the government supports marine biodiversity, why is it giving the department the mandate to protect our waters and fish while it continues to promote this toxic industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today. It did not happen overnight. This is a by-product of decades of perhaps not paying attention to our environment, not paying attention to the things that matter in our communities. The first step, which is very clear to me, starts with the Fisheries Act. Communities need to be able to understand exactly the impact the Fisheries Act can have in helping a community and helping a municipal department determine the course of action, for example, in future developments. It is understanding that we have to be able to move forward. We cannot do that if we do not have a strong Fisheries Act. This is just the first step to make that happen.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last year in the budget the government decided to put $400 million into fishery innovation on the east coast. How much was there for British Columbia? There was zero. Last year as well the government tried to cancel a very popular salmon restocking fund. Again the outcry from British Columbians was incredible—I am sure the member heard about it—and the government reversed the decision. When I talk to stakeholders, they are more concerned about the government's lack of action and progress and even reporting on whether there was any progress on the Cohen commission.

With all of these other measures affecting British Columbia, does the member think this is the best way he can advance the level of fisheries in British Columbia, or does he believe the government needs to work on these other elements which are gravely wanted in British Columbia?

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

Mr. Speaker, last year, the federal government introduced a $1.5-billion oceans protection plan. That is just one part of the puzzle here. What I heard clearly in meeting after meeting, round table after round table, going out and counting salmon, going out and counting fish and looking at the connected waterways that were not connected, was that to move forward they have to have a strong Fisheries Act. This is the first step. We cannot move forward if people can do what they want with the Fisheries Act. We have to be able to support our partners across the country to ensure that the Fisheries Act allows for strong protections for fish environment. If we do not do that, our fishery will fall apart. That is why we need to have a strong Fisheries Act.

[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.

[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, not being part of the previous government, I cannot speak directly to how that act was brought in. What I noted in my presentation today is that portions of that 2012 act remain. I have not had the full amount of time to determine exactly how many of those 2012 changes are there, but we see this act as possibly furthering them. The questions I have pointed out are the big concerns we have with this act.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government went through two rounds of online public consultations. There were over 100 meetings with stakeholders, including indigenous groups and many other interested stakeholders. The overwhelming consensus seemed to be that there needs to be protection of fish habitat and fish.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper, in the changes referenced earlier, took away a lot of that protection. The essence of this bill, at least in part, is to look at replacing. It would fulfill a commitment by this government during the campaign to put back in place these protective measures.

Does the member not agree that the whole idea of coming up with protective habitat for fish and protecting fish in the long run is better for all of us here in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that protection of fish and the sustainability of our fisheries is of utmost importance to all Canadians. However, what I pointed out in my intervention earlier was that the claims of lost protections simply are not substantiated. They are not true. I posed the question in an Order Paper question, giving the Liberals a full opportunity to point out where those protections had been lost or where harm had been caused. The answer that came back was zero, absolute zero. The protections were not lost. The government is using this again as a campaign speech to say that it has restored those loss protections, which were not lost in the first place.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I speak with Rick Simpson, who is a big advocate in my area for fisheries and protection of fish, we talk about the steelhead and the extinction-like level crisis there. This legislation will not touch that. The legislation, as far as I can see, will not implement any of the recommendations by the Cohen Commission.

Last year, the Liberal government government tried to cancel a very popular salmon restocking fund that helped local groups look after our iconic salmon. Last, it gave $400 million to the east coast to help fishers innovate, but zero for British Columbia.

What is in the bill that is good for British Columbia or is this again just electoral campaigning for the Liberals?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with Mr. Simpson. He is a great advocate and a solid worker on behalf of the fisheries.

Right now nothing in the bill will make a difference for our steelhead stocks in British Columbia. They have continued to slide, especially under the current government, to the point now where there is pressure to designate them as a severely endangered species.

I have heard from stakeholders that the government has invested over $7 million in acoustic equipment to listen to whales. That might be an admirable expenditure, but it only put $1.2 million into restoring fish stocks. Without fish stocks for southern resident killer whales to feed on, those acoustic devices are not going to hear anything. That is the typical poorly directed spending of the government, which is not addressed in the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the last part of my question. I reflect on the days when I was in opposition, and the then prime minister and the budget. The leader of the Green Party made reference to the budget bill that proposed changes to around 70 pieces of legislation. One was to stop providing protection for fish and fish habitat. This caused a fairly significant reaction outside the House of Commons. Many concerned Canadians wanted to see that protection remain in place. I will not talk about the omnibus nature of how it was brought in, but it went against what people wanted, whether it was stakeholders or the average Canadian who were familiar with this. That was why our party campaigned on rectifying it.

Does the member not believe we should have listened to Canadians? After all, they see it as an important issue and, in good part, that is why we have brought forward the legislation.