Debates of Feb. 13th, 2018

Fisheries Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member can appreciate that a great deal of work was done leading up to the legislation that was presented today. There were a couple of outreaches to the public to participate, via the Internet. There have been well over 100 different meetings with different stakeholders and indigenous people to get their thoughts and reflections first-hand. The standing committee was also engaged, which came up with 30-plus recommendations.

The legislation before us today is very much forward thinking and I am wondering if the member would agree, given the consultations that have taken place, that the bill was fairly well thought out before being introduced in the chamber and that we should send it to committee. The minister indicated that the government is open to hearing what everyone else might have to say. Does he think that is a good thing?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. He is right that it was important to consult all the groups affected by this bill. There is one thing the Liberal government could have done immediately. As soon as it came to power, it could have restored protections for all fish in Canada. That is being done now, but sadly we lost two years.

I commend the government for listening to the groups and the public because there are a lot of good things in there. I mentioned for example habitat protection for all fish, the considerations related to restoration and sustainability, the cumulative follow-up, which is important, and the rebuilding of fish stocks. These are all good things that are in this bill. I congratulate the government on that. It says that it is open to amendments, but I hope it will also be open to clarifying the ministerial discretion because we have serious concerns about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak to this particular bill because it is so important to the people I represent in North Island—Powell River. It is a very large riding, covering half of Vancouver Island and parts of the mainland as well, so it is really important to me as I serve coastal communities. These communities have a long history of resource economies, and in our resource-rich area the ocean is a large part of our economy.

In these changing times, many people from across my riding have spoken to me about the challenges that they face. Many members of the communities I serve have spoken to me about increasing challenges to make a living fishing in our region. Licences are getting increasingly expensive, leaving the smaller family-owned businesses struggling. Most concerning is the growing scarcity of wild salmon in our region.

It is important for me to discuss legislation like Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, as it touches so directly and profoundly on the lives of residents of our coastal communities. The Fisheries Act is a key federal law for fish habitat protection, one of the key laws for marine biodiversity, and an essential part of Canada's environmental safety net.

On October 25, 2017, Oceana Canada released a review of the state of Canada's fisheries and how the government is managing them. Most concerning to me was how the results told the story of serious concern. In Canada's fisheries, only one-third of the stocks are considered healthy and 13% are in critical condition.

Canada's fishing industry employs more than 79,000 employees and exports more than six billion dollars' worth of seafood annually. In my riding, we have businesses that focus on seafood processing, like Keltic Seafoods in Port Hardy. These local businesses are an important factor to the economic backbone of these regions. They hire local people, keep jobs in the areas that need them, and are so close to the resource of seafood. When our marine stocks are in trouble, this has a significant impact on businesses like these.

It also has impacts on the tourism businesses in our region that flourish due to the natural habitat. Be it in Telegraph Cove, up Bute Inlet, in Gold River, Campbell River, Tla'amin, or Sonora, just to name a few of the robust tourism communities, if people want to experience the beauty of whales, wild salmon, eagles, or bears we have them all and all of them rely on the marine stocks.

The other concern that I have been hearing from the indigenous communities that I have the pleasure to represent is the lack of access to seafood resources for the traditional foods of the people. Many of these communities rely on the food of their ancestors, and as it becomes harder to access, many people are struggling. Visitors to my riding do not have to be there long before they understand the importance of the water, how the ocean and inlets provide a livelihood for the people who live there. They are our water highways and roads for jobs.

It is so easy in our fast-food, plastic-wrapped world to forget the food chain, from the food on our plates back to the earth and the waters, to the farmers and men and women who fish. It is too easy to disconnect ourselves from where our food comes from and how much that food needs to be healthy, safe, and enjoy the protection of good laws and regulations. This is the vital role that the federal government plays.

We saw with the previous Conservative government a disrespect for our fish habitat. The government gutted provisions that offered protection. Changes made to the Fisheries Act in 2012 removed protection for fish and for habitat. I am not surprised that four former ministers who wrote the former prime minister to oppose the changes all came from British Columbia. We on the west coast know its importance. Two of those ministers, Siddon and Fraser, were members of the former prime minister's own Conservative Party but he did not listen to them.

In fixing the loss of that protection, it is important to recall the huge public outcry then opposing the Conservative government legislation. More than 700 scientists wrote the government urging it to keep habitat protection in the act. First nations communities in my riding and across British Columbia spoke out against the changes. Conservative organizations, recreational fishers, and concerned citizens joined first nations demanding that we do everything possible to protect fish habitat.

As Jeffery Young of the David Suzuki Foundation notes:

Without healthy habitat, fish can’t survive. These changes are important tools to fight badly degraded habitat from resource development across Canada as well as prevent species extinction.

My party and I welcome this legislation. We give our support now for second reading. The progress we are making in protecting our fish habitat is happening in part from the good work of the New Democratic Party in committee, including the amazing advocacy of my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam. This bill would implement some of the recommendations made by the NDP in our dissenting opinion to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans' review of changes made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act and the management of Canadian fisheries.

This legislation is a good start, but I fear the government does not go far enough to address protection. Let me state first what I like about the changes proposed in this legislation and then what needs to be better. It is good that we again are more specific on what we must be on guard against. It is good we are talking now about the harm, alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat, and that we are again restoring the definition of fisheries to include all fish.

Now, when making a decision under the Fisheries Act, the minister will have to consider any adverse effects the decision may have on the rights of the indigenous people of Canada, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; include provisions respecting the consideration and protection of traditional knowledge of the indigenous peoples of Canada; and authorize the making of agreements with indigenous governing bodies to further the purpose of the Fisheries Act.

This is long overdue. This respects and begins the process of a nation-to-nation relationship between governments. This is something we will all be watching very closely.

These changes will provide measures for the protection of fish and fish habitat with respect to works, undertakings, or activities that may result in the death of fish or to their harm. We will need to be vigilant on the regulations still to come to ensure that an ecologically significant area will truly be protected. There are several such ecological areas that are significant and sensitive in my riding. There can never be too much protection, given the human, financial, and ecological consequences from any accidents. I find that the expertise in my region of local sport fisheries and indigenous communities is key here. The benefits of hearing those voices, who care so deeply for the habitat and the success of our marine life, will assist in making good policy. I hope the minister remembers to use that local knowledge.

So much of whether this law will lead to good practice will depend on the regulations. Susanna Fuller, Ecology Action Centre, has said, “It is a big step that the new Act includes that the minister must take into account whether or not rebuilding measures are in place for depleted species, however, details on rebuilding will be in regulations.”

Even with this progress in fish habitat protection, I still have concerns on whether this legislation has gone far enough. I am concerned that this bill still does not address the conflicting mandates that Commissioner Cohen identified of conserving wild salmon while promoting salmon farming. This needs to be clarified and it is still not being addressed.

Another concern I have is the need for strong regulations that follow the passing of this legislation. This will need to be clear with timelines and targets, and take into account the impacts of climate change and species interactions.

I note the bill would give a great deal of discretion around decision-making to the minister, allowing decisions to be made based on the minister's opinion rather than enshrining the necessary strong guidelines in the law. This has me concerned and vigilant, along with many who are at the forefront of protecting our fish habitat. I am concerned too that this legislation does not look at protecting environmental flows. This is so important.

With this bill, we would see undone the bad laws of the previous government. Let us ensure we do everything to make sure this a good law, the best possible law and regulations to truly protect our fish habitat. The activists, scientists, businesses, and first nations communities are asking for a better bill.

In closing, the people of North Island—Powell River rely on the strength of our coast to provide recreation, beauty, and economic development. Protecting these investments is so important today and into the future.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech and I want to make a comment as opposed to a question.

I want to put on the record that in my jurisdiction, we are so happy with the recent agreement with the Arctic nations to preserve the Arctic Ocean from fishing until the stocks have been evaluated to see if our stocks can actually be fished, to hold off all the countries that would like to fish there. I assume the member, with her very positive speech, would agree with that initiative.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, as I work and live in the riding I serve of North Island—Powell River, I hear from so many different communities. Many of the sport fishery folks talk to me about how well they work in that environment. They are watching to see what is happening, because they want to preserve and conserve that region. They want to make sure we have healthy habitat for fish, and a strong fishery into the future.

We hear from those sectors and the indigenous communities that there is so much we could be doing. They say, “We need to protect and maintain, because this is our food. This is the wealth of our communities.” It is a wonderful thing to see that come together.

It is important though to state that the minister still holds a lot of power and we need to make sure that decisions are not based on a minister's opinion but that they are based on science and the information that is given to us. Many people rely on that resource. We must respect it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. member for her excellent speech and for her passion for representing her riding, an important part of the coast and coastal communities.

She talked about how important the Fisheries Act is to her area, to the coastal communities, and how important it is to get it right. She also spoke about local knowledge and traditional knowledge and the importance of including traditional knowledge. That is being reflected in the bill, which is a good first step, but in fact it is a small step.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about the importance of going the next step, which is talking about co-governance, co-management, and actually looking at UNDRIP and recognizing what it is all about when talking to first nations and the importance of the fishery to first nations, and their knowledge.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a really important question.

I have the honour of representing over 20 indigenous communities in my riding. They range across a broad area. The issues that they face are very diverse and very similar. One of the challenges that a lot of the communities have talked to me about is being able to work and harvest our marine life for traditional purposes, but also as a way of having their own economy, and how many things have changed, and how that has had a huge impact on their ability to have good jobs in their small and sometimes very remote communities.

This discussion of nation to nation, of really looking at working together and governing together is so important. There is so much knowledge. When I sit down with the leadership, with the elders, I hear that knowledge. I really hope the minister will step in the direction of understanding that the first peoples have lived here since forever. They know their territory. Their history goes so far back that 150 years does not even touch it. They want to share that. They want to make sure their locations are cared for, and they want to be a part of that process.

We had a terrible diesel spill in one of the parts of my riding not too long ago. The indigenous community was there on the scene. They said to me afterwards, “We just want to be part of the process so that when this happens, we can activate things, do something, but we were sitting there waiting, being told we couldn't be part of the solution. When are we going to be part of the solution?”

That discussion is really the next step. I look forward to seeing that happen. I know the nations in my riding are watching for that.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, 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. However, 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 spinoffs 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 it 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 principle 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 would 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 there are measures 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 the process might work. Working with partners, including indigenous groups, the department would identify potential 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 an ecologically significant area, then a fish habitat restoration plan must be published on the public registry. Not only would this approach go a long way to restoring habitat, but it would also promote greater engagement with partners, as well as greater transparency with Canadians around decision-making.

The fourth area relates to authorities for making regulations for the restoration of fish habitats. 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 to 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. This in turn would make fisheries more resilient and would 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.

I urge all hon. members to join with me in supporting these much needed amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and agree with a lot of what he said. However, I do want to focus specifically on a large issue that is affecting the west coast in British Columbia. That is the Kinder Morgan pipeline. The project was approved under the current act and the old NEB process. My colleague talked about the importance of science-based decisions. If this project goes ahead, one of the issues is with the product that is going to be shipped. We do not know if dilbit sinks or floats, but it is likely to sink. There is no technology on our coast that is readily available to clean that up. As well, how would we go forward with a world-class oil spill response?

The minister and the government have talked about the oceans protection plan, but there is no technology known to clean up that product. How can we have a science-based approach, and then this glaring scientific gap in cleaning up this product that the government wants to move off our coast?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did say that the Kinder Morgan project has already been approved, so I guess the approval and the environmental assessment have already been done for it to move forward.

Hopefully, now that we have the time to bring these changes in, we will find and incorporate the science that will provide the necessary protection should such a mishap occur where the substance leaks out into our pristine oceans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Avalon. He has been a very strong advocate on a wide variety of issues, but he has a special interest in our coastal regions and important issues in that area. I also respect his representation of his constituents. How does he think his constituents would see this legislation as a whole, and the manner in which he will be supporting it?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when we were looking at amendments to the Fisheries Act at the committee, one question I asked various witnesses, whether they were DFO officials, environmentalists, or whomever, was whether we were going to get it right this time. I told them that Newfoundland had a strong connection to the fishery, my riding in particular, that all but one community was bound by the Atlantic Ocean, that many people made a living from the ocean and had for hundreds of years, and that they would continue to do that. It was very important that we get it right, that we protected the fish and fish habitat. I did not speak to one fisherman who was inclined to say that we should catch the last fish or damage the habitat. They wanted it to be there for themselves and their children to use.

A representative from one of the larger fish companies in the province, Ocean Choice International, was speaking at a function one night. He made the comment that the fishery had to change. He said that it was not about the quantity but the quality we took out of the water. I was surprised to learn that this Newfoundland-born company, and still Newfoundland owned and operated, exported 100 million pounds of fish to 35 different countries every year. These people depend on the fishery. It provides a good living for a lot of people involved in the fishery. The company wants to see the fish there tomorrow so it can continue to provide those very important jobs.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the perspective of my Liberal colleague. I do not think anybody in the House wants to jeopardize the health of our fisheries, whether in the oceans or rivers. I have probably three of the most pristine fly fishing rivers in the world in my riding. I certainly understand the importance of protecting those waterways.

The concern we certainly have heard from many of our constituents is the overarching unintended consequences of undoing a lot of the elimination of red tape and regulations we did in 2012. I know it is important to protect some of these large fisheries and large waterways, but there would be unintended consequences. It would impact farmers, ranchers, and rural municipalities.

They will have to go back and deal with that onerous red tape. They will have the DFO enforcement officers over their shoulders when they are spraying around draining ditches. They will have to worry about cleaning culverts. This was a huge issue for our rural communities. That is why we made a lot of these changes in 2012, and the bill before us would undo the changes and go back to that red tape.

Could my colleague comment on the unintended consequences of the proposed legislation and the impact it will have on rural communities?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of what the member said, such as a farmer who puts in a drainage ditch in which a trout decides to habitat and is punished or stopped from doing any future work in that area.

I was glad to hear the minister say earlier today, in response to a question, that he hoped the bill would go to committee so further amendments could be introduced. I would hope for something along those lines to protect the farmers. I certainly do not agree with them being punished because a trout or some species of fish has found refuge in drains they have created to drain their lands or provide water to their crops. I look forward to those amendments coming forward to committee in the near future.

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

Mr. Speaker, one think that will be strengthened in the Fisheries Act is the focus on the inshore fishery, the owner-operator principle. We support that element of the legislation.

My hon. colleague talked about the importance of protecting habitat and biological diversity. However, one of the shortcomings of the bill is that there is no protection for environmental flows, which is about the quality and quantity of the water in rivers and that habitat which is so vital to the protection and flourishing of the fishery. Could my hon. colleague comment on the importance of protecting environmental flows and securing that water for fish?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleague is on the fisheries and oceans committee.

It is important we look at all aspects of protecting the environment and the habitat. It is no good protecting one part of it if we do not protect it all. Water flow is certainly a big part of that. As I said earlier, I look forward to the bill coming to committee and having amendments put forward.

The member mentioned the owner-operator policy, which is very important to individual fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead of seeing large companies buying up quotas and farming them out to fishermen, the individual fishermen are the people who should hold those quotas. They should see the benefits of it, with the money going back to the communities in which live.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments. We have time for a 30-second question and a 30-second answer.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Watch how quick I can be, Mr. Speaker.

The government committed to bring in legislation in response to the legislation that was passed in 2012, so it is a promise kept. Could my colleague comment on keeping that promise?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is the shortest question I have ever heard him ask, keeping it to 30 seconds.

It is a promise made and a promise kept. It was a good promise, and it is good to see this great promise kept by this government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The promise to keep it under a minute was kept as well, and I am glad to see it.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. I recall very succinctly, in my previous career as a journalist, how important the ramifications of the changes in 2012 to the Navigable Waters Protection Act were to farmers, ranchers, and municipalities. I will share this story.

I lived in a municipality in Saskatchewan and a farmer had a drainage area across from his property, where six weeks of the year, during spring runoff, water would flow across the property. There was a very old bridge there. In partnership with the farmer, the municipality went to replace that bridge. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans said that it was navigable water, that there was the possibility of a fish habitat there, and that the bridge over this waterway needed to be large enough for watercraft to fit under.

I can assure everyone that for this waterway, which held water for maybe six weeks a year with a good snowfall, there was no reason for the bridge over this drainage area to be large enough for watercraft. There were going to be no canoes, kayaks, Sea-Doos, and certainly the last pirate of Saskatchewan was not going to sailing down the plains to the mighty banks of the Regina. That is exactly what farmers and ranchers in rural municipalities were having to face before the changes were made in 2012.

The Liberal government likes to say that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. Unfortunately, with a lot of the legislation it puts forward, including this, there is always one hand tied behind our backs, and that is the economic hand. That certainly is the case with our farmers and ranchers when it comes to this legislation.

We can go back to what has been a very clear theme with a lot of the Liberal legislation: consequences be damned to rural communities and agriculture. We saw that come to a head in the fall with the small business tax changes. The government did not understand the consequences the changes were going to have on the transition of the family farm or farmers using income splitting. It was not until the rural communities and farm families voiced their opposition quite profoundly to the changes that the Liberals finally decided to step back. I will not say they stepped down, because I want to see what is in the budget coming up later this month.

Canada's food guide is still the number one document that people download from the Government of Canada website. It has a profound impact on the agriculture sector. Canada's food guide asks Canadians to eat less animal protein and less dairy. During the discussions and consultations on this document, it specifically said that representation from the agriculture sector was excluded from those discussions. In addition, very important health experts were also excluded from that discussion. I have letters signed by 700 medical professionals who say the direction of Canada's food guide is wrong.

Then there is the carbon tax. Studies have shown, even by the finance department, that it is profoundly impacts rural Canada. We see this theme going through everything the Liberal government is doing, unfortunately. The consequences of its decisions on rural Canadians and our agriculture sector do not resonate, it does not matter, and that is very unfortunate. They are an important part of our economy, certainly a pillar of who we are as Canadians, and part of our Canadian culture.

That is still the case with the legislation before us today. I do not think there is anyone in the House who does not want to ensure that we protect our fisheries and pristine waterways. It is certainly a fabric of who we are as Canadians. As I said earlier, in my constituency and riding of Foothills, there is the Bow River Basin and some of the most pristine fly fishing areas in the world. I am very lucky. If I drive north to south in my riding, I cross the Bow, Elbow, Sheep, Highwood, Oldman, and Belly Rivers. My riding covers all of those rivers.

A lot of Albertans would be quite surprised to learn that hunters and anglers spend close to $1 billion a year in Alberta. Many of my rural communities, like Crow's Nest Pass, Longview, High River, rely on the dollars that are spent by those hunters, anglers, and tourists.

For my colleagues across the floor and in the other room today to say that the changes we made in 2012 dismantled protection of Canada's waterways is not only misleading, it is absolutely wrong.

I am a Conservative member. I understand the impact that has on my constituency and my communities. There is no way I would have stood up and voted in favour of something that I knew would have a detrimental impact on certainly one of the most important amenities in my riding, the lifeblood of southwest Alberta.

Some of my favourite moments as a child was going on fishing trips with my father, going into the back country, no one around, no cellphones, of course this this was before cellphones, and enjoying the wilderness. My son and his grandfather enjoyed many of those same excursions. They were important to him.

To say that we do not care about our environment is just not true. We worked hard to find a balance between what was best for the environment and at the same time ensure that our farmers and ranchers had the ability to operate their farms and that municipalities could work through what was very onerous red tape and bureaucracy in the process.

The Conservative Party believes the goals of the Fisheries Act should remain. They were there to protect fish stock while at the same time avoiding unnecessary negative economic impacts and the bureaucratic tape that industries and municipalities had to, ironically, navigate through to ensure they could even operate.

The changes made by the previous Conservative government in 2012 improved fisheries conservation, prioritized fish productivity, protected significant fisheries, and reduced the regulatory burden on rural and farming communities. It also ensured that we protected our environment by protecting critical waterways, while at the same time eliminating those unnecessary hurdles and obstacles that were impeding economic opportunities.

Prior to 2012, the Fisheries Act did not make any distinction between vital waterways, lakes, or rivers that supported Canada's fishing industry. It did not distinguish between those smaller waterways that likely never supported a fish population, maybe 150 years ago but certainly not now.

The 1992 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act required environmental assessments for all protected waterways, even if it was a single project, like a small dock, cleaning a culvert, or minor bridge repairs. All of these were assessed in the same way that a major project on a major waterway was assessed. We tried to clean up some of these issues in 2012, and we did a strong job on that.

I have heard from our agriculture community and our rural municipalities that when spraying was being done near a drainage ditch, one of the biggest headaches was always looking for that DFO enforcement officer who would slap on a fine when minor maintenance or pest control was being done, the types of things that are done on a farm. Municipalities had to go through a lot of hoops and hurdles just to do a bridge repair or clean out a culvert after a long winter.

We want to ensure there are no unintended consequences with the legislation as a result of doing these things. However, the Liberal government has not given us that assurance. We just heard the minister say that he was hopeful that when the bill went to committee, there would be amendments to address some of these things. The Liberal government has not exactly been open-minded when it comes to amendments brought forward by opposition parties. I cannot say that I am hopeful that it will take our amendments in good faith and will listen to concerns of our farmers.

I recall many of our farmers in rural municipalities being quite relieved when we made these changes in 2012. These were important mechanisms and levers they had to ensure they could get critical infrastructure projects done.

It is important that they were going to be allowed to follow through on some economic development opportunities and some natural resource development. Again, these things have to be done with a balanced approach. We are not saying that this is wide open. Over the last five or six years, since the 2012 changes were made, we have not had constituents or communities or municipalities coming to us saying that this has been a horrible decision, to please go back to what we had before, that they needed those regulations and that red tape and things have gone a bit out of control. That has not been the case.

In fact, the changes we made have achieved the goals that we intended. They have allowed our rural communities to continue doing business without having that exorbitant amount of red tape and bureaucracy that they had to go through. That is critically important. Our rural communities are looking to our different levels of government to ensure we are giving them the tools they need to survive and to thrive. Unfortunately, over the last 18 months, what they have seen is a federal government that is doing exactly the opposite. Any tools that have been provided to them to be successful are being dismantled and one by one taken away.

On this side of the House, the Conservative members have been the voice of our rural constituents. We will continue to do that, whether it is the small business tax changes, the carbon tax, the Canada food guide, or the front-of-package labelling. Going back to putting restrictions and red tape and bureaucracy on to these communities is not a step forward; this is a punishing and debilitating step backward. We want to ensure that our municipalities and rural communities have an opportunity to thrive and grow.

It is troubling to see the Liberals reverting back to these pre-2012 regulations. Those regulations created confusion, they were difficult to enforce, and they certainly negatively impacted our farmers, communities, and natural resource development.

We have seen in the discussions we have had over the last couple of weeks on the Trans Mountain pipeline, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Prime Minister stand up and vehemently say that the pipeline is going to get built, but never will they say what they will do to ensure that project gets built. When it comes to a natural resource perspective, in my province of Alberta, we rely heavily on our natural resources, and we want to ensure that there is a clear path to success. Is there going to be some environmental impact analysis that needs to be done, some environmental boxes that must be ticked? Absolutely, there will be. We want to ensure that we protect our pristine Canadian landscape. At the same time, we have to ensure there is an opportunity for investment, an opportunity for natural resource development in Canada.

I would like to point to my colleague from Calgary, who a couple of weeks ago put it in a wonderful perspective. The direction we are going toward is adding hurdles to doing everything we can to ensure there is never another natural resource project built in Canada. Let us put that in perspective. They will say that oil is at $57 a barrel today. Absolutely, West Texas Intermediate is at $57 a barrel, but Canadian crude oil is selling at $30 a barrel. That is almost a $30 subsidy that we are giving to United States. That is a hospital being built in the United States every month that should be built here in Canada. That is a school being built every day in the United States that could be built here in Canada. However, it is not, because we have an ideological approach to our natural resources, to our agricultural economy, and to our rural constituents that is harmful not only to my province of Alberta but to all of Canada.

We had the Minister of Natural Resources say today that under 10 years of our former Conservative government, we never got anything built. Seventeen pipelines were built. They were not talked about being built, but built. Under the current government, it is zero. The Liberals have talked a lot about having pipelines built. Absolutely, I give them credit for that, but there is no shovel in the ground on Trans Mountain. Northern Gateway is done. Energy east was done, never to be heard from again. It is a lot of talk.

Again, on these environmental changes to the Fisheries Act, there has been a lot of talk; however, members do not understand the consequences of these decisions and what they are going to be doing to rural Canadians and our economy. That is something that I really hope my Liberal colleagues across the floor would start to understand and take into consideration, that the decisions they are making are having a detrimental impact on rural Canadians, our agriculture sector, and certainly our natural resources sector.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have four minutes and 30 seconds to complete his debate when this topic comes up again.

It being 5:56 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-232, an act respecting Canadian Jewish heritage month, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Canadian Jewish Heritage Month Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.