House of Commons Hansard #263 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was habitat.

Topics

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the hon. minister for her apology.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 26 minutes.

The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to revert to petitions at this point.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Does the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk have the unanimous consent of the House to go back to petitions under the routine proceedings rubric?

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canada Summer Jobs ProgramPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to table a petition from 31 constituents. These petitioners call to the government's attention that, as it is now written, the application to the Canada summer jobs program forces employers to choose between their charter-protected freedoms and eligibility for government funding. The petitioners are calling on the government to remove the discriminatory attestation requirement from the Canada summer jobs application and respect the charter rights for all Canadians, even though they may be different from the political agenda of the government of the day.

North American Free Trade AgreementPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today a petition calling on the government to recognize the unique situation we are in with the renegotiation of NAFTA. The petitioners have some direct asks: remove ISDS provisions, eliminate the energy proportionality provisions, make significant improvements to enhance the enforceability of the agreements on labour and the environmental standards, and resist further patent extensions. There are nearly 100 signatories to this petition that I am proud to present today calling on the government for action on these important issues in NAFTA renegotiations.

Indigenous HistoryPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today on the traditional unceded territories of the Algonquin nation, I am pleased to present petition e-1228 calling on the government to work in consultation and partnership with indigenous peoples to redesign the Canadian citizenship guide and exam to acknowledge indigenous treaty rights, require applicants to answer a question about the traditional territories they may currently inhabit, and educate new Canadians about residential schools and the legacy of colonialism.

This petition was initiated by my constituent, Mariam Manaa in consultation with local indigenous knowledge keeper, Stephen Paquette. The petition received tremendous response and support in my riding of Oakville North—Burlington, located on the traditional territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, and across Canada.

Organ DonationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Len Webber Conservative Calgary Confederation, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in support of my private member's bill, which I expect will come up for debate in April, Bill C-316. The petition was submitted by members of the National Capital Region Gift of Life Network. Petitioners from around Ottawa and Gatineau are calling on the House to improve the organ donation system in Canada. This would be achieved by making the process to register as an organ donor easier by adding a simple question to our annual tax returns. Becoming an organ donor is the easiest way to save the life of a fellow human being. These are signatures of caring Canadians who want to see our organ donor system work better so that we can save more lives every day.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties with respect to getting the unanimous consent that I made reference to earlier. Therefore, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, any recorded division in respect of an item of Private Members' Business deferred to Wednesday, February 14, 2018, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business, pursuant to Standing Orders 93(1) or 98(4), shall be deemed deferred anew until Wednesday, February 14, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Business of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

When the House last took up the question, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader had three and a half minutes remaining in the time for questions and comments for his remarks. We will now go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Avalon.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

Mr. Speaker, during the removal of certain aspects in 2012 from the fish and fish habitat protections, there was a provision put in for developers to self-assess. In other words, if I were a proponent building a hydro dam, I would report myself if there was any harm brought to fish or fish habitat during that construction. It seemed a bit ridiculous when I found that out because it would be like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

I wonder if the member could comment on how ridiculous it is to expect people to report themselves for breaking a law with respect to any development they would be doing.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I can say that the member for Avalon has a way with words and has really hit the nail on the head. The member talked about an action that was taken by the former Stephen Harper government. He is doing a fantastic job representing the interests of those who recognize that it was a bad thing that the Conservatives did in the 2012 budget, because this is all about protecting our fish habitats and fish in general.

What this legislation would do is fulfill an election commitment by the Prime Minister and the government, which was no doubt heavily influenced by members of the Atlantic caucus and others across all regions of the country. As I know that is an important issue for the member personally, I am sure he will be happy that we not only reversed what the Harper government had done but did more with respect to protecting fish habitat and fish in general, which is a good thing. I suspect members will find that all stakeholders and interested Canadians who are following the issue would be quite pleased with this piece of legislation and support it.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this last question was about self-reporting and the belief that it was actually removed. If members would look at subclause 25(4) of Bill C-68, it states:

Every person shall without delay notify an inspector, a fishery officer, a fishery guardian or an authority prescribed by the regulations of the death of fish that is not authorized under this Act

That is still self-reporting. It is still there. It has not changed. Therefore, how can the hon. member opposite try to say that was restored or changed?

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the member that what he needs to do is look at budget 2012, which I know is a 400-plus page document, and he will find that there were issues that were taken out of the act that dealt with things such as fish and fish habitat preservation. These are the types of things that this legislation reverses. That is the essence of what was being talked about in the previous question and the response I had provided.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today, but I am not pleased about the topic or Bill C-68. This is a large bill that would have huge impacts on fisheries and fish stocks across Canada. The bill would also have wide-ranging implications for economic development, farmers, rural municipalities, and more, and I will get into that in detail.

As a relatively new member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I was not on the committee when it studied the 2012 changes that were made to the Fisheries Act. However, I would like to focus a good chunk of my comments on the testimony that was heard during those hearings.

The committee started its study in October 2016 and presented a report to the House in February 2017. The committee heard from 50 different witnesses during the study and received over 188 submitted briefing notes. It was a very comprehensive study and I think would have been a useful tool for the government to use when it was drafting this proposed legislation. The study directly looked at the changes that the previous government made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act, which were changes that significantly improved the Fisheries Act.

One of the significant changes made in 2012 was a shift away from what is commonly referred to as “HADD”, which stands for harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. It is contained within proposed subsection 35(1) of the bill, where it states:

No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.

Essentially this means that any sort of development that could be seen to be harmful, altering, disrupting or destroying fish habitats, would be subject to an immense amount of review and red tape and could be stopped or prohibited. Furthermore, it is unclear what constitutes fish habitat. It was found that DFO and others played fast and loose with this term, and used a broad definition to apply this to waterways that really had no impact on fish stocks. This system was ineffective, a nightmare for development, and had no measurable success in protecting fish populations.

Of the things that were affected the most by this, I have some on my farms. They are waterways after a very heavy rain or first thing in the spring runoff, but other than that, they are dry and able to be farmed the rest of the year. However, the same things applied to them as what would apply to, say, the St. Lawrence River, which is totally ridiculous.

The change in 2012 brought in a much simpler and effective definition to ensure that fish were protected but that reasonable projects could still move forward. This new definition was as follows:

No person shall carry on any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.

This definition is much more effective and provides certainty and clarity for developers, farmers, fishermen, first nations, and more.

In the report from the fisheries and oceans committee, the third recommendation stated that:

Any revision of the Fisheries Act should review and refine the previous definition of HADD due to the previous definition’s vulnerability to being applied in an inconsistent manner and the limiting effect it had on government agencies in their management of fisheries and habitats in the interest of fish productivity.

Therefore, I am slightly confused as to why we are now seeing what looks to be a return to HADD in Bill C-68. It does not make any sense. The testimony is there in black and white, and that testimony, of course, came from witnesses.

For example, as I mentioned, the committee heard from 50 different witnesses and received more than 188 submitted briefing notes. Not one single individual or organization was able to present the committee with any scientific or legal proof of harm that was a result of the changes made in 2012. We all know that, at the time, the environmental associations and others threw their hands up in the air, yelled, screamed, and kicked that these changes would be the death of all fish in Canada, but the proof is just not there. Six years later, I think our fish are doing pretty good. However, it is my distinct fear that the government is simply returning to the pre-2012 provisions just to appease these groups.

The return of HADD in Bill C-68 would undoubtedly be used as a way for opponents of projects to prevent development projects from moving forward. Just look at the pipeline that was discussed in depth yesterday. By returning to this system, a system that had proven to be ineffective, the government is playing right into the wheelhouse of those who seek to halt, delay, and do whatever they can to stop all forms of development in the country. That has to end.

One impact that is not always clear to many is the impact farmers face due to the Fisheries Act, and it will be 10 times worse under a system that uses the HADD definition. When farmers are looking to expand or develop their farmland they can get caught up in reviews of their projects under the Fisheries Act. A return to HADD would make the lives of farmers much more difficult.

When testifying before the committee, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated that prior to 2012 there were lengthy bureaucratic applications for permitting and authorizations, but the 2012 changes drastically improved the timeliness and cost of conducting regular maintenance and improvement activities to their farms. CFA expanded on this by stating that it is the CFA's position that a complete revert—which we are getting from the government now—to reinstate all provisions of the Fisheries Act as they were, would be unproductive, would re-establish the same problems for farmers, and would provide little improvement. That goes back to the example I used of intermittent waterways on our farms being treated like they were fish habitat.

What is ironic about the attack on farmers in the bill is that today is Canada Agriculture Day. As we should be doing every day, let us recognize the important work that farmers do and ensure that their voices are heard. Farmers do not want to return to a pre-2012 system. In fact, no one but those that oppose development do. The government should stop catering to these interest groups and abandon this plan.

The reason these changes came about was members of Parliament from all parties came together for the rural caucus to come up with ways to improve things overall, whether it was agriculture, rural health care, or whatever. The changes that came from the bill in 2012 came out of discussions there. Just because the government has groups of people who are against anything going on in the country, to appease them, to try to get their vote, it is saying, “Okay, we'll give you what you want.” That is not the way to do business or to govern.

It is not just farmers that have concerns though. The Canadian Electricity Association said that Bill C-68 is “one step forward but two steps back”. It went on to state:

CEA is particularly concerned that the government has chosen to return to pre-2012 provisions of the Fisheries Act that address “activity other than fishing that results in the death of fish, and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat”. In practical terms, this means that virtually any action, without prior authorization, could be construed as being in contravention of this Act. Consequently, the reinstatement of these measures will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities, and unduly delay and/or discourage investment in energy projects that directly support Canada’s clean growth agenda and realize its climate change objectives.

To make a long story short, this is bad news for Canadian development, and will have no positive impact on the protection of fish populations in Canada. I urge the government to revisit the return of HADD and amend the legislation to ensure that economic development and environmental protections go hand in hand and not head to head.

I sit on the committee with my hon. colleague, the member for Avalon. I know he has the best interests of fish at heart, but I would ask him to consider agriculture in this. The examples are these intermittent waterways that are put back in the way they were before, which is just not right. It is a direct attack on agriculture and does not do anything for the environment, fish, or any other thing.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

Mr. Speaker, I was present earlier when the minister spoke and answered questions. One thing he did say to another member was that he looked forward to the bill going to committee and the committee coming back with any amendments that it deemed good for the bill.

Would the hon. member not agree that now is the time to get this bill before the committee so it can review it and suggest any amendments for the protection of people such as farmers, and then return the bill with the suggested amendments to the minister?

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, yes, the committee is part of the process. I thank my colleague in advance for his support of the reversal of some of the good things that had been reversed by this bill. We will put them back in place.

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member specifically cited the impacts this can have on large electrical infrastructure projects. In British Columbia, as many people know, we pride ourselves on our clean hydroelectricity. Unfortunately, from time to time we do have to import other sources of energy and often they are not clean sources of hydro.

These projects, by the way, are regulated provincially under the B.C. Utilities Commission process, and sometimes they are not allowed to build new electrical stations for demand until it gets to the point where it is justified. They cannot be planned 10 years in advance. Often when these projects start, it is well after that demand point has been hit, and we are bringing in less than clean energy.

This particular legislation throws more obstacles in the way, and not just in regard to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Does the hon. member think that this will have an adverse effect and create a situation where provinces and their electrical utilities, and the companies that operate under those regulatory schemes, will have more dirty sources of power, and those costs will be transmitted to the ratepayer?

Fisheries ActGovernment Orders

February 13th, 2018 / 4 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, the easy answer to my colleague's question is that yes, this will cause negative problems. It will cost the consumers, who are Canadian taxpayers, more for the product, in this case hydro.

The changes in 2012 were done for a specific reason. They were done to still have a process where approvals could get done properly, but there were timelines put on them. I always point people who are opposed to anything and everything, and in this case, the people behind this bill, to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. For 25 years the government, environmentalists, and other organizations held up businesses who were willing to invest in the project. Really, all that the government was saying in 2012 was to set a reasonable timeline and tell the companies yes or no, not maybe. Tell them one way or the other, and if the answer is no, they will accept that. Then they will take their money and invest it in other Canadian projects, which is only good for jobs, business, and the economy. That is what this is about. However, Bill C-68 reverses that and makes it longer and more onerous.