Debates of Feb. 13th, 2018

Fisheries Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have looked forward to engaging in this debate on the Fisheries Act amendments that the government has brought forward.

Let me begin by saying that I doubt there is a member in this House who would not promote the protection of our environment and, more specifically, the fisheries resources that we have across Canada. We are an incredibly wealthy country when it comes to fisheries resources. We live in a beautiful country with clean streams, clean lakes, pristine oceans, and we want to protect all of our fish habitat and the fish that find their way into that habitat.

We, as Conservatives, really pride ourselves on conservation. It is something that we did a really good job on when we were in government for 10 years. We believe that being stewards of the environment is one of the things that should characterize who we are.

I would like to share a story with members. I used to be a member of city council in Abbotsford, and of course had lots of interactions with developers, farmers, and people who were running commercial businesses. One day a farmer came into my office. He was very irate. He shared with me that he had just had an altercation with a fisheries officer. The farmer was on his own land; it was owned by him. A couple of years earlier, he had dug a ditch to drain the water from his fields so that he could grow crops and provide for his family, and make a living off the land. As he was on the land clearing his ditch, a fisheries officer, with a sidearm, by the way, approached him, without permission, and said, “Sir, what you're doing, cleaning the ditch, you cannot do. It's going to harm fisheries. You just cannot do that. You're going to have to make due with flooded fields.” As everyone can imagine, the farmer got really angry. That is why he approached me and asked what I could do.

We finally passed on our concerns, as did many of my Conservative colleagues, to the Conservative government of the day. In 2012, that government responded positively and said that there were elements of the Fisheries Act that were not reasonable, that did not reflect common sense. One of the reasons we were having problems was with the kind of work that was being prohibited in the Fisheries Act. It was defined as any work or undertaking that results in “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat”, which my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound referred to as HADD.

That HADD standard had some very unintended consequences and side effects, especially for the farmers in my riding of Abbotsford. I went to bat for them, and I know many of my Conservative colleagues went to bat for farmers in their ridings, and the government delivered. In 2012, our former Conservative government changed the legislation to delete references to HADD. We introduced language that was more reflective of what actually happens in real life.

These changes were made, but our Liberal friends opposed them and our NDP friends opposed them, as they always do. When the new Liberal government was elected, it decided to send the matter of fisheries protection and the 2012 changes that we had made to the fisheries committee. As my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound articulated, that committee looked very carefully at the revised provisions of the Fisheries Act from 2012 to see what kind of impact they had had.

Members of the committee asked witnesses at committee what they could point to specifically to show that the 2012 streamlining measures by the former Conservative government that reintroduced common sense to the Fisheries Act had had any negative impact on fish or fish habitat. They could not find anything. Not one witness before committee could point to one instance where streamlining the Fisheries Act in 2012 negatively impacted Canada's fishery resources.

Should these decisions to again revise the Fisheries Act and reintroduce HAAD, which caused so much angst among farmers and others who had to do business, not be based on evidence and science? There was no science basis for the decision to move forward with these new amendments to the act. The committee could not show one instance of where fish and fish habitat had been harmed. The government had no evidence, no science, upon which this legislation before us was based.

I did my homework as well. I actually went to our critic for fisheries, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, and asked him if he discovered any information that might lead us to believe that the Liberal government actually did some checking as to whether there was some science attached to the changes it is bringing forward today. My colleague said, “Yes, we submitted an Order Paper question to the Minister of Fisheries.”

In an Order Paper question, we can ask ministers any question about their portfolio, and they are compelled to respond. What question did my colleague ask the Minister of Fisheries? My colleague referred to the mandate letter the fisheries minister received from the Prime Minister when he was appointed minister to see what he had been mandated to do with respect to the Fisheries Act.

He found that the government had done no work to determine whether the new provisions of this act were even necessary or to determine what impact they would have. The questions were, for example, what loss protections the mandate letter was referring to. What harm or proof of harm to fish or fish habitat, attributed to the previous Conservative government's changes to these acts, exists? Is there any evidence of harm? What protections were lost, or are alleged to have been lost, as a result of the previous government's changes to these acts that are not provided for under other federal, provincial, or territorial legislation or regulations?

Here is the answer that came back from the fisheries minister:

the department has not been either resourced or mandated to conduct this type of comprehensive monitoring and has not undertaken specific monitoring or analysis to compare the impacts of the changes to the act. The department is, however, developing new processes....

After the fact, the Liberals are now trying to catch up, but this legislation that came forward has no science basis. It is intended to delay development in Canada.

We see what has happened with the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, which has created a trade war between the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, because there are certain individuals and governments in Canada that do not respect the rule of law. That project went through a rigorous scientific review.

The changes to the Fisheries Act being contemplated today in the House, presented by the Liberal government, have only one intent, and that is to slow down and stop critical development of our natural resources and critical infrastructure that is needed across our country.

I say to the Liberals, shame on them. They claim to be the defenders and promoters of a science-based approach to governing and legislation, and they brought forward a bill like this, which is nothing of the sort. It omits a science-based approach and simply imposes an ideological one, replacing badly needed changes our previous government implemented and reverting to the old system, which harmed so many businesses across Canada that tried to build critical infrastructure and develop natural resources.

That is not the way Canada is going to grow its economy. This is bad legislation. I hope when this gets back to committee, the Liberal and NDP members of the committee understand what is at stake and reconsider the changes they are bringing forward to the Fisheries Act.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, a few years back, my daughter Candice was an Earth Rangers ambassador. She raised thousands of dollars for the Oregon spotted frog. From that, we see that there are a number of young people who understand the importance of the environment and of protecting our environment and our coastlines, etc.

I am wondering what my hon. colleague would say to the young people in his riding and elsewhere who want to restore the protection of fish and fish habitat, who want to ensure that we are protecting up to 10% of our coastal area by 2020, and who want to ensure that the environment and the economy go hand in hand.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I would say in response is that the legislation we have before us is not about restoring lost protections. Those protections were never lost.

In 2012, we brought amendments to the Fisheries Act that streamlined the act to make sure, as the member has said, that the economy and the environment went hand in hand. This is what the Minister of Environment always preaches but actually never delivers on, because she has never found that beautiful balance between the environment and the economy.

We cannot have a healthy environment without having prosperity. If we look around the world, the countries with the highest environmental standards are those that are the most prosperous. The two go hand in hand.

When the Liberals introduce legislation like that before us, what they are doing is undermining Canada's ability to build infrastructure, to build pipelines, and to develop resources. They are undermining our long-term prosperity as a country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Abbotsford painted quite a picture of the reason for the 2012 changes. He talked about farmers' drainage ditches being the reason for the gutting of the Fisheries Act in 2012. I remember it quite differently. My understanding of the real reason behind the changes was to do with then prime minister Harper's concern about the Fisheries Act causing a problem for the oil agenda he had, which was to get those pipelines to tidewater.

What did the Conservatives do? They went after a specific section of the act, which was about habitat protection, and removed it completely. They switched the focus of the act to serious harm to certain fish, commercial fish, making it practically impossible to prove that any project would have an impact on fish or fisheries. In fact, that caused the absolute opposite of what he was hoping for, which was certainty for business and industry. It started to cause uncertainty.

Six hundred scientists spoke out. Two former Conservative fisheries ministers, John Fraser and Tom Siddon, spoke out. What would my colleague say to John Fraser and Tom Siddon about their concerns about the changes in 2012?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I would say to them and what I would say to that member, who I respect, is that his suggestion that we gutted the Fisheries Act is not borne out by evidence.

In my earlier comments, I mentioned that the fisheries committee studied the changes we made to the Fisheries Act. Committee members specifically asked the witnesses if there was any evidence that the changes made to the Fisheries Act to make it more responsive to the needs of the Canadian economy, while at the same time protecting our fish and fish habitat, put fish habitat at risk. There was not one piece of evidence brought forward at committee.

I am an evidence-based guy. I am a lawyer. In courtrooms, they alway talk about evidence. I believe in science. I believe in evidence. That evidence could have been presented at committee. Any of the members of that committee, representing all the parties in the House, had the opportunity to ask if those changes the former Conservative government made harmed fish or fish habitat, and not one person came forward.

The suggestion that the Fisheries Act was gutted in 2012 is patently false.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the changes in the Fisheries Act. I believe that many of the amendments being proposed are absolutely necessary at this time.

I will start by responding to some of the comments made by my colleague across the way. He talked about evidence being submitted in this review. Members will remember that it was back in November of 2015 that the Prime Minister mandated the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to review the previous government's changes to the Fisheries Act to restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards. The standing committee was asked to examine the changes that were made in 2012, as the member indicated, and to engage with Canadians right across the country about their views.

Despite what the member said, the standing committee at that time heard from 50 witnesses during the process, which included indigenous groups and many others involved with resource management and in the resource sector. The committee also received 188 written submissions, 40% of which were from indigenous Canadians who felt they had been omitted from previous structuring within the Fisheries Act on waters adjacent to their areas. There were also eight resource management boards, established under land claim agreements that the Government of Canada signed on to, that made submissions either individually or jointly, because their agreements with Canada were not being upheld from a fisheries perspective.

I know this issue very well. I have one of those agreements in my own riding with the Inuit of Labrador in Nunatsiavut where land claims were signed on to, with fisheries jurisdictions being part of that. However, they were not upheld as the beneficiaries of the agreement had intended. Therefore, these things needed to be looked at.

There will be a number of changes to this act. I realize members are often afraid when changes happen, including industry and others across Canada, as to how the changes will impact them. All of us have a responsibility, as lawmakers in this country, to ensure that what we do, we do in a practical, sensible, and sustainable way. That means that when it comes to resource development and job creation, we have to ensure there are environmental protections and good habitat for the sustainability of fish species. It works both ways. When we talk about managing the environment, we also have to ensure there are mechanisms for economic growth, job creation, and resource development. These are the pieces that our government has been focused on. We are focused very clearly on how to create maximum opportunities for all Canadians, both in the environment and the economy.

I believe we are getting this right. The proposed changes in the Fisheries Act that we are looking at today, and the overview of the changes that have been presented to Canadians by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, are very much in line with what Canadians are asking for.

Before I continue, I will inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time today with the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

There are a couple of things that I want to note. First, one thing I like about this act is that it looks at the social, economic, and cultural aspects of how the fishery is managed and performs across Canada.

I live in a region of the country where this has not always been the case, where it has not always been looked at how local economies can benefit. We have not always looked at the social well-being of the communities that are in and around those areas. We have certainly not taken into perspective the cultural and traditional practices of many individuals within the fishing industry across Canada.

I am very pleased with those sections that have been incorporated here. I am also pleased to see there will be consultations around quota allocation, where priorities should be set around quota allocations, and how communities benefit from those quota allocations. A lot of these things are at the discretion of the minister. Therefore, having a full understanding and the incorporation of traditional knowledge from those in the industry, indigenous knowledge from those who live in and around resources, is very important in those decisions. They are as important as science in many cases when they are deciding how quotas will be allocated, how species will be protected, or how habitats within certain regions are dependent upon each other.

Under the former government, enforcement was lacking. My region is one of those regions in Canada where the former government closed down DFO enforcement offices, and conservation and protection offices. We had numbers of people who were laid off, and we had a fishery that was left with very little input from conservation and protection. That has to change. In order for us to have sustainability of resources and a good rapport with people in areas and communities, we need to have those kinds of supports.

The other thing we found is that, under enforcement, there was very little dialogue or discussion with the industry on how enforcement should work. In fact, people had little or no input on that. This act would change that. It would give them the opportunity to have that input. It also recognizes indigenous people and the rights of indigenous people. It is important that no matter what resource development we have in this country, when that development is being done on the doorsteps of indigenous communities and indigenous lands, they should be a part of the decision. Their views should matter. That has not been the case with Fisheries and Oceans, and this is one of the pieces I am very supportive of in this bill.

I live in an area where today, if the cod fishery were to open in areas 2J, 2G, and 2H, there is only one groundfish licence left in that area. The whole region is indigenous. In our province, there are over 3,000 licence-holders who could access the resource in that area, even though it has not been fished in 30 years. With a new fishery reopening, how do indigenous people who have been out of that fishery for 30 years become engaged again? They can only become engaged if they are going to be fully consulted and a fair player in how fisheries are managed, protected, sustained, and harvested in the future. That is why I believe that incorporating the section on indigenous access and rights, the consultations with people in the industry who have fished in this industry for many years, and allowing them to bring their knowledge to the table to help manage this industry, is so important.

In areas like Newfoundland and Labrador, where the fishing industry is so important to the livelihoods of the people we serve, it is important that they have a say. The act would allow them to have input to bring their knowledge to the table, but it would also allow us to look at the social, economic, and cultural connections they have to this industry to ensure it is managed, protected, and sustainable, in the best interests of all who are involved.

I want to thank the minister and the committee for the extensive work they have done, and for travelling and talking to so many Canadians who feel passionate about the fishing industry, those Canadians who depend upon this industry for a livelihood.

There will be varied opinions across Canada around these proposed new changes in the act. However, one thing we can all agree on is the importance of the fishing industry to the lives of many people, and the responsibility we have to ensure it is protected, and that their interests are protected as well.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Labrador for her comments today. We both serve on the all-party parliamentary outdoor caucus together.

I know that the member is aware of Phil Morlock and his role with the Canadian sport fishing industry. I would like her to speak to how this proposed legislation would have an economic and social impact on all of the communities across Canada.

Basically, the proposed act would impact recreational fishing and the billions of dollars that it provides to our communities. Of course, we know that individuals who do recreational fishing are very concerned about our environment, but I would like to have some comment from the member on how this proposed act would impact them.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this question because I think it is an important one.

When we look at the recreational fishery, we see that it is an economically driven fishery. It brings tremendous benefits to rural and northern Canada, and to my riding. I am an angler myself. I love being on the river, and I love to fish.

One of the things that was looked at under the fisheries review is the lack of scientific data that we have. Years ago, there were counting fences on rivers, in ridings like mine in remote rural areas, where there are commercial fishing lodges, multiple users, and recreational fisheries. The former government cancelled those programs. It took the counting fences out and cancelled the conservation programs. As a result, we do not have data anymore on those rivers.

This proposed act would bring back information. It would bring back data. It would bring back a way for us to measure the sustainability of stock. Also, with regard to the commercial lodges and operators I have in my riding, one of every two today have catch and release. They do not retain salmon on those rivers.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the floor for her work on this, and for bringing in both Bill C-68 and Bill C-69.

My riding of Kootenay—Columbia was Conservative for 21 years. Quite frankly, it was the Conservative government's attack on environmental legislation, including the Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Act, and the Environmental Assessment Act, that led to the change in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia.

I was a regional manager with Fish and Wildlife for southeastern B.C. from 2002 to 2009. At the time, there was a DFO office in the Kootenays that had four staff working in it. They showed me a staffing chart. They were supposed to go to 12 staff, but by the time 2015 came along, there was not one DFO staff left in the Kootenays.

Would the member support re-establishing a DFO office in Kootenay—Columbia in the southeastern part of B.C.?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I was assured of in this briefing was that there would be more protection and enforcement available in jurisdictions across Canada. That is because of the cuts that had been made in regions like the one my colleague speaks of in his riding and in many others. We recognize that as being one of the critical pieces that has to happen.

For countless generations in this country, the fishery has been a tremendous industry, socially, culturally, and economically. Whether inland waters or offshore waters, it is a valuable resource in this country. We should never be afraid to stand up to protect that resource for the benefit of those who earn their livelihood from it, and the communities that are sustained from that industry.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I have had pleasure of visiting my colleague's riding in Labrador and had the opportunity to talk to fishers who were out on the water. They talked about conservation and some of the challenges they have had since the cuts happened under the former Conservative government. I wonder if the member could expand a bit on how they believe that this data is important to ensuring their livelihood and conservation.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague sat in many of those meetings with me in my riding and she knows of what she speaks.

I could not be prouder than I am of the fishing industry I represent in my riding. It is a predominantly indigenous fishery, but it also includes many people who fall outside the indigenous guidelines. They were one of the first groups in Canada to come to the federal government asking for protected areas for the fishery, to make sure that their fishers were not dragging for turbot or shrimp in certain areas, and that other areas be protected as well.

That is the kind of people I represent in the House. That is the kind of people who want to see protection of the fishery for sustainability and for the long-term economic, social, and cultural benefits for their communities. I will continue to stand and support them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, Taxation; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Poverty; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, The Environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to speak to Bill C-68 and its amendment to the Fisheries Act, especially given the opportunity I have had for the past two years to serve on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I want to take a moment to salute all of my colleagues on that committee, because all of them have demonstrated deep concern for the health of our fisheries and the communities that rely on them. We could have different views on what should be done or how it should be done, but the collegial approach to our deliberations has produced recommendations that will stand the test of time. In fact, all of them in one way or another are reflected in this legislation.

I also particularly want to salute our friend and colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, who may be watching, bored to tears, as he is on the mend from a significant health scare. We certainly look forward to getting him back into the saddle again.

A year ago this month, our committee tabled in the House its sixth report, titled “Review of Changes Made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act: Enhancing the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat and the Management of Canadian Fisheries”. The study was prompted by ongoing concern from a broad range of stakeholders about decisions made by the previous government that, to many, had the effect of stripping habitat protections from 98% of Canada's lakes, rivers, and streams.

Coincidentally, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, on which I also sit, examined the changes the previous government had made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Again, most stakeholders reacted to those changes with concern, in the belief that various works could have taken place without environmental reviews.

Throughout these studies, efforts were made to understand the reasons behind the changes made by the Harper government. We felt it was important to ensure that, where appropriate, measures that improved processes while preserving safeguards were maintained in the interest of modernizing the oldest legislation in Canada.

However, our review did shed light on a couple of critical issues.

One of the notable changes made to the act in 2012 was that of focusing its protections on the productivity of fish that are part of a commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fishery, or fish that support such a fishery, rather than on all fish and fish habitat, as was previously the case.

In addition, prior to the 2012 legislative changes, the act contained prohibitions against killing fish by any means other than fishing, and against carrying on any work or undertaking that results in the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, a prohibition commonly known as HADD. In 2012, those two provisions were replaced with a single new prohibition against carrying on “any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery”.

As a term, “serious harm” struck many as being very subjective. The committee heard from witnesses who said that it created confusion, leading to uneven application of the regulations at best, or at worst possibly allowing damaging activities to take place.

The 2012 amendments to the Fisheries Act removed the protection for fish habitat from subsection 35(1). Witnesses submitted that this amendment shifted the focus from fish habitat protection to fisheries protection, which offered substantially less attention to fish habitat. Many believed that applying the term “serious harm” only to fish could allow the disruption and non-permanent alteration of habitat.

According to Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders, a research scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, B.C., the requirement for the death of fish to be deemed “serious harm” created a problem. Dr. Miller-Saunders noted that fish that are stressed in one environment could become physiologically compromised but might not immediately die within the habitat where the initial stress took place. Their compromised state could leave them unable to adapt or thrive as they move to new habitats, disconnecting the original stress from the weakening or death of fish.

Dr. Miller-Saunders noted that the 2012 changes might not protect fish stocks that were once abundant but became degraded to the point that they were unable to support a commercial, recreational, or aboriginal fishery. In essence, the fear was that once a stock was no longer useful to humans, it might be left on its own, unprotected.

Our committee heard a great deal about the degradation of the DFO's ability to do the necessary science and to monitor compliance with protection regulations. Thus, when the time came to make changes, yes, indeed a lot of the science would not necessarily have been there.

The hon. member for Beauséjour, Canada's fisheries minister, reported that the number of fish habitat protection officers had been reduced from 63 to 16 in the previous government's final years. He noted that from 2010 to 2015, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' budget was cut by $35 million, which led to the loss of almost 1,100 positions, including over 300 scientists.

Remediating that situation started two years ago, with the government's initiative to hire 135 scientists to boost the DFO's capacity, and the allocation of an additional $197 million to the department in budget 2016.

Let us go now to Bill C-68 itself. After extensive consultations, and with the standing committee's recommendations, this legislation establishes new criteria for decision-making, one of the key ones being an increased reliance on scientific information, but information bolstered by the traditional knowledge of our indigenous peoples and the experience of our fishing communities. This decision-making would look beyond the commercial factors that appeared to dominate the previous government's approach, to include the social and cultural impacts of the choices we make.

Clearly, this means that we have to talk among ourselves more often: scientists, academics, advocacy organizations, and the people whose livelihood and quality of life depend on our fisheries.

Just as we have to have broad-based processes above the waterline, we have to maintain care and concern beneath the water, care and concern beyond the commercial considerations, to entire ecosystems. Every fish, every plant needs to matter.

A potent tool at the disposal of the DFO and the minister in their decision-making is the application of the precautionary principle, understanding that we may never know conclusively what is behind an emerging situation in the ecosystem, and appreciating that an emergency usually cannot wait for the science to lead us to the fine points of a response. The precautionary principle mandates action.

The government's response, even before Bill C-68, was Bill C-55, which would give the minister the authority to designate interim marine protected areas, allowing time for science to reconcile evidence that we have a potential crisis on our hands.

Of course, Bill C-68 itself would restore protections that were perceived to have been either lost or seriously weakened by the changes in 2012. No longer will we focus on the subjective matter of “serious harm to fish”. No longer will our care and concern extend only to fish that are useful to humans. No longer will we be uncertain about how and where habitats will be protected.

Prohibitions are restored against causing the death of fish other than by fishing, and the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat. In our standing committee's study, we often heard that we simply cannot consider the impact of each individual project or activity but have to consider the cumulative effects of industrial activities, public works, and recreational projects such as private docks on fish, their habitat, and the freedom to navigate.

At the same time, our committee considered the need to avoid causing undue delay to important municipal works, for example by requiring full environmental reviews for repairs to existing infrastructure. Bill C-68 introduces measures that allow the minister to issue permits for designated project types and to establish standards and codes of practice to provide proponents with more certainty in the planning, scheduling, and implementation of their projects.

I have selected only the issues that stood out in the notes I took at our standing committee's hearings, but many other important and positive aspects of Bill C-68 will undoubtedly be covered by my colleagues as this debate continues.

There is a lot to celebrate in this legislation, and as much as I am privileged to have made a contribution to its creation, I believe that once the process is done, this whole House will be justifiably proud of its passage, because so many of us care so much about the future of our lakes, rivers, streams, and oceans, and all the creatures and people they serve.

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

Mr. Speaker, one issue that keeps arising in my riding is a very particular challenge of people overharvesting shellfish. One of the major concerns is the fact that there is not enough enforcement. There is no one there watching and checking how many shellfish are being harvested, and that goes back to the sad history of seeing staff from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans slowly erode in smaller rural communities.

As this challenge continues to grow, indigenous communities and the general population are coming forward, particularly in Powell River, where we now have busloads of people coming in from the Lower Mainland to harvest shellfish from one particular beach.

I am wondering if the member would be willing to speak about the importance of enforcement and how we need to look further into the future at legislation creating a safety net for this industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We have to look at a number of different issues.

The first is public information. We have areas called rockfish conservation areas where certain activities are not allowed to happen. The casual fisher or the harvester may not even know those areas are posted. Therefore, we need to ensure they are more clearly delineated.

Second, absolutely we must reinforce and rebuild DFO's ability to do the necessary enforcement to protect fish stocks and shellfish stocks in this case.

Finally, we heard so many times from so many people that we had the capacity of people who made a living on the water, our indigenous people and non-indigenous people, who could make a contribution not only to the science but also to the monitoring of compliance with the rules and regulations that would come forward in the bill.

On all three scores, I hope this will address the concerns raised by the hon. member.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who grew up on the north coast of B.C. and as a teenager worked at a cannery fileting fish and salmon, I know how important the fishery industry is to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. How will this legislation fulfill what was a campaign commitment, a platform commitment, that our party ran on in 2015 to restore balance to environmental programs and to the Fisheries Act? I would love to hear what and how this would fulfill our platform commitment.

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

Mr. Speaker, a key value that we put forward was the necessity to make evidence-based decisions. The problem we have had is that the evidence has not been available. The capability to collect that evidence was seriously compromised over the past 10 years.

We want to rebuild that but at the same time we want to employ the precautionary principles to move in where things might not necessarily be clear, where we know something is going on and we have to take immediate remedial action.

Like my hon. friend, I spent some time on the north coast out in the fishing boats. One of the things that concerns me about the activities on the west coast is the separation of the people who own boats and the people who own the fishing quotas. They have been struggling with this on the east cost as well but seem to have a much different and much healthier industry because of their approach on the east coast.

The legislation also introduces an opportunity to talk about this issue on the west coast.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's remarks. For the past few hours, I seem to have heard the Liberals make heartfelt speeches about the environment and push the few merits of this bill, because it does have some, while at the same time criticizing the horrors of the previous system established by the Conservatives.

Since the Liberals have recognized the need to protect habitats, which is the intent of this bill, how can the Liberals say that they are working to protect the environment and help economic development, and then turn around and agree to the construction of Kinder Morgan under the principles they criticized the previous government for?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have heard this before, but it is possible to have a healthy economy and a healthy environment, and we need both.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That's a very good point.

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

This has been noted as being a very good point, Mr. Speaker.

The Kinder Morgan line passes right through the north end of my riding. Our citizens are concerned. However, we need rules of the game, standards and codes, that prescribe what can go and what should not go. These are all component parts of the legislation.

May there be another Kinder Morgan, we do not know? However, in the future when projects like this come forward, there will be a much clearer way of assessing their positive and negative benefits, if we want to call them that, and to respond accordingly through the regulations that will be in place.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to mention that I will share my time with my charming colleague from North Island—Powell River.

Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, has been a long time coming. The NDP is very happy that this bill has finally been introduced. All of the environmental bills being introduced this week and those that were introduced last week should have been introduced and implemented much more quickly. The Liberals promised to do so, and then waited two years. I understand that they had to consult the public, but they could have implemented some of the provisions without taking all this time for consultations. We are a bit disappointed in this.

Nevertheless, this bill is extremely important, because it implements a number of the recommendations the NDP made in its dissenting opinion during the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans' review of the amendments made to the Fisheries Act in 2012. I remember that sad day in 2012 very well, when the Conservative government rammed the hundreds and hundreds of pages of its infamous Bill C-38 down our throats. This bill contained a number of amendments that weakened our environmental laws. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières pointed out, these amendments are unfortunately still in effect.

The Liberals endorsed Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline project even though the public does not support it. Furthermore, since the assessment was a total farce, two of our country's wonderful provinces are now in a dispute.

There are some good things in this bill, of course. The government will once again protect fish and their habitat from activities that could kill fish. With respect to this bill, many people have commented that we must not protect only fish used by humans. We must not forget that biodiversity is an ecosystem. Fish eat each other, and if we do not save the other fish, then those we eat will have nothing to feed on. That is why taking several fish species off the protected species list was so ridiculous. That protection will be restored, which is a good thing. The HADD provision on harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat will be restored.

In addition, the government will for the first time include recovery of depleted fish stocks in the Fisheries Act. That is a very good thing. There are some aspects of the bill we are concerned about, though. A number of my colleagues have mentioned that the bill gives the minister far too many discretionary powers. The Liberals have said they would make evidence-based decisions. However, if the minister is allowed to do whatever she wants regardless of science and ancestral indigenous knowledge, everything will depend on the minister's opinion rather than science. That is what we find so problematic about this aspect of the bill.

As I was saying, the Liberals should have reinstated fish habitat protections as soon as they took office, rather than waiting.

I must mention that many of these measures came from amendments proposed by the NDP.

Congratulations to everyone who worked on improving this bill. I commend the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, who did excellent work on this. He worked to reinstate solid protections for fish habitat, to put forward suggestions on how to replenish fish stocks and ensure their viability, to advocate for establishing a public registry, which is very important, and to take into account indigenous knowledge.

Before I continue, I would like to talk about the very important report of the Cohen commission, which deals with Fraser River sockeye. The report recommended that the government, which is currently a Liberal one, act on the commission's recommendations to restore sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River. In the third recommendation of the report, Justice Cohen wrote:

The Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product.

In that regard, I would like to come back to the excellent work done by the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. We know that, unfortunately, the Liberals defeated Bill C-228, which was an excellent bill that sought to transition to the use of closed containment facilities and protect the jobs of workers in that sector so that nobody would lose out. It was a very good bill but, unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it.

Right now, many Canadians, including many of my constituents, are questioning the Liberals' intentions, since they also voted against the bill introduced by the member for Sherbrooke, who is another excellent MP. His bill had to do with the mandatory labelling of GMOs.

As the Liberals were voting against the mandatory labelling of GMOs, they secretly approved the farming and sale of genetically modified salmon in Canada. In fact, Canada remains the only country in the world whose citizens have eaten genetically modified salmon. We do not know who ate it. We do not know where it was purchased. We do not know the circumstances, since labelling is not mandatory, but there is absolutely no question that we unfortunately ate it.

Meanwhile, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, has invested over $3 million in the company that produces genetically modified salmon.

Once again in secret, genetically modified salmon is being produced in Prince Edward Island, even though there has been no environmental assessment on the potential dangers. Genetically modified salmon could escape from their enclosures during storms and other severe weather conditions that could occur. The potential impact of such an accident on Atlantic salmon populations has not been assessed. As we know, the wild Atlantic salmon stock is already threatened.

We will support this bill for all the reasons mentioned. However, we are very disappointed in the Liberal government's efforts relative to what could have been done to improve aquaculture on the Pacific coast, as well as the labelling, sale, and farming of genetically modified salmon. Canadians are angry. We need to take action on this, and we will.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of my colleague from Drummond. Despite the bill's few merits, there is one element in particular that caught my notice, and I would like to hear what he thinks about it. The Liberals seem to be borrowing, or carrying on, the Conservatives' tendency to use bills to grant more and more power to ministers.

The Liberals had assured us that decisions would be based on scientific evidence, but the current bill says that the minister will have the power to make basically whatever decisions she wants. Then, when I check the registry of lobbyists, I see more lobbying of companies than of scientists themselves.

Is there not a risk that the government will give in to pressure from big lobby groups and depart from the goals it is setting out with Bill C-68?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question. He is correct. One of the flaws in this bill, which we do support, is that it gives the minister far too much leeway. The Liberals say we are going to rely on science and indigenous traditional knowledge, but at the same time they say the minister is going to be able to do basically whatever she wants. That makes no sense. If we say we are going to rely on science, that means we are not going to rely on the minister's opinion. We had enough of this with the Conservatives, who supported economic development at all costs, without regard for sustainable development. The economy is one of the pillars of sustainable development, but there is also the social aspect, meaning the environmental and social economy.

This flaw is evident not only in this bill, but also in other bills, including the environmental assessment bill the minister just introduced. I do not know what the Minister of Environment put in her coffee, but all of her bills leave her plenty of leeway to do whatever she wants.