Debates of May 28th, 2018

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Report stage

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, at this point in the proceedings, we can get back to the topic of Bill C-59 for what is really, under our procedures, both a report stage debate and a second reading debate.

I am very pleased today to rise in support of Bill C-59, as it has emerged from the standing committee, the government's proposed legislation to update and modernize our country's national security framework. This landmark bill covers a number of measures that were informed very throughly by the views and opinions of a broad range of Canadians during extensive public consultations in 2016.

It was in that same spirit of openness, engagement, and transparency that Bill C-59 was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security before second reading. The committee recently finished its study of the bill.

I want to thank members of that committee for their diligent and thorough examination of the legislation, both during their consideration of the bill, and indeed, during their pre-study of this subject matter in 2016, which contributed significantly to the drafting of Bill C-59 itself.

An even stronger bill, with over 40 amendments accepted, is now back before the House. The amendments would bring greater clarity, transparency, accountability, and public reporting. One of the major changes made by the committee was the addition of a new act in the bill, entitled avoiding complicity in mistreatment by foreign entities act.

Last fall we undertook to enhance and make public a previously secret 2011 ministerial directive to both CSIS and the RCMP that dealt with how those agencies should share and receive information with and from foreign entities when there was a risk that the information may have been derived by, or could result in, torture or mistreatment. Obviously, it is important to have ministerial directives governing such a serious topic.

The goal of my directive was to establish strong safeguards to ensure that information shared by Canada would not lead to mistreatment and that Canada would not use any information that could be tainted by mistreatment, with one exception. That is when it is essential to prevent the loss of life or serious injury.

The new avoiding complicity in mistreatment by foreign entities act would go a step further than ministerial directives. It would create a statutory requirement for such directives to exist in the form of orders in council, and not just for CSIS and the RCMP but for all departments and agencies that deal with national security. It would also require that each of those directives in the orders in council be made public.

This amendment, which is now in Bill C-59, is another example of how this legislation would strive constantly to achieve two things simultaneously. This bill would strengthen Canada's ability to effectively address and counter 21st-century threats while safeguarding the rights and freedoms we cherish as Canadians.

Bill C-59 is the result of the most comprehensive review of Canada's national security framework since the passing of the original CSIS Act more than 30 years ago. That review included unprecedented open and transparent public consultations on national security undertaken by Public Safety Canada and by the Department of Justice.

Several issues were covered, including countering radicalization to violence, oversight, and accountability, threat reduction and the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, the former Bill C-51. All Canadians were invited and encouraged to take part in the consultations, which were held between September and December of 2016.

The response to the consultations was tremendous. Citizens, community leaders, experts, academics, non-governmental organizations, and parliamentarians alike made their views and ideas known over the course of that consultation period. In the end, tens of thousands of views were received, all of which were valuable in shaping the scope and the content of Bill C-59.

With almost 59,000 responses received, the online consultation was what generated by far the largest volume of input. In addition to that, there were nearly 18,000 submissions received by email. In addition, public town halls were held in five Canadian cities: Halifax, Markham, Winnipeg, Vancouver, and Yellowknife. This gave citizens across the country a chance to share their thoughts and opinions in person.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security held numerous meetings on the consultations. It even travelled across the country to hear testimony not only from expert witnesses, but also general members of the public who were invited to express their views.

A digital town hall and two Twitter chats were also organized.

Members of the public also had the opportunity to make their voices heard at 17 other engagement events led by different members of Parliament at the constituency level.

In addition, 14 in-person sessions were held with academics and experts across the country, as well as a large round table with experts from civil society.

I simply make the point that there was an extensive effort to be open, to be inclusive, to ensure that every Canadian who had something to say on this topic could have the opportunity to do that. This was not a process reserved for politicians in Parliament or for experts in ivory towers. This was an open, public, inclusive process, and Canadians let their voices be heard.

After all of that information was collected, the next step was to carefully analyze every comment, every submission, every letter, and all of the other forms of input. All of the views that had been expressed to the various consultative mechanisms have now been published on the Government of Canada's open data portal, so anyone interested in actually seeing who said what to whom throughout the whole consultation process can look it up and see what the dialogue was like.

In addition to that, an independently prepared report provides an overview of what was heard during the consultations.

While it would be difficult to summarize everything that we heard from Canadians in a consultation process that massive, I can speak to a few of the key themes and ideas that emerged.

As one might expect, given the thousands of submissions, there were widely differing opinions. That is what we would expect from Canadians who are very engaged in an important discussion. Certainly that was the case in these consultations.

The results make one thing perfectly clear. Canadians want accountability. They want transparency and effectiveness from their security and intelligence agencies. They want all three of those things, accountability, transparency, and effectiveness, together. They want the government and Parliament to achieve all of those things at once. Bill C-59 goes farther and better than any other piece of legislation in Canadian history to accomplish those three things together.

Canadians expect their rights, their freedoms, and their privacy to be protected at the same time as their security is protected.

Consistent with what we heard, Bill C-59 would modernize and enhance Canada's security and intelligence laws to ensure our agencies would have the tools they needed to protect us and it would do so within a clear legal and constitutional framework that would comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There is no doubt in my mind that the legislation before the House today has been strengthened and improved by the result of the close work that was done by the standing committee. All the scrutiny and clause-by-clause analysis and consideration, all the debate around all of those various amendments has resulted in a better product.

When we tabled this legislation, and before the committee did its work, many of the most renowned experts in the country said that it was very good legislation and that it accomplished more in the field of national security than any other proposal since the CSIS Act was first introduced. That was a great compliment coming from the imminent experts who made those observations. However, now, after the debate, after all of the input, after all of the amendments, the legislation is even better.

One of the things I am most proud of with respect to Bill C-59 is how it represents a dynamic shift in the review and accountability structure for our entire national security apparatus. Currently, some of our agencies that deal in national security have a review body that examines their work. CSIS of course has the Security Intelligence Review committee, SIRC. The RCMP has the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, CRCC. Those are a couple of examples. However, there is no unified review body that can look beyond one agency at a time and actually follow the evidence as it moves across government from agency to agency.

For the first time, Bill C-59 would fix this problem by creating the national security and intelligence review agency, or NSIRA. NSIRA is largely modelled on the often discussed idea of a “super SIRC”, which would have the authority to review all matters of national security, whether they are with CSIS, or CBSA, or IRCC, or the RCMP, or Global Affairs, or DND, or anywhere else in the Government of Canada.

When we link that to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which was recently created by the passage of Bill C-22, Canadians can be assured that we have a review architecture in place that is required for the 21st century. It involves parliamentarians, through the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. It involves expert review through NSIRA. In addition to that, it involves, for the first time ever, a brand new innovation that we have introduced, a new element of actual real-time oversight, which has never existed before, through the work of the new intelligence commission, which is also created by virtue of this legislation, Bill C-59.

We also worked to ensure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the central principle behind Bill C-59. This is perhaps nowhere more evident than the changes we have made to the former Bill C-51's threat reduction measures.

When Bill C-51 created these threat reduction measures, it created an open-ended, seemingly limitless course of possible action for CSIS to take. This bill would create a closed list of specific actions that CSIS could apply to a federal court for permission to undertake. It is open, it is transparent, while at the same time gives CSIS the tools it needs to keep Canadians safe.

Another part of the former Bill C-51 that we have undertaken to dramatically improve is the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, or SCISA. After Bill C-59 is enacted, this new legislation will be renamed to the security of Canada information disclosure act, and it will not grant any new powers to collect information on Canadians. Rather it is a roadmap for how existing information related to a threat to the security of Canada can and should be shared between departments and agencies in order to mitigate or eliminate that threat.

It clarifies that advocacy, protest, dissent, or artistic expression are not activities that undermine the security of Canada, and it creates a robust review framework to ensure that information is being disclosed to other departments appropriately, with proper record-keeping at both ends of the process.

Next I want to touch on an issue that I believe almost every member of the House supports, and that is the fixing of the passenger protect program, or what is sometimes known as the “no-fly list”.

I imagine that virtually every member of the chamber has met with a member of the group called “No-Fly List Kids” at some point during this Parliament. To be clear, there are currently no children on Canada's passenger protect list. However, there are children and adults who may share a name with someone who is on the list. Former defence minister Bill Graham famously had to deal with this very problem when someone sharing his name was actually listed.

Fixing the problem involves both funding and new legislation. Bill C-59 will play an important role, allowing the government to collect domestic passenger manifests and screen the list itself, rather than sharing our passenger protect list with over 100 airlines around the world. What this means is that once the government is collecting the passenger manifests, it will be able to issue redress numbers to people who share a name with a listed individual. Anyone who has booked a flight to the United States in the past few years has probably noticed that their system has a box for a unique redress number. Once Canada's system is up and running, it will operate in a very similar fashion.

I would also note that we got the necessary funding to develop this new system this past March, in the most recent budget. This measure is another excellent example of ensuring that the rights of Canadians are respected while at the same time safeguarding national security.

There are many other important parts of Bill C-59 that I will not have the time in 20 minutes to go through in detail. However, I would like to just mention some of the others—for example, the new stand-alone legislation to modernize Canada's Communications Security Establishment. It has needed this modernization. It has needed this new legislation for a long time. Bill C-59 introduces that legislation.

There are also important changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which ensures that protections are afforded to young Canadians in respect of recognizance orders.

Changes in the Criminal Code would, among other things, require the Attorney General to publish an annual report setting out the number of terrorism recognizances entered into during the course of the year. Also, there are very important changes to the CSIS Act that would ensure that our security agents are confident they have the legal and constitutional authority to undertake their essential work on behalf of all Canadians, including, for example, the complex matter of handling data sets, taking into account the advice and judgments of recent decisions in the federal courts.

Should Bill C-59 pass, this historic piece of legislation would enhance Canada’s national security, keep its citizens safe, and safeguard Canadians’ constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.

For all these reasons, I would encourage all hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-59. I am glad it enjoys strong support among Canadians generally and among some of our country's most distinguished experts in national security and civil liberties. We have been very fortunate to have the benefit of their advice as we have moved this legislation through the parliamentary process.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member said in his speech that the central tenet of Bill C-59 is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was under the impression that Bill C-59 was about protecting Canadians and national security. Let us keep that in mind.

During the clause-by-clause at the public safety and national security committee, over 235 amendments were proposed. Interestingly enough, all 29 Conservative amendments were defeated by the Liberals, and all 43 Liberal amendments were passed.

Now, on one such amendment that was proposed at committee, we heard from national security experts. It was proposed by the Conservatives, but it does not matter who proposed it because it was about national security. This really should be a civil liberties bill, because twice as many witnesses at committee were either civil liberty individuals or lawyers, as opposed to national security experts.

One thing that was brought up by a number of experts was the disconnect between intelligence and evidence—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are on questions and comments. I know the hon. member is up next, and I just wanted to make sure we were on the right part of the debate. Go ahead.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from witnesses that the gap in Canada currently being able to effectively prosecute returning ISIS terrorists, or those who leave our country and return to join a terrorist organization, is the gap between intelligence and evidence. There were a number of great amendments, and one that specifically targeted that.

I am wondering whether the minister would be able to provide us with an answer. We did not really fix the gap. National experts told us that we needed to fix the gap if we really wanted to be successful. To me, the bill is still wanting in that regard.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member began his question by wondering why, in a bill on national security, we would talk about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As I mentioned in my remarks, our objective through this whole process has been twofold: one, keep Canadians safe; two, safeguard their rights and freedoms. We need to protect national security, and we need to do so in a manner that is consistent with the charter.

I do not know if the hon. member sees a contradiction there, but quite frankly we do not. We think there is no contradiction in doing the right thing to keep Canadians safe, and also the right thing to safeguard Canadian rights, freedoms, and privacy. If the member sees that those two things are unalterably opposed to each other and that we have to choose either security or rights, then Canadians will be put in an invidious position.

Our determination is to achieve both together, and that is consistent with what we heard from Canadians in the last election. They said that they did not trust the Conservatives with their rights, and they did not trust the NDP with their safety. Canadians wanted both at the same time, and this legislation delivers both at the same time.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I attended many a rally concerning opposition to Bill C-51. Those constituents and people across my city are not any more convinced that they are not still concerned. The only time I received more concerns was over the fact that the government refuses to deal with the arms trade.

It is my understanding that the government is still refusing to absolutely prohibit the use of information attained through torture, not just prohibit the country from using torture to get information but in any way prohibit its use. The reason I raise this is that both Liberal and Conservative governments have been involved in rendition and in colluding to get that information.

If there is one thing we hear a lot of Canadians speak out about, it is that they are opposed to providing reparations when the government violates international law. We have Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati, and Muayyed Nureddin. Is the government not concerned that the amount we have to pay out in reparations is simply going to mount if we do not finally and absolutely prohibit, in any circumstance, the use of information gained through torture?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, many constitutional and civil rights experts who have looked at the ministerial directives we drafted a year ago and at the provisions in this bill, which take the essence of those ministerial directives and would give them the force of law through orders in council as a result of Bill C-59, have said that those directive are the most progressive they have ever seen. Plus, they are public for the first time in Canadian history. We have moved this along light years from where it was.

Let me just put a hypothetical situation to the hon. member. Imagine that there was a would-be bomber in a little town in rural Ontario who was going to get on a train to go to a big urban centre to detonate a bomb, and presume that information about that threat came to the attention of the RCMP and there was a question as to the source of that information, but the information was accurate and was viable. What would members do in those circumstances? Would they let the bomber get on the train to go to a large urban centre to kill thousands of people, or would they put in the law, as we have done, the exception that when the use of the information is necessary to save Canadian lives, they can in fact save those lives?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the sections of Bill C-59 that the minister did not talk about too much was part 8 that deals with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. When we think about indigenous youth, racialized youth, and especially when we look at some of the challenges they might face, the amendments in this piece of legislation would require that only a youth justice court would have the jurisdiction to make orders against young persons, and would ensure that they are detained in a safe, fair, and humane manner. I wonder if the minister could further elaborate on that and talk to the importance of this particular part of the legislation as it pertains to our young people.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this is consistent with the two basic tenets of this legislation: keeping Canadians safe and safeguarding Canadian rights and freedoms. We need to make sure that we accomplish both of those objectives with the same degree of enthusiasm and quality. Doing that, in part, requires that we say explicitly in this legislation that where offenders may be young people, the existing provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act would apply to the proceedings involving young people, to ensure that the thoughtful provisions of that legislation that are particularly designed and shaped to deal with young people in trouble with the law would apply in cases that engage national security, just as they would apply in respect of any other criminal matter. That is the point here: to make sure that the Youth Criminal Justice Act has the same force and effect with respect to proceedings under national security as it would have in relation to any other criminal matter. In our view, that is an appropriate way to proceed. It would achieve the objective of protecting Canadians and also of safeguarding rights and freedoms.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's speech went over a lot of the important issues in this bill that we need to be concerned with. I would like to focus on how we have achieved a balance in this bill between protecting the safety and security of Canadians and protecting their privacy rights.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are many provisions that work in that direction through the 10 or 11 different parts in the bill. I will go through two of the most important.

The first is the national security and intelligence review agency, which for the first time gives a single agency the authority to scrutinize the activities of all the intelligence and security agencies and functions within the government of Canada wherever they may be vested across the whole of government. If there is an issue, one can follow the trail of evidence from one agency to the next to the next, and we will not have to deal with truncated information in silos. This will be the most comprehensive review organization that has ever existed in our national security architecture.

The second, although there are many, is the creation of the new intelligence commissioner. For the first time ever, we will have an official appointed with the responsibility to conduct not only a review of activities after the fact, but to scrutinize activities before they take place, and either authorize them or refuse to authorize them if this official finds the particular behaviour to be unreasonable or inappropriate. For the first time ever, we will actually have oversight and not just review.

Those are just two examples of how agencies like this ensure that the security apparatus of the country is doing what it needs to do to keep people safe, while at the same time doing it in a way that protects rights and freedoms.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Foreign Affairs

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about the sale of Canadian helicopters to the Philippines, whose president said that he once threw someone out of a helicopter and would not hesitate to do it again. He sees that as a good way to get rid of political opponents.

This sale was the subject of a deal between the Department of National Defence and the Philippines government brokered by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. When the sale in question became public knowledge, the government said the Canadian Commercial Corporation would have to review it. Finally people started asking questions.

The real problem was that the system did not catch the sale in time. We had the media, not the minister, tell us about it. Then the minister told us that she would closely scrutinize the export permit request. Maybe the minister did not know, but she would never see an export request because our system is full of holes. This is worrying.

As I said, this deal would have gone ahead and we would not had known about it if some investigative reporter had not been able to get the information. One has to wonder how many such deals have gone ahead without us knowing.

The helicopter story is not over, since there are reports that the company that wanted to sell the helicopters is now considering sending it in parts to the United States and then having the parts sent to the Philippines.

We can learn a lot from the Philippine helicopter story, since it exposes some major flaws in our current system, and these flaws will still exist after Bill C-47, to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, passes.

Some exports to the United States are not controlled. The company could use this to circumvent the Canadian government. Then, there is the fact that Bill C-47 does not cover the activities of the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Commercial Corporation. This is what originally led us to this agreement, and nothing will end up being changed.

The Liberals say that they listened to experts about acceding the Arms Trade Treaty, but this is not true. The Liberals addressed a few issues, but the experts were primarily concerned about sales to the United States, and this problem will continue.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada-U.S. Relations)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by noting that Canada strongly advocates for human rights in the Philippines. In fact, the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister raised our concerns directly with their counterparts in the Philippines at the most recent ASEAN meeting.

We also raised our ongoing concerns at the last universal periodic review of the Philippines in 2017. This included the need for the Philippines to end extrajudicial killings, illegal arrests and detention, torture and harassment; prevent, eliminate, and end impunity for all forms of sexual violence; strengthen the protection of children's rights; and refrain from reintroducing the death penalty.

Like tens of thousands of soldiers wearing the Canadian uniform, I and many others like me have fought for human rights on behalf of Canada to protect the weak and the innocent.

While I cannot speak to the activities of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which falls under the responsibilities of my trade colleagues, to which my hon. colleague referred, I can say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was abundantly clear about the particular contract raised by the member during question period.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, “I will conduct an extremely rigorous human rights analysis of any potential export permit application related to this contract”—specifically the Philippines—and “I have the power to deny a permit if I feel that it poses a risk to human rights and I am prepared to do so.”

I would also like to point to a key clarification, which is also related to my colleague's comments during the debate on Bill C-47 earlier today.

Under international law, when a state accedes to a treaty, it obviously agrees formally to be legally bound to the provisions of the treaty. For Canada, this includes all federal government departments, such as Global Affairs Canada, the Department of National Defence, and crown corporations such as the Canada Commercial Corporation. This is exactly what the hon. member was talking about in terms of closing loopholes. Bill C-47 would do just that.

Acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty would ensure that the CCC is bound to the national provisions. This is a concern my hon. colleague has previously raised, and her concerns are being addressed.

I am, however, disappointed that my hon. colleague seems to have indicated that the NDP will no longer support Bill C-47, which is ironic because doing so would allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and close the loopholes that quite rightly concern her. If this is so, then her party will be voting against ensuring the CCC applies the very criteria for which she has indicated such a passion.

Our government is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights around the world, and we remain committed to a strong arms exports system that Canadians can have confidence in.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that we are advocating for human rights in the Philippines. I am sure we are advocating for human rights in Saudi Arabia also, but on the other hand, we are selling them arms.

My colleague also said that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would have done a human rights analysis of any potential export permit. What the government does not seem to get is that it did not need an export permit because of those loopholes.

Despite the Liberals saying that all government departments will be covered with that, I would challenge the parliamentary secretary to tell me where in Bill C-47 the Canadian Commercial Corporation is mentioned, or the Department of National Defence. In fact, Canadian officials have told us that Bill C-47 would not change anything in what the Canadian Commercial Corporation can do now and that DND would continue to have a separate system.

When the Liberals say they are closing the loopholes, they are the only ones saying they are closing the loopholes. All the experts disagree with them. I would like them to listen to what the experts have to say on this subject.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada remains a strong defender of the rule of law and of human rights internationally.

In the Philippines, Canada takes specific and concrete action by recognizing and supporting human rights defenders, encouraging a free and open press, providing training on international laws governing human rights, and supporting the peace process in Mindanao.

We also are committed to a strong and robust arms control system that rightly takes into consideration human rights concerns. A key part of this is acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty through Bill C-47, which closes the very loopholes that my distinguished colleague is concerned about.

We encourage the NDP to support Bill C-47 at the appropriate time.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member for Burnaby North—Seymour in this Parliament, will the Minister of Transport listen to Gabriola Islanders and cancel the five bulk anchorages proposed off the undeveloped shoreline of our community on Gabriola Island? These are 300-metre long vessels designed for export of Wyoming coal, which all the west coast U.S. ports have refused. They are bound for China where the coal will be burned in power plants. There is no local benefit; it is all local risk.

I did not get an answer in question period and, for the folks at home, this is an opportunity, in four minutes rather than in 30 seconds, to hear a full answer from the government.

The risk of bulk anchorages to coastal communities is real. I know that from when I was chair of the Islands Trust Council. In a year and a half period, we had three bulk carriers in Plumper Sound drag anchor and almost go on the rocks. These were massive vessels that were improperly sited.

I am going to relay to the representative of the minister some of the impacts that are being described by coastal constituents throughout the Salish Sea about what anchorages are doing to them right now. These are vessels that are waiting to go into port in Vancouver. They are not bringing goods or taking goods from Vancouver Island. Again, it is all downside; there is no upside for our communities.

This is a letter that was sent on March 14 to the minister by Gabriolans Against Freighter Anchorages, Anchorages Concerned Thetis, Cowichan Bay Ship Watch Society, and Plumper Sound Protection Association, with the Valdes Island Conservancy. These are grassroots groups from a whole bunch of the islands that are affected.

They said that over recent weeks they have seen a surge in the number of freighters using south coast anchorages before going to berth. They were told that this is due to rail delays in delivering the grain to the port. They were also told that with expansion of trade and the potential expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, anchorage usage is only going to get worse.

They said they take very seriously the impacts of these ships in their midst. They continue to have grave concerns about the risk of accidents, such as collision or grounding that could occur as freighter traffic increases through the confined inlets and bays of the south coast waters and southeast coast of Vancouver Island.

They also referenced freighters dragging anchor in strong winds.

Robert Krize from Gabriola said that he shudders every time he thinks of the damage that these anchorages could do. He is from Alaska and saw first-hand the damage done by the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound. He said that these proposed anchorages make no sense at all.

Kay Morissette from Saltair said that the potential damages to the environment are well known. The bilge pumps, anchors dragging, and other scraps from the boats are impacting the water and ecosystem directly.

The Cowichan Bay Ship Watch Society said that the average length of stay has doubled just in the last year, from eight days to 16 days in some of the anchorages.

Another constituent, Janet, on Gabriola Island said that they do not see why islanders have to take up the slack for inadequate planning demonstrated by the Vancouver harbour authority.

My questions for the minister's representative are, why has he not cancelled the Gabriola anchorages already, and when is he going to put pressure on the ports to clean up their act so that we do not externalize these costs on to coastal communities?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague for the question.

It is my pleasure to rise today and discuss an issue that is so close to the city of Nanaimo, a place where I previously served as a city councillor, and as my wife reminded me this morning, where I was first elected over 19 years ago. How time flies.

The Government of Canada is committed to safe, clean, and efficient marine transportation that is environmentally responsible and that supports economic growth. Fisheries and Oceans Canada understands that the Pacific Pilotage Authority completed an anchorage review, risk assessment, environmental review, and public consultation for the proposed anchorages. After considering information submitted by the Pacific Pilotage Authority, Fisheries and Oceans Canada determined that adverse impacts to marine mammals, fish and fish habitat, and aquatic species at risk can be avoided through the application of appropriate project design and mitigation measures. Therefore, a Fisheries Act authorization is not required for this project.

Our government understands that Canadians are deeply connected to our coastal areas and waterways, and this is especially true on our beautiful Pacific coast. Canada needs a strong Fisheries Act to protect fish and their habitat for future generations. This is why our government has introduced Bill C-68, after extensive consultations with Canadians. The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act would restore lost protections for fish habitat, enhance marine protection and habitat restoration, and strengthen the indigenous role in the review of projects, monitoring, and policy development.

We heard from thousands of Canadians, including over 200 indigenous groups, who said they want strong, fair, and clear legislation that sustains our environment and protects our oceans and waterways. If passed into law, the proposed changes would recognize that decisions could be guided by the principles of sustainability, precaution, and ecosystem management, and there would be full transparency for projects with the introduction of a public registry. Canadians would have confidence that large and small projects that impact fish and fish habitat would be managed to enhance the protection of fish and ecosystems, while industry would be provided with certainty as to when development projects required approval.

In addition to the proposed legislation, our government introduced a $1.5 billion oceans protection plan to improve marine safety and responsible shipping while protecting Canada's marine environment. Measures under the oceans protection plan are working to protect our coasts while promoting safe and responsible commercial use, in collaboration with coastal and indigenous communities. The oceans protection plan is helping to create economic opportunities for Canadians today, including jobs for middle-class Canadians, while protecting our waters for the benefit of future generations.

Our government understands the importance of efficient and responsible marine transportation. This includes anchorages in and near Canada's busiest ports. A specific initiative under the oceans protection plan will work with coastal communities to respond to environmental, economic, cultural, safety, and security concerns about anchorages and to propose management options.

Ensuring the protection of Canada's oceans and the sustainability of marine life are key priorities for our government. We also recognize that a strong economy requires a healthy environment. For this reason, our government will invest more that $280 million to support the restoration of lost protections for fish and fish habitat. The proposed Fisheries Act will safeguard fish, protect the environment, and benefit our communities.

Finally, I can assure this House that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to working with Canadians to sustainably manage all coastal areas.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member, I think he is answering the wrong question. This is not an intervention about amendments to the Fisheries Act. In fact, the irony here is that the Environmental Assessment Office study of the proposed Gabriola anchorage has said that because the Harper Conservatives had gutted the Fisheries Act, no fisheries permit was needed for this project. It was not going to be assessed. The fact that the government is now amending the Fisheries Act reveals completely that the review of the Gabriola anchorages was inadequate, which is why we have asked the government to cancel the five new anchorages on the basis that the process was so undermined. If they want this to go ahead, they should start it completely under a new review.

Specifically, the environmental assessment review also identified that the consultation with first nations was inadequate. I have an exact quote on this, which says, “the lack of Public/First Nations consultation leaves potential for significant effects”. Indeed, this year, in March, Lyackson First Nation wrote to the minister saying that the anchorages consultation process was inadequate. The mayor of Ladysmith wrote the same in May of this year.

There is nothing about the Salish Sea anchorages plan or the pilot project that aligns with the government's bold promises on first nations consultation. Why is it so hard to get the member to understand and the government to live up to its promises on environmental protection, marine protection, and first nations consultation related to anchorages in the Salish Sea?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the protection of Canada's oceans and the sustainability of marine life are key priorities for our government. We also understand the importance of a safe, clean, and efficient marine transportation system that is environmentally responsible and that supports economic growth. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has reviewed the information provided by the Pacific Pilotage Authority, including an anchorage review, risk assessment, environmental review, and public consultation for the proposed anchorages.

Our government does understand that Canadians are deeply connected to our coastal areas and waterways and to the fish and fish habitat they support. That is why we introduced Bill C-68 after extensive consultations with Canadians. The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act would restore lost protections for fish and fish habitat while enhancing marine protection and habitat restoration. We will also strengthen the indigenous role in the review of projects monitoring and policy development. I sincerely hope that the member opposite will support this important and historic legislation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given. Accordingly, the notice is being withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:49 p.m.)