Debates of June 11th, 2018

Report Stage

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the leader of the Green Party, weighing in. I am not surprised by her position on the precautionary principle, because she came from an environmental law background as an activist lawyer. We may agree on some things. We may disagree. However, I would refer her to the fact that back when it was discussed in Rio, irreparable harm was the consideration before this non-certain, unscientific approach would be advanced, the better-safe-than-sorry approach. What concerns me now is that it is in a list of enumerated grounds, including social and economic and the intersection of sex and gender. I am not sure what those things have to do with preserving fish stocks, but it shows that the government is ideological, and it is doing things not based on science.

This is not the first time I have raised this. This is the third piece of legislation in about six months that, by stealth, is inserting a principle that is still quite controversial. I quoted the most cited American legal scholar, Professor Sunstein, who is very concerned about this approach. In fact, his latest book on the subject is called Laws of Fear, based on this principle.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting discussion and there have been some good speeches this evening.

I will start by saying there are two pieces of federal legislation aimed at protecting the quality of Canada's fresh water. These laws implement Ottawa's clearly stated constitutional jurisdiction and responsibility in two specific areas: navigation and the fishery. I am speaking of the Navigation Protection Act, formerly the Navigable Waters Protection Act and soon to be renamed the Canadian navigable waters act by virtue of Bill C-69, which passed at report stage today and is on its way to passing at third reading. The second piece of legislation, of course, is the Fisheries Act. These two laws are really the basis of federal water policy. Often water policy comes more out of provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government has something to say about water policy, and it is through those two main pieces of legislation.

Navigation and fishing were key aspects of life at the time of Confederation and remain significant today in our diversified modern economy. This is no doubt the reason that jurisdiction for both navigation and the fishery were given to the central government, this plus the fact that, as Pierre Trudeau famously said, “Fish swim,” which means they cross provincial boundaries, as do marine vessels for that matter.

Based on the speeches I have heard here and on what I know to be the Conservative narrative, it is fair to say the Conservative opposition does not see these two laws broadly as environmental laws. This is despite the fact that both laws govern and protect the aquatic environments on which vessels traverse and in which fish live. The Navigation Protection Act and the Fisheries Act are part of a grouping of four federal laws that are the basis of federal environmental policy in Canada, a grouping that includes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is being renamed the impact assessment act under Bill C-69, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has just gone through its five-year legislative review at the environment committee under the very able stewardship of the member for King—Vaughan.

It was the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Fisheries Act that the Harper government targeted for revamping in order to restrict their scope and significance for the environment. The Harper government amended the Navigable Waters Protection Act twice, including at one point changing its name to the Navigation Protection Act. The first time it restricted the act's scope was in a 2009 omnibus budget bill, and the second time in a 2012 omnibus budget bill.

I know members find it hard to believe that the Conservative government would ever do that, but yes it did use omnibus budget bills and they were not necessarily encompassing only financial matters. The 2012 omnibus budget bill by the Conservative government removed broad Fisheries Act protections for all fish habitats, stipulating that the act would from then on only prohibit “serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or that support such a fishery”.

Incidentally, Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative government used the 2009 omnibus budget bill, if I am not mistaken, to also weaken the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is why the government had to bring in Bill C-69 to strengthen environmental assessment in Canada and to regain the trust of Canadians regarding the federal government's commitment to protecting the environment.

I know the Conservatives are unhappy with government budget bills when they have too many pages, and call them omnibus bills, but there is no comparison—Madam Speaker, you will recall, you were in the House—to the blatant manner in which the previous government stretched the meaning of budget bill to effectively cover everything from banks to canoes and sailboats to trout, shellfish, and crustaceans. That is what the Liberal platform objected to: the Harper government's semantic elasticity with regard to the notion of a budget bill.

Bill C-68 rolls back the changes the Harper government made to the Fisheries Act. As has been mentioned by others, the bill protects all fish and fish habitat. The definition of “serious harm to fish” is also being removed.

Those carrying out projects would be generally responsible for avoiding harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat. However, when proponents are unable to completely avoid harm to fish, an authorization permit with conditions may be issued by the minister to allow a project to proceed without contravening the act. I wonder if the opposition is critical of this ministerial discretion, given its criticism of ministerial decision-making power in Bill C-69.

It is important to note the distinction in Bill C-68 between designated projects and routine projects. I have not heard that distinction mentioned on the other side. Designated projects would always require ministerial approval. These are of course expected to be large-scale projects. Currently, under the bill the previous Conservative government was responsible for, projects requiring authorization are determined on a case-by-case basis, which adds complexity and uncertainty for business.

As for routine smaller projects, published codes of practice would provide advice to proponents on how to avoid project impacts on fish or fish habitat. Although the regulations defining designated projects have not been created, I imagine irrigation canals or flood canals on farms would not be considered major, large-scale projects, like dams. I believe they would be considered routine projects, and farmers could just avail themselves of a guide of best practice and do the best job they possibly could. There is a bit of fearmongering on the other side about what the impact of the bill would be on farmers, who are indeed very much the backbone of a large part of the Canadian economy.

Laws are all well and good, but enforcement is always the key. The government will invest $384.2 million to ensure the capacity to enforce the Fisheries Act. Among other things, this money would go toward increasing the number of front-line fishery habitat officers.

Also worth mentioning, Bill C-68 would empower cabinet to make regulations for the rebuilding of fish stocks. It would also empower the minister to make regulations for the purposes of the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity. Again, I am curious to know whether the opposition objects to ministerial discretion in these cases.

Significantly, the bill requires that the government consider the rights of indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge when making decisions about fish habitats. This supports the government's priority on reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples.

Finally, Bill C-68 would ban the capturing of whales, dolphins, and porpoises for the purpose of keeping them in captivity. This should be welcomed by those who hold to the protection of marine wildlife. They are people like the beluga specialist, Dr. Pierre Béland, who is the world's most well-known expert on the beluga whale, and who was actually involved in an aqua-hacking conference in Toronto this past weekend. Aqua hacking is a process by which we look for solutions to problems, like pollution affecting our waterways.

Lastly, it is worth noting that extensive consultation was undertaken to arrive at the measures we are debating today. There have been two rounds of online public consultations, and over 100 meetings with partners, stakeholders, and indigenous groups. In 2016, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to review the previous government's changes to the act. This review resulted in 32 recommendations, which helped shape Bill C-68. This is on top of all the debate that took place in 2012 around changes to the act undertaken within the context of a rather egregious so-called budget omnibus bill.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a little rich for our colleague across the way to point fingers at the former government, saying how it rushed legislation through, how it did not consult, and that the Liberals are doing things differently.

I will go back, and I have said this time and again in this House, to when the member for Papineau campaigned in 2015. He said that he would let the debate reign. He said that omnibus bills would be done with, and that he would not be using them in terms of trying to force legislation. However, I believe this marks the 42nd time the Liberals have moved time allocation on a piece of legislation.

I am going to bring this back to a point our hon. colleague mentioned. The member talked about ministerial authority. I will use a recent example to show where our concern is: surf clam quota. The minister has just arbitrarily gone in and expropriated 25% of the quota under the guise of reconciliation, and we know that is not true now.

Could our hon. colleague maybe understand a little of our concern with the minister having this all-knowing, huge authority to be able to go in and implement policy without consultations?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is ironic that the member refers to the attitude of “all-knowing”. I sat in the previous Parliament, and I remember that attitude radiating from this side of the House, to the extent that little consultation was done on many important pieces of legislation.

In terms of the Fisheries Act, we have been debating this since 2012, when the previous government introduced environmental change as part of a budget bill. I think we have had extensive consultation. Ministerial discretion is really about governments making decisions. We all agree that governments should be making informed decisions, and that is what the government is doing.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, Joshua Laughren from Oceana said:

To realize the Act’s potential, it must clarify the goal of restoring populations to abundance and be backed by new regulations that ensure robust rebuilding plans are developed.

My question and the concern that I would like to share with the hon. colleague is that, where I live in the Somass River and in Clayoquot, the government promised that it would deliver coastal restoration funds to rebuild our fish. In fact it has given nothing to those communities, in terms of coastal restoration: zero. There is no way that they can rebuild those stocks without support from the government. These critical investments have not taken place.

I would like to hear the member speak about a plan that would identify critical species at risk and ensure that the government is investing in bringing back our fish and bringing us back to abundance.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, I am sure there are some very important measures and very important budgets that will need to be determined in the future.

However, we are talking about the legislation. The regulations have not even been crafted yet. The hon. member is right to provide his input for the eventual shaping of regulations and budget plans.

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

Madam Speaker, in the last speech made by the member across the way, he spoke about the GBA+ analysis done on this piece of legislation being ideological, basically saying that it was virtue signalling and there was no real point to it.

I just want to add that Amnesty International's 2016 report found that energy projects in northeast B.C. had unintended consequences for wellness and safety with a disproportionate impact on women. The Parkland Institute in Alberta said the same thing.

There are various impacts that affect women, people of a different race, and indigenous people very differently. I wonder if my hon. colleague could speak to the government's commitment to ensuring that there is a GBA+ analysis on every piece of legislation.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the reason we need analysis is that we do not know ahead of time what the impacts could be. We look at what they could be, so that we can avoid unintended consequences.

In terms of the idea that stating the need for equality is somehow ideological, I do not think so. I just think it is a principle of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand this evening to speak to the bill.

I will take a bit of a different approach because I am from Saskatchewan. As has been mentioned, our lakes are beautiful. We have wonderful fish and all kinds of animal life. It is very pristine and beautiful. We are also a major agricultural source within the country, as well as natural resources.

The Conservative Party of Canada supports the protection of our oceans and fisheries. Our previous changes to the Fisheries Act were enacted to support transparency in the decision-making process and to provide a level of certainty to those who had an investment in this. It is important to note that we were very robust in our expectations in determining whether environmental conditions were being met. However, we worked with the natural resource and the agricultural communities.

The term “the environment and the economy go hand in hand” does not belong to the current government. Back in 2009, that is the exact term I used to express Conservative values when I was running in for nomination. There is no question that on this side of the floor, the environment and the economy are both important, which is why our prime minister understood that Canada's role on this issue had to include a global look at the world. Canada has a responsibility in relation to the rest of the world, not just for the environment but for our economy as well. That is where our ability to work with the environment exists. Some people cannot afford to make a living. More and more we find ourselves in a situation, where investment is running out of the country as fast as it can. We are losing jobs. We cannot compete with the United States. We cannot afford to do a lot of the things that we want to do as a country to ensure our economy is strong while at the same time our environment is strong.

When I was a brand new member of Parliament two and a half years ago, one of the first visits to my office was a young man from an environmental engineers group. I could not say exactly which group it was as I was in a bit of a daze. However, we had an amazing conversation. He said, knowing what was coming from the the government and the likelihood of changes to this very act, that what we had was very good. It was very robust, very challenging, there were huge expectations, and it provided a level of certainty.

We kept hearing how the government just rushed these things through. I did not appreciate what he said to me at the time, but I do now. Certainty enabled resource producers to know the parameters under which they would be working. They hired environmental engineers like himself to ensure they did absolutely everything they could to be prepared to be to meet the requirements for their new projects. His perspective was that certainty made all the difference in the environment and the economy being able to go hand in hand.

That is the case in my riding where we have potash development at this very moment. There is a circumstance there where habitat would be be influenced by the productivity. I have a news flash. It does not matter what we do, whether it is build a house, build a downtown store, put in a new farm building, or whatever, we impact our environment. However, the concept of offsets, which the Saskatchewan Mining Association referred to in its brief, is very important.

It said that it had worked previously with Fisheries and Oceans Canada on the topic of habitat banking, resulting in the 2012 publication “Fish Habitat Banking in Canada: Opportunities and Challenges”. As such, it said that it supported the addition of proponent-led habitat banking into the amended act. Why? The current government would say that it is because it is this evil group that wants to destroy our environment, which is ridiculous. The truth of the matter is that it wants to be responsible. I know it spent millions of dollars in securing other land as the habitat that would be protected to ensure that its business could grow and people all across our province and our country could be employed. We need that balance. I do not see that balance at all with the government.

With Bill C-68, the Liberals have added additional layers of regulatory uncertainty.

We have heard a lot tonight about the impacts on the farmers and how that will deter them in a lot of ways. My fellow member, I believe the member for Foothills, spoke to this issue a while back. He talked about how fish would be found because of floodwaters or whatever and all of a sudden these drainage areas would have to be made into bedding areas for fish, and how difficult that would be for the farming community. The member across the floor, I believe it was a member from Prince Edward Island, said that he was sure that would be dealt with at committee, that it was common sense. That is not what I am hearing from the government at all. The member from across the floor said that it was common sense to enable the Prairies and places where this was overreach to be considered in the bill. Apparently, that will not be the case.

The Liberals have said that they are restoring the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat prohibition, yet they have sidestepped any obligation to uphold the HADD regulations in the legislation by providing the minister with the ability to exempt certain provisions. How will they decide which ones they will exempt and which ones they will not? That is a dangerous place to be. We know Canadians look at what is done in the House and know what politics do. We have already heard tonight about the circumstances where this is being abused. I even wonder about the water systems that will be put in our first nations, which are under water advisories. This is a really good thing. It needs to be done. I have small communities all over my riding that need that as well. What kind of advanced research was done on the implications of putting those systems in? We need to have fairness across the board.

I want to mention one more thing. We are having trouble getting this pipeline built, yet today there was an announcement that stated, “Voisey's Bay Underground Mine Construction To Begin This Summer”. This is in Labrador. Obviously, it is a priority to make that happen. It states:

Three former Liberal premiers were on hand for the official announcement this morning...[and the] agreement was signed.

The project is expected to result in 1,700 jobs...$69-million in tax revenue for the province.

It is an ore mine. However, somehow we cannot get this pipeline built to the coast to enable our provinces, which have wonderful resources, to make a difference in the Canadian economy, and to do it in an environmentally-friendly way. I am very proud of my province. We have a lot to show and teach the government about good environmental standards.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate the question I asked. The member for Durham indicated that intersectionality with this project was unnecessary, that it was the virtue-signalling of ideology. I want to quote the University of Calgary Faculty of Law. It referenced Amnesty International reports that found that energy products in northeast British Columbia had unintended consequences that disproportionately negatively affected indigenous people, particularly indigenous women, reducing their housing security, increasing rates of violence, and increasing spiritual harm. The Parkland Institute found that women in Alberta have not benefited from the growth in the extractive sector as men have.

Does my hon. colleague not feel that a gender-based analysis-plus is necessary to ensure that when we look at these projects and how intersecting groups fit into benefiting from them, that we understand how they might be negatively impacted and that we look at solutions to ensure the reverse happens?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of being a woman in Canada. There is no question that it does not matter what one does. There are negative consequences for absolutely everybody. I am tired of the picking and choosing that goes by that side of the floor. The truth is that we need to do many thing as a society to enable people to succeed. That is our responsibility.

When it comes to mining, I am very proud of the women who are involved in the mining industry in my province. Canada is leaps and bounds ahead of so many other countries. When we take that kind of an ideology and use it to force other countries to change their laws and their values, just the way the government uses attestations in our country to try to determine what Canadians value should be, that is out of line.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my friend for Yorkton—Melville and I do not agree about the legislation. It is good legislation that repairs the damage done by the previous government. Bear in mind that we had the Fisheries Act since 1867. We have had habitat protection for decades and more. It did not stall the Canadian economy or block projects.

However, I want to make the point that the Kinder Morgan pipeline still does not have legal permission to proceed. The National Energy Board's 157 conditions have not yet been met. The company, which is now walking away from the project, never even asked the province of B.C. for 600 of the permits it still needed.

On the other hand, the nickel mine that was announced as an underground mine in Labrador by Voisey's Bay, now owned by the Brazilian company Vale, was widely supported locally, including the Innu people and the Inuit people of Labrador. There is no comparison whatsoever to a project that is opposed by most of the first nations along the route, opposed by the province of British Columbia, opposed by the alliance of British Columbian municipalities, and throughout British Columbia and remains something that coastal communities do not want. There is no comparison.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree that we do not agree.

The challenge is that the government is failing in every way to see this project through. The majority of Canadians, the majority of people in British Columbia, and the first nations groups involved in the production of this pipeline want it to take place. They are being held hostage by poor government and environmental groups that are sending their dollars into our country to impact our communities and create disruption. There is no way the government should be bowing its head to that. That is why we are in the circumstances we are in today with that pipeline.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. As members can imagine, as a coastal British Columbian, I understand the importance and significance of protecting our fish. Where I live, it is not just our food security, our economy, or our culture, but it is integral to everything and is what connects us. It is even in our language. As saltwater people, fish and the protection of fish is given utmost priority. We always say that the health of our fish and our salmon is a reflection of the health of our communities. The importance and significance of this bill would restore the act that needs to be put in place as soon as possible so that we can protect our fish and bring ourselves back to abundance.

One of the key changes made to the Fisheries Act in 2012 that removed protection for fish and fish habitat, and that will be restored, is the harmful alteration and disruption or destruction of fish habitat. It goes further by restoring the definition of fisheries to include all fish. However, it still does not address the conflict mandates, which Commissioner Cohen identified, of conserving wild salmon while protecting harmful salmon practices. This was in the mandate letter to the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. The Prime Minister himself instructed the minister to act on the recommendations of the Cohen commission on restoring sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River.

In recommendation 3 of his report, Justice Cohen recommended, “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.” DFO is still continuing to promote salmon farming, its industry, and the product. We are concerned that the government has not followed through with this promise. It is impossible for the government to be an agent and also promoting an industry that might have detrimental impacts and effects on our wild fish. The goal and mandate of DFO should be restored to that of just protecting wild salmon and wild fish. New Democrats would like the government to follow through with the promise it made in the 2015 election campaign and that was outlined in the Cohen commission.

It has not done that, and it is something that is raised repeatedly. In fact, the Pacific Salmon Foundation just came out against open net salmon farming. Many groups in my riding are raising concerns about the impact it is having. Many indigenous communities in my riding are raising concerns around the impact of salmon farming. We would like that to be split out so that we can make sure DFO is doing its historic job of advocating for and protecting our fish. That is not happening now, and it is not in this legislation.

It is the first time that rebuilding of depleted fish stocks has been included in the Fisheries Act. However, details on rebuilding this will be in regulations. Those regulations need to be strong, with timelines and targets, and it needs to take into account the impacts of climate change and species interactions. We know in my area that climate change is real. In 2014, it was so dry—and then rained just in time, in August—that we were worried we would lose all of our fish as the streams ran dry at the time when the fish needed to spawn upstream. It is important that is integrated in the legislation, but also setting clear targets and necessary investments. The government keeps talking about its oceans protection plan and its record investments in coastal restoration, but in fact we are not seeing that on the ground.

As I said earlier, the Somass River still has no coastal restoration funds. It is expecting about 350,000 pieces of sockeye salmon this year, which is well below the average of just over a million and the high of 1.9 million. How do we get back to abundance? We need to make adequate investments, and we are not doing that. The salmon industry in British Columbia brings in well over $1 billion, yet we do not even invest $50 million in that sector. As a former business person, I know that is far from adequate in terms of investment in an industry that is so critical to British Columbians, in tourism, the commercial sector of fishing, the recreation sector, and for food security.

It feeds many people, especially indigenous people who rely on that fish, people living in poverty. It is important that the government backs it up with real investment. The bill states the following:

require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister shall consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, include provisions respecting the consideration and protection of Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, and authorize the making of agreements with Indigenous governing bodies to further the purpose of the Fisheries Act;

It is concerning that it is still far from free, prior, and informed consent, a specific right that pertains to indigenous peoples and is recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I am going to quote from the Nuu-chah-nulth's Ha'wiih, who are the hereditary chiefs of the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth first nations on the west coast of Vancouver Island. They have identified five concerns, and one is the purpose of the Fisheries Act, which must include reconciliation with aboriginal people. They said there is no reference to aboriginal people or unique and important ties to the fishery.

The Prime Minister has said that the “failure of successive Canadian governments to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada is our great shame. And for many Indigenous Peoples, this lack of respect for their rights persists to this day.”

Second, there is another quote from the Prime Minister: “We now have before us an opportunity to deliver true, meaningful and lasting reconciliation between Canada and first nations, the Métis Nation, and Inuit peoples.

Lastly, he has stated before that, “We are all in this together, and the relationships we build need to reflect this reality. In Canada, this means new relationships between the government of Canada and Indigenous Peoples – relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.”

They would like to see this mean true, meaningful, and lasting reconciliation that includes reconciliation with aboriginal people in the purpose section of this legislation, and say, “We do not submit that Reconciliation is achieved by the Fisheries Act alone; rather, we submit that the Fisheries Act can assist in achieving Reconciliation.”

They would like to see incorporating respect for indigenous law. They say, “We respectfully advise that section 2.5 should be amended by adding the following: the traditional and contemporary laws of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, as provided to the Minister.”

Third, they are concerned about controlling ministerial discretion. They say “that the minister 'may' consider certain named issues when making a decision.” They recommend that the word “may” in section 2.5 be changed to the word “shall”. They say that, “We remain to be convinced that the government of Canada will always be a government that shares the need to preserve the environment, conserve and manage fish species conservatively, and respect the rights, laws, and traditions of Indigenous people.”

Fourth, they would like to see consistency of the reference to aboriginal peoples.

Fifth, with regard to restoring fish habitat, they say, “While we approve of the protections being given to the Fisheries habitat, we cannot concede that enough is being done to restore the habitat and repair the damage done by industry, over-fishing, or mismanagement. We therefore recommend that the purpose of the Act be amended further by adding the following: 2.1(c) the restoration of damage for compromised fisheries and fish habitat”.

They would like to see that in there. They say the time is now for the federal government to take the lead in habitat restoration. This legislation provides the perfect vehicle to do so.

Last, the bill gives a great deal of discretion around decision-making to the minister, allowing decisions to be made based on the minister's opinion rather than on scientific evidence.

In closing, we support the bill. We support restoring fish habitat. We would like to see some of these concerns addressed. These are concerns that are shared widely in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, that are shared by many of the groups that are doing the hard work, many of the groups that are advocating for our salmon in particular, and our fish.

Many of the salmon enhancement groups have identified that they have not seen an increase in 28 years in many of the hatcheries.

This has been a failure of repeated governments. Hopefully the government will put forward a real plan so we can bring back our fish stock to abundancy.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is wonderful at long last to finally hear from a member on the opposition benches in a riding that actually touches the ocean.

As the MP for Halifax, which includes the great fishing community of Sambro, people in Atlantic Canada remember the reckless changes that the Harper Conservatives made to the Fisheries Act during their time in office. We remember the 430-page Conservative omnibus bill, which in 2012 gutted the protection of Canada's fish and fish habitat without consulting indigenous peoples, fishers, scientists, conservation advocates, or coastal communities in any meaningful way whatsoever. Bill C-68 would once again restore those protections that the Conservatives threw aside.

I am glad to hear organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund of Canada, Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Ecology Action Centre speak out in favour of the measures contained in this legislation.

Would the hon. member not agree that Canada needs a strong regulatory authority to protect our fish and fish habitat, as contained in Bill C-68?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly why we support this legislation for the restoration of habitat and protection for our fish.

I have also cited some concerns. The member talked about indigenous people. The legislation says “may consider” instead of saying “will consider”. We are asking the government to amend that.

There are concerns around the Cohen commission report. It clearly stated that they have asked the government to separate salmon farming and aquaculture from DFO so that it can do its job, which is protecting our wild fish habitat and that salmon farming be a separate industry.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continually talks about how the nation-to-nation relationship is the most important one, but then what it does is disastrous. We have heard my colleagues talk about how the murdered and missing aboriginal women inquiry and the pipeline were inadequate.

I would like to hear more detail from my friend in the NDP about the consultation that has happened on this legislation and how he feels it has helped indigenous people.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not agree with the Conservatives around this legislation. We are trying to restore and implement things they cut when they were in government that did not protect our salmon.

The member has raised a valid concern about consultation with indigenous people. The letter I have from the Ha'wiih, the hereditary chiefs of the Nuu-chah-nulth people, is because they have not been adequately consulted around the bill. They have brought forward their concern that they “may” be consulted instead of “shall” be consulted. That is a huge concern. It flies in the face of Bill S-262 that was recently passed, which was put forward by my colleague around applying UNDRIP. I am calling on the government to change the wording of that.

The government is currently fighting the Nuu-chah-nulth people in court. The government has repeatedly fought the nation in court, and the judge has ordered the government to get to the table and negotiate responsibly. It has not done that. It is carrying on the same policies from the Harper government in the past. The Liberal government has failed to sit down and have meaningful dialogue with the nation and negotiate fairly. It was in the recent judgment with the Nuu-chah-nulth, Ahousaht et al v. Canada, that the government had done everything it could to stymie negotiations.

If the government is going to honour and respect indigenous peoples, it should get to the table and negotiate with the Nuu-chah-nulth, who have won repeatedly in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Canada needs to stop fighting indigenous people in court and show respect.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the hall in the Liberal Party just asked a question about why people from the Prairies were standing up to speak to this act. I guess he did not realize oceans and fisheries is on the Prairies and has an impact on a lot of our municipalities in how they go about conducting their business on a day-to-day basis. The Conservative Party of Canada supports protecting our lakes and rivers and the oceans and the fisheries. There is no question about that. Let us get that on the record right now: We support that and we are behind it 100%.

I love to fish. We have many colleagues who are in our hunting and angling caucus who love to fish. We do a lot of catch-and-release, we use barbless hooks, we take responsibility, and we take the appropriate measures when we are fishing to make sure that a fish, when it is caught, is returned alive and safe and there for somebody else to enjoy in the future. Northern Saskatchewan is a beautiful province to fish in. I know the member for Regina—Wascana has been here all night, and he would agree with me. When we go up into northern Saskatchewan, we see the development and the fisheries there and we see the people and the beautiful landscape and it is a great place to go fishing. I encourage all members to come to northern Saskatchewan and do some fishing with barbless hooks and catch-and-release because that is very important.

Back to the business of today, what the Liberals have done in Bill C-68 is add an additional layer of bureaucracy, and that is very concerning. In 2010 and 2011, we had SARM, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, coming into our offices, saying, “We need help. We are trying to build a culvert in a dry creek bed, and we cannot get approval from oceans and fisheries”. I remember Bud Strube from the RM of Shellbrook came into my office and said, “We have a bed here that we have to change the culvert in because the beavers have dammed it.” Because they dammed it up it didn't flow last spring, it took out the road, and did harm to the actual stream that the fish would go up and down during the spring season. Therefore, during spring runoff there is water in that culvert. By the time the middle of June hits, there is nothing in that culvert. They change it in July and August when there is nothing in the culvert and then it is there, ready for the next spring. However, they would apply to oceans and fisheries for the appropriate permits and it would sit on somebody's desk. It would be sitting there and it would be July, it would be August, September. November was coming so they were phoning to say they needed to get this done, freeze-up was happening. There would be no response. Finally when they got a response, it was already frozen up. They would go and change the culvert because they had to do it. They had to make sure the culvert was in place for the next spring's runoff. They would spend twice as much money. They are inefficient in how they do it. They cannot do as clean and nice a job in November as they could in July or August, but that is the result of having that type of bureaucracy on the Prairies.

The reality is we can have proper management of the waterways without the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy in this case is an example of where it has gotten in the way. When the government adds a bureaucracy, the first thing it does is try to justify why it should exist. What do the officials do? They start bringing in all sorts of crazy rules and regulations that they interpret on their own to make it tougher to do things. I will go back to my rural municipality example. I had a rural municipality just outside of Arborfield. It had some flooding and the people had to change some culverts. It was no problem, as it was pretty straightforward. Therefore, they thought they should do some mitigation the next year. Again, they were going to go in and put some different culverts in. The rules said they had to put in all these different types of mechanisms in case there should be rain. They spent two to three days putting in these mechanisms in case it should rain, to manage erosion and all that, where it would have only taken them two hours to change the culvert. Who pays for that? I pay for that. The taxpayer pays for that. Every person in that municipality paid for that expense. Where was the common sense? It was not with the bureaucracy.

That is where I get really concerned when I listen to members on the opposite side say, “Farmers are going to be protected here. We know that. We have not seen the regulations. We do not know what the regulations are going to say, but do not worry, it will all be fine.” We have heard that before and we are not going to buy it again. This has a lot of concerns.

One other concern I have is about the transparency of the minister and his role in the decision-making process. When we make a decision, we base it on science; everybody in this House would agree with that. In this scenario, and the Liberals have done this in other areas, they have based it on the minister's interpretation of what he wants to achieve. That is not bankability, that is not predictability, and that is not even logical in a lot of cases. If they have science saying that this is the way something should be done, then that is the way it should be done. I want them to give me a good reason why they would not do that. What scares me even more is the minister does not have to reveal the science. He does not even have to justify his decision to the taxpayer. He can just do it. How does that make sense?

It does not make sense. Why would they put themselves in this scenario? In fact, in this type of scenario with good governance, it would never pass the smell test. It does not work.

If the government is basically telling people who are going to take on a project here are the rules, check all the boxes, and do everything by the rules, but the minister can come in at the end of the day and say, “You did not smile nicely; you didn't wear a nice enough tie. I am not going to approve your project.” That can actually happen, and that is wrong. That should never be the purview of any minister in a Canadian government. That creates a lot of concern.

The Liberals talk about establishing advisory panels. Again, there is no context around what this panel would do, who it would be made up of, what it would consist of, or what the end goal at the end of the day is for that panel. However, some more Liberal members can be appointed to a panel, they would get their per diems, and life would be great. There would be another panel that would make some recommendations, and like I said about bureaucracy, the Liberals love to make rules to give themselves something to do.

What do we think this panel is going to do? I think panels are important. I think consultation is very important. I think it is important that government actually talks to the people who are affected, but when separate panels are created that do not have a vested interest in the project, what is the end game? Why are they there? That is very concerning.

We will work closely with fishermen and farmers. We will do what it takes to make sure that we have a proper fisheries going into the future. We will make sure that our kids and grandkids actually have a place to go fishing, that they will have a sector to work in, and that it will be profitable and bankable. After all, Conservatives know that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. The Liberals should actually take their own advice in that regard. We have to have balance. We have to mitigate the balance. We have to understand that there will be sacrifices once in a while in order to achieve what is better for everybody involved.

That is just the reality. That is part of the decision-making process. I think I will close right there, and open it up for questions. However, I am very concerned with what we are seeing here. We are seeing a reversal of things, and it will not make things better for Canadians. It will make it worse. It will not make us more competitive as a country or a better country; it will make us weaker. It actually will not create a future for our families, our kids, and our grandkids and their kids. It will make it harder. Why would we do this? It just does not make sense, unless there is a Liberal goal at the end of the day.

Again, we stand with our fishermen. We stand with the people in the sector. We will always stand up for them to make sure there is common sense when it comes to doing things in the fisheries.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member is standing up for people, working people. We, too, are doing that.

In my riding, we have heard, loud and clear, that people would like to see a strong Fisheries Act to protect our fish. We have seen a decline, like never before, of our salmon, for example. The protections right now are currently inadequate to protect our salmon, our fish.

I will give an example. The NEB just ordered Kinder Morgan to stop installing plastic anti-spawning salmon mats in eight B.C. rivers. That is ludicrous that they have been ordered to stop, and these mats are still place, destroying salmon habitat.

Does the member think the minister should intervene and order Kinder Morgan to stop damaging critical salmon habitat?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yes. If someone is doing something that is actually harming the environment, and there is a way to mitigate around that, they should be stopping that. They should be obeying the act. There is no question about that.

That does not mean stopping the project. That does not mean take the whole project and throw it out. The issues should be dealt with as the issues come up. That is why there is a whole pile of recommendations in the approval of the doubling of Kinder Morgan. They were put in place for a reason. As long as the company does what was recommended, it should be allowed to build that pipeline. That is why those recommendations were made.

However, no. Political games are being played, and it gets stopped, even though the majority of people are in favour of it, even though it is going to bring jobs and economic benefit to everybody across Canada, even though it is going to help pay for our health care and other social programs, even though it is going to provide jobs, jobs for men, women, minorities.

That is the silliness of the left. It picks one part of a project, and then says, “That makes it evil. The whole thing should be stopped.” Let us deal with that problem, mitigate it, get rid of the problem, solve the problem, but do not throw everything else out. That is what is unfortunate with the NDP suggestion.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although we are debating Bill C-68, I cannot leave the comments the member for Prince Albert just made unchallenged. I participated as an intervenor in the review of Kinder Morgan before the National Energy Board. There were two pieces of evidence. One was from Kinder Morgan that completing the expansion would create 90 new permanent jobs, 40 in Alberta and 50 in British Columbia, and that during construction, it would create 2,500 jobs a year for two years.

The other evidence about jobs came from the largest union representing oil sands workers in Alberta, Unifor. Its evidence was that completing the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion would threaten Canadian jobs and cause a loss of jobs, with a direct threat to the remaining refinery in Burnaby, and losing, through opportunity costs, the jobs that could be created by having the product refined in Canada. Unfortunately, the National Energy Board ruled that jobs were not inside its mandate. It did not want to hear anything about jobs, and refused to hear the evidence from Unifor.

In fact, there is not a single study anywhere, despite all the rhetoric and propaganda, that tells us Kinder Morgan would be a long-term job creator in Canada. Again, the evidence the NEB refused to hear from the largest union involved was that it was a threat to jobs.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member was open minded when she attended those hearings, and actually listened to all sides. Kinder Morgan is just one part of the whole sector. We needed Kinder Morgan to deliver the oil we were developing and for which we had a market. The oil sands and other oil fields needed that pipeline to get the oil to market. If we cannot get it to market, then there is no reason to have those companies operating. If we are pulling a product out of the ground that has nowhere to go then we do not pull the product out of the ground. Those are the jobs that are lost, and those the jobs were not accounted for.

Therefore, when the member talks about direct jobs in building the pipeline, that is true. When she talks about maintaining the pipeline, that is also true. However, that is just one segment of the whole industry. If we do not have that pipeline, if we do not deliver that product to market, we lose the rest of it behind it, and that impact thousands of jobs right across Canada. It impacts the type of social benefits we can provide to all Canadians.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-68.

I will begin by thanking the member for Prince Albert for the important points he made to this debate. I find it disappointing that science is being ignored, and the member for Prince Albert reminded us of the importance of respecting science. Rhetoric and false statements being made in the House to make a point really discredits that party, that individual, when they make false statements.

Regarding Kinder Morgan, the member for Prince Albert reminded us that the decisions need to be based on science and not on protesting, making outrageous statements, and carrying out illegal activities. As members of Parliament in Canada, we have to look at what is good for the country. What do we need to do? The Liberal government decided that energy east was a no-go. It ignored the science and made a political decision that energy east was a no-go, that Ontario and Quebec, the eastern part of this country, will have to continue to import oil from the Middle East. It will have to be tanked up the east coast and brought into Canada from a foreign entity.

Canada could be self-sufficient if we had energy east. We could ship our oil out of Canada if we had the infrastructure. Right now what we are hearing from the science base is that we move our oil and gas. We leave it in the ground, which means we destroy the standard of living that Canadians enjoy, or we move it by tanker or train, but we are not going to move it the safest way, which is with pipelines. It is bizarre. It is unscientific. It makes no sense when I talk to Canadians. Again, the member Prince Albert reminded us of the importance of respecting science.

I want to give a little history lesson on how we ended up dealing with Bill C-68.

I will go back to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA. It is a piece of legislation that a lot of regulations for environmental protection was based on. It passed in 1999, the prime minister was Jean Chrétien, and it came into force in 2000. CEPA needed to be reviewed every five years, which is very common with legislation. It came into effect in 2000, and the five-year review would have been in 2005.

Who was the prime minister in 2005? That was Paul Martin. Jean Chrétien's government went from 1993 to December 2003, and in 2003, Paul Martin took over. There was an election in 2004. I was elected in 2004.

I have served my community for 14 years in local government on city council. However, we had trouble even cleaning and maintaining the ditching system so that we would not have flooding, as that was constantly restricted. We heard from not only the local government that I served on but from farmers, and right across the country. Things were not working. Therefore, I was quite excited when I was elected in 2004 and expressed a strong interest in making sure that on the problems we had in the country we could always do better. We can learn from what is not working. Local governments and farmers need to be able to maintain proper drainage systems; otherwise, they plug up. That was very important.

I was really excited in 2006 when there was another election and Paul Martin was no longer the prime minister. Stephen Harper became the prime minister in 2006. I was honoured to be asked to be the parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment. One of the first things we did was realize that the legislative requirement to deal with CEPA should have been done no later than 2005. It was now 2006.

The past Conservative government kept its promises. It did what was required for good governance. It served Canadians extremely well. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act review was overdue. We began with that and we spent a couple of years of consultation, hearing from Canadians about what needed to be changed. We heard that over and over again. That consultation included experts, scientists, and indigenous peoples. We did not rush it. We got it right. From that we made a lot of changes.

In the discussion that we have heard here, not science-based but rhetoric, where we have the NDP saying that the changes that were made hurt salmon. That is not true. We have heard from the Liberals that the previous government gutted protections without consultation. That is not true. Hansard will support that there were years of consultation to get it right. That is not what we see from the Liberal government where they ram things through using time allocation: “We have heard enough. We have heard from the witnesses who we chose and we wanted to hear from, so now that we have heard what we wanted to hear, we want to move this through.” That is not in the interests of Canada, and it not science-based.

The Liberals have said that they want to restore the lost habitat protection. However, that is not what happened. There were improvements so that the drainage systems across the country could be maintained. People were not being fined. We were being realistic. Yes, we do need to protect our waters. We need to do that.

Those are the changes that were made by the previous government. Now what we have in Bill C-68 is again the rhetoric or statements that are not based on science. The end result will be layers of regulatory uncertainty.

There were over 50 witnesses that came to the committee. Not one of the witnesses could identify any harm that had been done by the previous government. Actually, the committee heard about the good that had happened. There was not one witness who could show by science any support for Bill C-68 and the need for any of the amendments and changes in Bill C-68.

There were over 50 witnesses. One of the witnesses came from the Canadian Electricity Association. With the changes of CEPA, which I spoke of a moment ago, we heard from electricity producers. They said that one of their challenges is that if they put fish into the streams and restock the streams, the habitats change. They want to improve the habitat to make it better and healthier. However, if they hurt any fish by having all of these new fish introduced into the streams and lakes, they will be held responsible for an existing structure. They said if we could provide freedom for them to make those changes, they wanted to do that. It is good for the environment, just like farmers wanting to make things better, so as long as they were not going to be hurt by doing that, they would like to be able to make those changes. That was one of the changes that was made.

Now what the Liberals are saying will restore lost habitats actually will have the opposite effect. That is what the Canadian Electricity Association said, that Bill C-68 represents one step forward but two steps back. Bill C-68 is a missed opportunity for the federal government to anchor the Fisheries Act in a reasonable population-based approach, rather than focused on individual fish, and to clearly identify fisheries management objectives.

What is being proposed creates uncertainty. It puts farmers at risk and it puts infrastructure at risk. What it does, though, is that it keeps a political promise made by the government. That is why we are not hearing science-based information. Rather, we are hearing rhetoric. It is really sad.

It was in 2005, just before there was a change in government, there was a report from the commissioner of the environment. It stated, “When it comes to protecting the environment, bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground”. That is happening again, and that is not in the interests of Canada.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of concerns from people in our communities when the Fisheries Act was gutted in 2012. It was not just New Democrats. It was people across political lines, people who care about our fish. They were concerned that there were not adequate protections in place.

We saw a huge trend from forestry companies, moving their sorts to water. When those booms are sitting in the water a lot of that bark and sediment hits the bottom of our rivers and important estuaries and it has a huge impact on our salmon, especially our chinook. They need those estuaries and we need to make sure there is clean water for them, especially in their first year, on their way out, and especially for our sockeye coming in.

People have made it very clear that they want to see HADD brought back in. Perhaps he could speak to the significance of HADD. Does he support putting HADD back in place, because as a coastal person he knows how important fish are and how we work together with industry.