Debates of June 12th, 2018

Fisheries Act

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

Madam Speaker, it has been entertaining listening to Conservatives talk about Bill C-68. On the one hand, the New Democratic friends say that the government should be doing more. On the other hand, the Conservatives' mentality is that any legislation on the environment is bad. We actually just heard that from the member.

It is much like the pipeline. TMX is going to happen. The previous Harper government failed at getting a pipeline to the market on the coast, but this government has not failed. Would the member not acknowledge that the economy and environment do in fact go hand in hand? We can see that with respect to the success of this legislation and the pipeline, which finally will be built, and not because of Stephen Harper but because we have a government that understands this

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely unfair to this side of the House that the Liberal government has attempted to make us wear an environmental record that is completely false and untrue, based upon our 10 years in government with Stephen Harper. In the member's commentary, I hear once again something that is the complete opposite of what the Harper government stood for. What the Liberals say is continuous virtue signalling, unknown decision-making, and speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

With the former Harper Conservative Government of Canada, we always did what we said we would do, and often this was standing up not only for industry but also for the environment.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was on the fisheries committee back in 2012 when the changes were made. I helped author them. I was also on the fisheries committee when the Liberal government tore apart extremely good legislation. I have also had the honour of being in the environment field for over 35 years and did pipeline assessments. My colleague is exactly right about how carefully pipelines are made these days.

Just as an aside, I would recommend my colleague get on the fisheries committee, she is so competent in this field.

I was also on the environment committee recently when we looked at Bill C-69, and the horror stories from industry are legendary. Chris Bloomer from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said that Canada had a toxic regulatory environment. He talked about pancaking regulation on top of regulation. It is an environmental lawyer's dream. The lawyers are the ones who will to get rich.

Could my colleague talk about the effect of this and other acts on Canada's investment climate?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that foreign investment has been fleeing and will continue to flee Canada at an alarming rate. I have seen this first-hand in my dear hometown of Calgary, Alberta, where we have seen the exit of organizations and of corporations such as Murphy Oil, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, and I can go on and on with respect to the foreign investment that has fled. That is even prior to the installation and royal assent of such damaging legislation such as Bill C-68, which we are discussing today, and Bill C-69. The government has to take responsibility for the investment that is fleeing Canada and ruining the lives of Canadians.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be speaking in the House of Commons this evening as we continue debate on Bill C-68. I am sure there will be more commentary as the night proceeds into the middle of the night and then late night, perhaps even early morning. Who knows in this place. It is an honour to serve the constituents of Parry Sound—Muskoka, regardless of the hour of the day. I am sure all colleagues feel the same about their ridings.

We are debating Bill C-68, which aspires to protect our oceans and fisheries. I believe all members of the chamber would want to do this. The issue is whether it does something meaningful in that regard. The answer is a resounding no.

As my colleague from Calgary just mentioned, there were extensive changes to the Fisheries Act under the previous government to ensure our fisheries were protected, and yet at the same time, it was much more user friendly for Canadians. It was important for economic development and it was also ridding the previous legislation of a nuisance factor, where every ditch all of a sudden became a protected area for fish that were too numerous to count.

Clearly, it was overreach in the pre-existing legislation, which the legislation of the previous Conservative government sought to remedy. Now we find ourselves again, with the Liberal government now in its third year, regurgitating legislation simply because there were changes made under the previous Conservative government. I am sure there is no ill will on the opposite side, but I tend to wonder whether the Liberals are simply trying to reinvent the wheel and put their own stamp on legislative priorities.

What happens with legislation like this is that it makes the situation worse for economic development. It makes it worse in trying to balance protecting fish habitat and at the same time moving forward in our communities. That is what we have with Bill C-68.

There are a number of things here. The bill seems to undermine transparency and due process by allowing the minister to withhold critical information from interested proponents. It goes against the Prime Minister's oft stated commitment in national and international fora to openness and transparency.

Let us talk about that for a few minutes. This is a constant theme of the government, that it is more open, more transparent, that the Liberals are the ones who cornered the market on openness and transparency. However, when we look at the record of the government, it is far from that.

In its 2015 platform, the Liberals said that they would fix the Access to Information Act. There was delay upon delay, and finally the President of the Treasury Board stood in his place and said that the government would have a two-pronged approach, that it would pick the fruit that it could pick first, and then it would leave the more difficult issues until later. That was denounced by the Information Commissioner, who had been waiting all these years for changes to the Access to Information Act. It was basically a big disaster for the government because it was not following through on its promises.

There has been a lack of transparency to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and that is important. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is the person who works for the House, for Parliament, in analyzing the budgetary priorities of the government of the day. I will admit, when we were in government, and I was president of the Treasury Board, it was not exactly pleasant in this place for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine and be a pair of eyes over our shoulders.

It is not the most pleasant thing for politicians or bureaucrats, but at the same time, it is necessary. It is necessary for the proper functioning of this place to have that oversight. Because the executive has so much power under our parliamentary system, it is good to have that pair of eyes reporting to Parliament and reporting to the public on issues about budgetary priorities and the true cost of things.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been complaining about the lack of information given by the Liberal government. I know that governing is hard. I was there. What I find offensive, perhaps, disconcerting certainly, is when the government and Liberal politicians promise openness and transparency and deliver precisely the opposite, to the detriment of Canadians, and certainly the opposite of what they promised while campaigning in 2015.

In Bill C-68, there is a provision for advisory panels, but no guidance, no limitation, on how they would be used. What are the rights of citizens when we have these advisory panels? What are the property rights of citizens when we have these advisory panels? How do we balance these advisory panels with local interests and local knowledge? The bill is silent. I wish I knew the answer to that before I voted on this bill, but the answer is not forthcoming from the government of the day.

As I mentioned and the previous speaker from Calgary mentioned, there were amendments on these issues back in 2012 that received royal assent and came into force in November 2013. There was a proper balance between protecting fish and fish habitat and measuring the economic and social value so that fish and fish habitat that were at risk would get the protection they needed. However, this was not the case in every case. Not every fish in our environment needs protection. I hope this is not a politically incorrect thing to say.

In some places in our country, I would say to the audience watching television, there are a multitude of fish, and there are protections for them, but we do not need the uber-protections of the federal government deciding that it knows better than local people how to protect the fish in their environment. That is why it was important to have that balance.

Now that balance is gone, and alas, we are in a situation of debating this lamentable bill, which is just another way for the Liberal government to show the world how wonderful it is and how it understands fish habitat and the environment. However, what we are going to get is the national government deciding on fish in a ditch. This is ludicrous. This is the old, oft-used Shakespearean phrase, “The law is an ass.”

On this side of the House, we want to stand for common sense. We want to protect the fish environments that need to be protected, but we are not here just to create laws for the sake of creating laws. I know that the Canadian Electricity Association has said that this bill is two steps back. It is concerned that we are back to the pre-2012 provisions. In practical terms, this makes life tougher for its members.

On this side of the House, we will continue, as Conservatives, to represent and work with the fishers, the farmers, and the industry groups to make sure that their concerns are heard and to make sure that fish are protected but that our economy can move forward. That is why I am a Conservative, and that is why I oppose this bill.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I went through the notes on this bill, I could not help but think that we had a problem when the Conservatives were in government, and we addressed it. We fixed it. We listened to the fishers. We listened to the farmers. We listened to the security forces who were supposed to be enforcing the law. They all said that there was confusion. With what we proposed, we said there would be clarity and it would make their lives a whole lot easier, and we did that.

Although some people were afraid that we would harm fish habitat, no one who appeared before the committee could identify a single site where fish habitat had been harmed as a result of our legislation. The security officers enforcing the laws say that their lives are much easier now that they know what they can do and how to do it.

Could my colleague comment on the statement that the bill the Liberal government is proposing is going to complicate things again and that it is, in fact, merely a solution in search of a problem?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk is right. One has to ask oneself what the reason is for a piece of legislation. Surely that is the first thing we do in government when we are tackling an issue. What are we trying to fix? Here we are debating the bill this evening, and it is fixing nothing and actually making the situation far worse.

I would say to the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk that this is exactly what is wrong with the Liberals' approach to these issues. They are trying to fix problems that do not exist, and quite frankly, are wasting the time of this place so they can do their touchy-feely good stuff, but it will actually have no impact, except a poor impact, on the people of Canada.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to note that it was Dickens, in Oliver Twist, in Mr. Bumble's voice, who said, “If the law says that, sir, then the law is an ass.” We read it in high school, and I just remembered it. That was a long time ago.

I am curious about the statement that the local people know better. Many years ago, John Crosbie closed down the cod fishery in Newfoundland. Most people in the room would recall the anger that ensued. Thousands of people were put out of work. As a result of the data from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Mr. Crosbie's insight into that data, he had to bring forward the bad news, and 20 years later, fishermen agreed that he was right.

I am just wondering if my friend would consider again the notion that the local people know better than the government and its research teams.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek is quite correct, and I want to correct the record, although I think Shakespeare did say something about hanging lawyers. They were all on the same track, but maybe one was specific to the profession and one was about the law more generally.

Indeed, although the hon. member suggests that the example of John Crosbie makes his point, it actually makes my point. On large issues, when the fate of a fishery is the gravamen of the issue, then of course the federal government has the right and reason to intervene. However, the problem with this legislation is that it goes far beyond that to every ditch and puddle in the great nation of Canada. That is our problem. Our problem is not with protecting the cod fishery when it is facing an existential threat. The problem is the overreach of this legislation.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I was elected as the member for Calgary Signal Hill in 2015, if I were asked what issues I might be speaking to in the House of Commons during my time as a member of Parliament, I doubt that the Fisheries Act would have been at the top of the list of the things I thought I would be making a few comments on.

I feel compelled to say a few words tonight, because this legislation is so similar to so many other bills the government has brought forward, and so many of those bills impact my riding and my province. I go back to the fact that Calgary Signal Hill is hardly anywhere near an ocean. In fact, our largest body of water is the Glenmore Reservoir, which supplies water to the city of Calgary. As my colleague just mentioned, we have a lot of ditches and puddles. If this legislation impacts ditches and puddles the way I believe it would, then it would impact our province and my riding.

It was mentioned earlier by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa that this piece of legislation would be a haven for environmental lawyers. If I follow that track and ask who was responsible for funding this Liberal Party in the last election and who was responsible for putting them here, there were a great many environmental activists, environmental lawyers, and all the left-leaning environmentalists who voted for the Liberal government, and now it is payback time.

Those environmental lawyers who were integral to electing people like the member for Calgary Centre are now being paid back for that support in 2015. When the Conservatives form the government in 2019 again, we will get rid of some of this legislation that is nothing more that the government trying to turn back the pages of success from Stephen Harper's time in office.

This legislation is another example of what we are seeing in the energy industry, where the government is bringing in legislation that would do nothing but add layers and layers of regulatory hurdles that in this case, fishermen are going to have to deal with, the same way the industry in Alberta is dealing with regulatory hurdles.

Later this evening we are going to be talking about a bill that would directly impact the energy industry in Alberta, a bill that if given the opportunity, I want to make a few comments on. That is why all of these pieces of legislation are intertwined. They are all part of an agenda to undo much of the good work that was done previously, but it is also payback time for Liberal supporters in the last election.

I had the opportunity, during the time the member for Cariboo—Prince George was having health issues, to sit on the committee that was studying this bill. Every time a group that was supportive of this legislation was asked for scientific evidence as to why this legislation was necessary, it did not have an answer. Every time a local industry appeared before the committee and expressed concerns about the bill, it was washed over by the Liberal members of the committee. Liberals voted down all the amendments that were put forward.

It was not the members of the Liberal caucus from the Maritimes and Atlantic Canada, who would be impacted by this legislation, who are bringing forth these terrible pieces of legislation. It is the bureaucrats in the Prime Minister's Office who have another agenda, the so-called green agenda, that is filtered through every piece of legislation that comes into the House.

It is those kinds of initiatives we consistently see from the government that get MPs like me up in the House to make some comments. It is so bad for the entire country, not just Atlantic Canada and the parts of the country that happen to be on the coast.

Now, I know members from the government will stand up and say that the Conservatives do not care about our oceans, fish, and whatnot. My colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, is going to speak in a little while. If there is someone who knows about the environment and is an expert on environmental matters, it is this particular gentleman and colleague in the House. I can hardly wait to hear what he has to say on this particular legislation.

This bill would also establish a number of advisory panels. Again, the Liberals have become very good at establishing advisory panels and appointing a bunch of their friends to them. I reflect back on a committee the government appointed about coal. This committee is travelling across the country today, meeting with so-called communities impacted by the decision to phase out coal. How many members of that 12-person committee actually come from coal communities in this country? There is one. The rest are all bureaucrats, environmentalists, and supporters of the Liberal government. What kind of a report do we think is going to come back? I am afraid that when these advisory panels are established by the Liberal government, they are going to come back with those same kinds of recommendations. They will be nothing but driven by environmentalists and the left-leaning parties in this country, and they are going to do nothing for our fishing industry or our environment.

I will just make a couple of other comments. My colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka talked about so-called transparency and the government's attempt to camouflage some of its activities under the heading of transparency. I do not think there has ever been a government elected in this country that has been less transparent than the current government. Let us talk about transparency.

Let us talk about the carbon tax cover-up. The government talks about transparency, yet it will not reveal to Canadians what the carbon tax is going to cost families. Even though it actually has that information, it will not release it. If the government talks about transparency, it is obviously not walking the walk. That is a good example. I suspect that this bill would not do anything for transparency in the area of fisheries.

Those are a few comments I wanted to make. I have no intention of supporting this particular piece of legislation, much like most that comes before the House from the government. I look forward to the vote to see how members from Atlantic Canada on the Liberal backbenches will vote on this particular legislation. I hope they are all here to vote when the time comes, because we want to make sure that when we go to Atlantic Canada in the next election to talk to constituents in those ridings, we can point out how the Atlantic MPs from the Liberal government voted on this harmful piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I would not mind doing a comparison of who shows up for votes and who does not, on a percentage basis. I am sure the government is doing a far better job than the Conservatives in opposition. It is not debatable; it is a given.

I would look to the person across—

[An hon. member]

Time will tell.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that if they have questions or comments they can hold them until I call for questions and comments. I have no doubt that the person making the speech will be able to answer the question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, the legislation is a reflection of what Canadians have been telling us, not only while we have been in government but in the lead-up to the last election. It is good, positive legislation. Canadians are concerned about our waterways, the fish, and the flooding. All sorts of considerations went into this. There was a great deal of consultation, whether it was in committee or the fine work the department and others have done in order to present good, solid, sound legislation.

Why does the member feel the Conservatives continue to be out of touch with what Canadians expect their government to do in demonstrating strong leadership on our environment?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, in a typical fashion, the member is trying to twist the words I said at the very end of my speech. I made no comment about whether members from Atlantic Canada were absent or not for the vote. That is not appropriate. I said I wanted to see how they vote. I want to see whether they stand and vote in favour of this legislation, because if they do, they are going to have to answer for it in 2019. I want to make sure that this is clear to the member.

I was not here in the last sitting of Parliament, but I know that the member had a track record of being opposed to closure and time allocation over and over again when he sat in the other corner of the House. Therefore, he has no credibility when he stands in the House and asks questions when he is a complete hypocrite for what he said when he was in opposition and what he is doing now as a member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that name calling is not allowed here. We might not like what we hear, or we might not like the answers, but we have to have respect.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would never call my colleague from Winnipeg North a hypocrite, not in the House anyway.

One comment I heard from my colleague across the way is that the current government is doing a far better job. I would ask my friend from Calgary to comment on the departmental plan of the fisheries and oceans minister, which just came out. It details the department's plans for the year, and it shows that 28 out of 32 of its goals, the best results the government hopes to achieve, are less than or show no improvement over last year or when Conservatives were in government.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me withdraw the comment that the member for Winnipeg North is a hypocrite. I will say that many of his comments are hypocritical.

This particular legislation gives incredible power to the minister, and we have seen in this session of the House what happens when the minister is given such incredible power. With the stroke of a pen, he not only encouraged but forced his department to sign a contract that is now called clam scam. That is what happens when a minister is given the kind of power that this particular bill would give to a minister of the crown.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary for his comments; that is definitely a high bar. I had the honour of being on the fisheries committee back in 2012, when the changes were made by our government, and they were necessary and important. I was also on the fisheries committee in 2016, when the revisions were being debated.

Let us talk about the old Fisheries Act, prior to 2012. There were many problems with the act. There was a great level of uncertainty. It introduced uncertainty into the development process. It had a wide scope. All of Canada became fish habitat, entire watersheds, extending the federal jurisdiction everywhere in the country. There was lack of discretion. The old Fisheries Act removed any regulatory discretion, since all fish habitat was considered important, no matter how small a puddle it was. There was a lack of knowledge. Knowledge of Canada's fisheries is rather poor, and that is no one's fault. It is just such an enormous task that we still have a long way to go. There were high compliance costs. The cost of compliance for rural communities and industries was extremely high, for very little return in terms of fisheries conservation. This added to the regulatory burden on top of things like the Species at Risk Act and various environmental legislation, most of which, quite frankly, introduced very little environmental improvement.

It is interesting. In 2009, the Auditor General evaluated the old Fisheries Act. She asked how it worked, what it did, and what results came from it. The program's lack of success, without sufficient support from science, was likewise documented in the Auditor General's 2009 report on the fish habitat management program. A report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development called “Protecting Fish Habitat” indicated that, over 23 years, the fish habitat management program could not be demonstrated to have adequately protected fish habitat, and by extension fisheries. All kinds of money was spent and staff time was used up with no effect on fisheries.

I have said it a few times in the House, but for those who do not know, I am a fisheries biologist by training. My entire career has been in fisheries, and I have been involved in conservation my entire life. In fact, I do not mind being called an environmentalist, but I am very much a right-wing environmentalist.

The changes we made to the Fisheries Act were very much in line with the 1986 fish habitat management plan, which actually was in place when the old Fisheries Act was in place. In the changes we made to the act, we went from equal consideration for all fish species and habitat to focusing on sustainability and the productivity of fisheries: commercial, recreational, and aboriginal. This was the most important part. How strange it is to have a Fisheries Act actually dealing with fisheries. Fisheries means the act of human beings harvesting fish in a sustainable manner. That is what our act was all about.

The 1986 fish habitat management program was in place when we changed the Fisheries Act. It said:

The policy applies to those habitats directly or indirectly supporting those fish stocks or populations that sustain commercial, recreational or Native fishing activities [that was the vernacular of the day] of benefit to Canadians.... In accordance with this philosophy, the policy will not necessarily be applied to all places where fish are found in Canada, but it will be applied as required in support of fisheries resource conservation.

As fisheries biologists, that is what we are supposed to do, protect fisheries. This was in line with the actual fish habitat policy.

It has been said by a couple of speakers already. I sat on the committee, along with my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, whom I admire greatly for his perseverance and perspicacity. We asked witness after witness if they could prove that there was any harm done to any fish population in Canada because of the changes we made to the Fisheries Act in 2012. Not one person could provide quantitative evidence. They just regurgitated Liberal and NDP talking points. As far as I am concerned, what goes on on the ground in terms of fish population, fish conservation, and fisheries sustainability is what really counts.

I would just make the point that the 2010 sockeye salmon run in the Fraser and the 2014 sockeye salmon run in the Fraser were the largest in Canadian history. Wonder of wonders, which government was that under? It was the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Now the sockeye salmon runs in the Fraser are in jeopardy.

What did we hear in our committee in terms of the Fisheries Act? From the mining association, the representatives said to our committee, when the government wanted to change the Fisheries Act of 2012:

...the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act have in practice broadened the circumstances in which section 35 prohibitions apply and increased the circumstances in which an authorization and offsets are required.

While noting the increased burden on mining project proponents imposed by the amendments....

They then went on to talk about that. The point is that the mining association said that our act was tougher and protected fish habitat even better. Of course, the current government, by changing our act, would actually weaken fish habitat protections.

In a letter to the committee, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities talked about what it was like prior to 2012. It stated:

Prior to 2012, the Act applied to all waterways in Canada, regardless of whether they actually supported fish habitats. This caused a significant administrative burden, increased construction costs and delays for many municipalities in Saskatchewan and Alberta, as impact assessments and modified design and construction processes were often required for municipal bridges and culverts to accommodate fish habitats that, in many cases, did not exist.

That is the kind of act we dealt with.

The Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties said this about our act, the Fisheries Act of 2012:

For this reason, the AAMDC is supportive of the Fisheries Act as currently written, as it effectively balances local autonomy with federal oversight of fish habitats, while also focusing attention on the protection of important commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries. This structure allows for municipalities to leverage knowledge of their local environments to determine whether federal oversight of a project across or into a water body is necessary....

Fancy that, local people knowing more about their environment that some remote bureaucrat.

The crowning glory, in a negative sense, in terms of testimony, came from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The CFA represents all farmers across the country. Mr. Ron Bonnett, the president, said:

...these farmers are all too familiar with the Fisheries Act in its previous form [previous to 2012]. The experience that many farmers had with the [old] Fisheries Act, unfortunately, was not a positive one. It was characterized by lengthy bureaucratic applications for permitting and authorizations, and a focus on enforcement and compliance measures taken by officials coupled with a lack of guidance and outreach....

He goes on to say:

There are also many accounts of inconsistency in enforcement, monitoring, and compliance across Canada with different empowered organizations, which led to a confusion and indiscriminate approaches to enforcement and implementation. Even at the individual level, there were different interpretations of the act based on one's familiarity with agriculture.

What Mr. Bonnett was saying was that there were fisheries officers who knew nothing about agriculture, so they came and tried to implement this act, most of them while carrying firearms on their hips, which was very strange in peaceful rural communities, and that simply did not work. Mr. Bonnett went on to say:

It is CFA's position that a complete revert to reinstate all provisions of the Fisheries Act as they were would be unproductive, would re-establish the same problems for farmers, and would provide little improvement in outcome for the protection and improvement of fish habitat.

In terms of our act, Mr. Bonnett stated, “The current streamlined approach is working far better for all and efforts should continue”.

One last point I want to make is that it is really a disgrace that the current government cancelled the recreational conservation fisheries partnerships program, and I am quoting from testimony to the fisheries committee by assistant deputy minister, Kevin Stringer. He said, “Under the recreational fisheries partnerships program, $3.1 million was spent.” This was the first year. There were 74 different organizations that undertook 94 habitat restoration projects. There were 380 partners involved in those projects, 1,700 volunteers donated their time, 2.4 million square metres of habitat restored, and 2,000 linear kilometres of recreational fisheries habitat enhanced.

That is real, on-the-ground conservation, and the government cancelled that program.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the member, and they are very simple. Does he believe that the world is getting warmer, and does he believe that climate change is a human-made phenomenon?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, that, quite simply, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The issue at hand is how the current government is weakening fish habitat protection, hurting Canada's fisheries, and will be layering its new fisheries act on top of Bill C-69. It will drive industry and investment away from this country, and it is especially going to harm rural communities, the kind that I represent.

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

Madam Speaker, I actually feel sorry for our hon. colleague. I think that is the first time he has spoken this whole session, and then he throws something out like that, which is totally nonsensical.

I listened intently to our hon. colleague, and there is a reason I wanted him to have one of the last words here. He is perhaps the most knowledgeable person in terms of fisheries. I have so much respect for this gentleman. The work that he has done not only in this session but previous sessions with respect to our fisheries programs is commendable.

Our hon. colleague brought up an important part of our fisheries. He and I travelled together looking at the Atlantic salmon and northern cod issues, and we have some serious concerns. The government has failed to act on the concerns that we are hearing in Atlantic Canada. It is failing Canadians. It is failing Atlantic Canadians, and I would like my hon. colleague to speak to what we heard when we toured the Atlantic provinces to research the Atlantic salmon problem.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was in Atlantic Canada, in Miramichi, a couple of weeks ago meeting with all the Atlantic salmon stakeholders. To a group, they were scathing in terms of the actions of DFO, its incompetence, its indifference to communities, and its lack of respect for communities. DFO staff evidently think their clients are the fish. To us, clients are the people who use the fish.

There is the issue of the striped bass that the government is not acting on. There is the issue of seal predation that the government is not acting on. It took a non-governmental organization, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, to strike a deal with Greenland to prevent its overfishing. There are some invasive species getting into these watersheds and DFO is preventing good conservation work to be done to get rid of those invasive species, and if they get into Atlantic salmon habitat, there will be some serious predation issues.

DFO was shown to me to be completely incompetent, and that stands at the feet of the fisheries minister.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to express my sincere respect for this gentleman's ability to understand the fishing industry and the biology that goes with it. He has made a lifetime out of it. He has a master's degree in this from years back. He has had government experience with it. I know that he knows how little money it can actually take sometimes to have a big impact on improving lakes, the quality of water, and the recreational abilities of those facilities, not just for fishing but also for recreational swimming and other things as well. A prime example is some of the small projects that we were able to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I had asked for a brief question. I need to allow the member to respond.