Debates of June 7th, 2018

Criminal Code

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Coming back to your earlier comments, I believe, at the very least, there should be some tangential relevance to the question. The hon. member has stood up repeatedly now, going on about and seeking to wax eloquent about some topic completely unrelated to Bill C-75. Despite your suggestion, the hon. member addressed very appropriately the waste of time here, particularly when the opposition has been complaining about not having enough time. Therefore, I would ask that you rule this question irrelevant and out of order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Central Nova for raising the point. He is right. We actually did speak about that.

One of the difficulties in determining relevance is that one has to hear where the member is going, and in a short period of time it is sometimes difficult to see exactly where that is until such time as the member lands there. I appreciate that the member raised this point of order just about the time that arrived. I do think in this case that this particular line of questioning is not really relevant to the motion that is before the House. Therefore, I leave it to the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook if he wishes to respond. I think in this case, the question is really not in order. However, if I come back to the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, and he would like to rephrase his question, we will give him a moment to do that, and then we will see if we can get a question that is in fact on the subject.

Does the member for Cariboo—Prince George want to respond to the point of order?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do. Prior to the point of order, I was getting to the point. All I was going to offer is that the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook had mentioned that all the opposition wants to do is talk about things that are not important. I just wanted to offer an opportunity for the member of Parliament to retract those comments, because I would offer that the comment that I made earlier is very important to the town of Grand Bank.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite funny because one important part of the bill talks about indigenous people and how we find them in the court system and correction centres. However, I understand the problem of the opposition. It does not understand that indigenous people are extremely important Canadians. When the surf clam was discussed three years ago with the Conservative Party, it did not even talk about indigenous people. There were no indigenous people in any proposals.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The time for questions and comments has now expired. We are resuming debate.

I will let the hon. member for Central Nova know that there are approximately eight minutes left in the time provided for debate on the motion before the House. I will give him advance time in the usual fashion.

The hon. member for Central Nova.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I assume I am down to seven minutes now, but it is appropriate because I have a speech about rendering the justice system more efficient, which is really a key part of the bill.

As I mentioned during some of the back and forth earlier, I had the absolute privilege of practising law as a commercial litigator for a number of years. I witnessed first-hand the injustices that result when dealing with administrative delays over the course of the court system on a particular piece of litigation. Transposed into the criminal context, many of the issues remain the same.

Bill C-75 purports to fix some of the very serious problems that are causing more and more people across Canada to experience administrative delays that lead to injustice.

In tabling this important legislation, our government is fulfilling its promise to move forward with comprehensive criminal justice reform. The bill makes amendments in six key areas: modernizing and streamlining bail; supporting victims of intimate partner violence; enhancing the approach to administration of justice offences, including and in particular for youth; restricting the availability of preliminary inquiries; reclassifying offences; strengthening case management powers; and improving the jury selection process.

Additionally, Bill C-75 makes legislative amendments that build on key areas of reform to promote efficiencies in the criminal justice system. Today, I am going to be outlining some important efficiency measures proposed in the bill, which may not be too headline-grabbing for the public, but are very important because they will enhance access to justice.

These measures would do a number of things, including facilitating remote appearances by way of the use of technology; enhancing the current plea inquiry process; clarifying the signing authority of clerks of the court; amending time frames for an accused to re-elect a mode of trial; streamlining the bail process to ensure swifter access to justice that would help reduce court backlogs; removing the endorsement requirements for out-of-province search warrants; and consolidating and clarifying the prosecutorial authority of the attorney general of Canada.

Bill C-75 responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's 2016 decision in Jordan, and it supports the Minister of Justice's mandate letter commitment to reform the criminal justice system. I will begin by discussing the amendments to remote appearances.

In her mandate letter from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice received a mandate to undertake modernization efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, including the improved use of information technology. The amendments in Bill C-75 relating to remote appearances would assist in achieving this important priority.

Currently, the Criminal Code allows parties and witnesses to appear by audio conference or video conference in specified circumstances and where it is either satisfactory to the court or where the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances. Bill C-75 would expand the use of remote appearances by allowing all those involved in criminal cases, including an accused, witnesses, counsel, judges or justices, interpreters, and sureties, to appear through the use of technology. These measures would increase access to justice, including in remote locations, which is particularly important for northern and rural Canada, and would streamline processes to reduce system costs, for example, by not requiring an accused to be transported to court or a witness to travel and attend in-person in all circumstances.

I will discuss briefly the plea inquiry process as well. At present, the Criminal Code sets out the conditions in which a guilty plea may be accepted by a court, for example, if it is satisfied that the plea is entered into voluntarily. The amendments in Bill C-75 would enhance the current plea inquiry process by adding a requirement that the court also be satisfied that the facts support the charge before accepting an accused's guilty plea.

False guilty pleas are a very real concern, particularly with respect to indigenous accused and accused persons from marginalized groups. I heard this testimony when we recently completed a study on indigenous women in the federal corrections system on the status of women committee, of which I am a proud member. However, the amendment in Bill C-75 would provide additional safeguards to ensure that the court has considered and is satisfied that the facts support the charge before accepting a guilty plea.

Oftentimes an accused person believes it is just easier to get through with the trial process and enter a guilty plea than it is to actually have the trial heard. This procedural safeguard would help prevent those false guilty pleas to ensure people, predominantly from disadvantage backgrounds, do not as a matter of course, for social and cultural reasons, potentially enter a false guilty plea. Resolving cases early by way of a guilty plea would spare victims from testifying and would also save court time.

The amendment would complement initiatives to encourage early case resolution and would avoid concerns surrounding false guilty pleas by ensuring the facts support a guilty plea. This would enhance the integrity of the administration of justice, while making the system more efficient.

This bill also includes amendments that would clarify the existing signing authority of clerks of the court who record judicial pronouncements made from the bench. The act of preparing and signing a court document is a completely administrative task that is often delegated to a clerk of the court. However, only a few Criminal Code provisions expressly provide that a clerk of the court can actually prepare and sign these documents.

To facilitate the administration of justice and enhance efficiencies in criminal court case processing, this bill would expressly provide that clerks of the court can sign documents that reflect judicial pronouncements made from the bench, unless otherwise provided by the Criminal Code or decided by the court. Related amendments to Criminal Code forms will also be made, to add uniformity and clarity surrounding the authority of clerks of the court to sign forms that record such judicial pronouncements.

To sum up this piece of the puzzle, we are going to push the work down to where it can be done most effectively and efficiently, at a lower cost, and in a faster way, so that more Canadians will experience greater access to justice than in fact do today.

The Criminal Code also sets out two time frames and circumstances in which accused persons may change their election or re-elect their mode of trial: 15 days after the completion of the preliminary inquiry, and 14 days before the first day appointed for the trial. Bill C-75 would change both timelines to 60 days. This change would ensure that the accused have sufficient time to appreciate the case against them before re-electing, and it would eliminate additional unnecessary steps required to prepare for trial. This change would also allow valuable court time and resources to be reallocated to other matters.

I will conclude by saying that this bill is really directed at curing certain injustices that exist within our system. In particular, some of the ones that I am most concerned with and have lived first-hand as a litigator in the court system are the administrative delays, which not only make it more difficult for a person to access justice, but contribute to the systemic inefficiencies that slow down the time to trial, add to the cost of systems, and do not serve the interests of Canadians.

This bill takes great steps to cure many of those defects in our system. I am proud to be supporting it, and I hope all members of the House do the same.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 10:36 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

[Chair read text of motion, amendment, and amendment to the amendment to the House]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 11, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There are 59 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-68. Motions Nos. 1 to 59 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the Table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 59 to the House.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-68 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a fun day. This is the third time I have stood to speak on a piece of legislation today.

I do not know who they are, but there are people in the gallery who, for maybe an hour or so, have watched the festivities. All of us in the House should applaud the people in the gallery who are sitting through these festivities and thank them for paying attention to what we are doing. I am sorry it has not been riveting but very boring, but I thank them for being here. It is important.

Right now, we are talking about Bill C-68. Some of my colleagues across the way have said this is probably one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation we could debate this session, and perhaps even in the last decade. My comments will ring true from previous interventions on it. Bill C-68 is, from a policy perspective, another unnecessary piece of legislation aimed at making Canadians feel good, but without any basis in science. I already know what my colleagues are laughing at. It is the line I used, “unnecessary piece of legislation”. That was to elicit that response.

As part of the economic action plan in 2012 in support of the responsible resource development plan, the previous Conservative government put forward changes to the Fisheries Act geared to strengthening the act and removing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. I have sat in meetings at the fisheries committee time and time again, at which DFO officials talked about fish stocks. In successive governments, some of these officials from the department have appeared before, for example on the northern cod fishery, which we know is still at critical levels. Twenty-six years ago, it was identified as a critical fish stock. One of the things we have been challenged by, whether it is policy, a department, or management, is with how to grow our most critical fish stocks in Canada.

Back in 2012, as part of the economic action plan, the previous government decided it needed to do things a little differently. It needed to start thinking about removing some of the red tape and looking at ways to create more fish. Our changes supported a shift from managing impacts to all fish habitats. People will ask what that means. We heard previously that any body of water that a tube or some type of vessel could be floated on could be deemed a fish habitat, which means that a tailings pond or a pond on a construction site filled with rainwater could be deemed a fish habitat. The previous government focused on the regulatory regime and managing threats to the sustainability and ongoing productivity of Canada's commercial, recreational, and indigenous fisheries.

Instead of listening to experts in this process, the people who use our waterways and fish our rivers, the people who actually depend on our fisheries and waters to make a living, our indigenous peoples, the current government is turning a deaf ear to practicality and pushing forward through the use of time allocation, no less. As I said today, this is the 41st time it has moved time allocation. Again I go back to the Liberals' campaign promise that they would be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history and that they were going to let debate reign. What we have seen, instead, is that if they do not like the way things are happening, if they do not like the way the opposition is pressuring them, they just shut down the debate.

It has been probably two hours since I reminded Canadians who are listening and reminded colleagues across the way that the House does not belong me. It sure as heck does not belong to the folks across the way. This is not their House. This is Canadians' House. The 338 members of Parliament have been sent here by great Canadians to be the voices of those electors.

By shuttering debate on such an important piece of legislation as Bill C-68, what are the Liberals doing? They are saying to every opposition member of Parliament and all those Canadians who elected them that their point of view does not matter. The only ones that matters are the folks on the government side of the House.

Time and time again at committee, when we were studying the bill, we asked experts, academics, environmental groups, fishers, and industry whether the changes in 2012 really had damaging effects on our rivers, lakes, streams, and fish habitat. We asked for proof. How many witnesses came up with examples of lost protections or any examples of harmful alteration or disruption? There was not one witness who came forward with any evidence of that.

As a matter of fact, what we saw were the environmental groups, the usual suspects, who talked about how the Harper government members were ogres on the oceans and the environment. I beg to differ.

The Prime Minister, in the 2015 campaign, with his hand on his heart, said that our indigenous people were going to be our most important relationship. He said it not only then but before and all the way through this last little while, yet we have indigenous communities from coast to coast to coast that say that the consultation was a sham. It was not like the clam scam that we could talk about right now, and in my last discussion I did talk about that, where the minister arbitrarily took 25% of quota and allocated it to Liberal friends and families.

Bill C-68 is another feel-good piece of fluff to satisfy the environmental vote the Liberals were going after during the 2015 election. That was what they had to do. They were beholden and had to make sure that they followed through on their promise, but there was no evidence of any damage from the changes in 2012.

We asked industry at committee if any of those changes made it easier for projects to be approved. If we listen to the environmental groups and the Liberals, it was walk in one day, and an hour later, they had their permit and were tearing up everything. Industry made it clear to us that to move forward, it did not make it easier. As a matter of act, in some cases, it made it harder, but it was clearer.

Not only was it clearer for industry and stakeholders, it was also clearer for DFO to enforce. With that, I will rest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend that this place is the voice of Canadians. In fact, I was so interested in what was going on with the Fisheries Act that I went back to the lengthy debate that happened in 2012 on the changes made by the last government to the Fisheries Act. Of course, there was not very much debate, because the changes were made as part of an omnibus budget bill that included all kinds of other things.

The one comment I will take exception to, the one thing I would like the hon. member to have a chance to address, is that he said these are unnecessary amendments. However, we went across Canada. The fisheries and oceans committee reviewed those changes that happened in 2012, and it came up with 32 recommendations, all of which were put into this act. In fact, there were hundreds of meetings coast to coast to coast; 2,163 online submissions; 5,438 e-book questionnaires; and 200-plus indigenous group submissions.

It sounds like Canadians are saying that this act can be improved. Why is the member saying these are unnecessary amendments?

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not say they were unnecessary amendments. My opening line was geared to elicit a response. We said this was an unnecessary piece of legislation because in our previous government we created a piece of legislation that was easier for DFO officials to enforce. It was easier for industry and conservation groups to build more fish, create more fish, and protect them at the same time.

Let me go back to 2015, when the current Prime Minister said that under his government, the Harper ways with omnibus bills would be gone. Just before this, we were debating a 400-page bill. The Liberals shutter debate. They still put through these omnibus bills. This is another example of broken promises by the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sit with the gentleman on the fisheries and oceans committee. I thought we did an awfully good job on Bill C-68. We went back and forth, we discussed amendments, we accepted some of each other's, and worked it right through. We were fixing years of neglect and cuts, cuts to science. Yes, it was easier for the DFO to administer the old act because the Conservatives gutted DFO's ability to do anything by cutting it back. It is pretty easy to follow the rules when there are only a few rules.

Does the member remember the testimony we heard from first nations, reflecting upon the fact that back in 2012-2013 it was very clear that the only voices the Conservatives heard in that consultation were the voices of industry, which showed in full measure in the bill they produced? Maybe the member can recall what we heard from indigenous people who felt totally shut out by that earlier process.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. colleague wants to talk cuts, let us talk about the $91 million they are cutting out of the departmental plan, or let us talk about the announcement that they are cutting the salmon enhancement program in British Columbia, the program that has educated 40,000 students all across British Columbia and that helped create more of our iconic species salmon, and helped our conservation groups, like Spruce City Wildlife in my riding. They announced they were going to do some small closures of some bases, and it was the pressure of the grassroots and the the opposition right across the bench that got them to reverse those decisions and actually reinvest in that iconic program, the salmon enhancement program. I will take no lesson from that gentleman there. We do great work on the committee, but he is just talking Liberal talking points right now.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments this evening and the work he does as our shadow minister for Fisheries and Oceans.

I concur with him, in that we had a very similar experience at the transportation committee. Not a single witness could provide an example of any negative effects on waterways from the changes made to the MPA by the previous Conservative government. In fact, at the committee when the Minister of Transport was asked if he could provide a single example, he simply refused until he was compelled to answer, and then he gave an answer that actually proved that the MPA put in place in 2012 was actually working.

I am wondering if the member had a similar experience during his study in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the short response is yes. However, I do respect my hon. colleague from the government side who was up previously, in that we do great work at the fisheries committee when we put away our partisan jabs and talking points.

It was very interesting when we had the departmental officials before us. Whether it was the government side challenging the departmental officials or the opposition, we have had departmental officials, heads of departments, appearing before us who could not tell us critical information about their own department. They are managers of this, they are tasked with managing it, but they have not been doing it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the amendments to the Fisheries Act.

For far too long we have taken our oceans for granted. This was demonstrated when, in 2012, the previous government decided to change the habitat protections without the support of, or proper engagement with, indigenous peoples, fishers and anglers, scientists, conservation groups, coastal communities, or the broader Canadian public.

By comparison, our government has listened to and worked with all Canadians and has encouraged everyone to be a part of this process. This bill is the result of that good work.

Bill C-68 has several key themes: partnership with indigenous peoples, supporting planning and integrated management, enhancing regulation and enforcement, improving partnership and collaboration, and monitoring and reporting back to Canadians.

During their review of Bill C-68, my colleagues at committee heard from many expert witnesses from right across the country. I would like to take this time to talk about what they heard and the concrete steps they proposed to help improve the legislation even further for the benefit of Canadians and the benefit of future generations.

From the environmental NGO community and members across the aisle, the committee heard about the importance of water flow for fish habitat. The government supported the associated amendments put forward at committee, and we believe they will contribute to the effective management of fish habitat.

The committee also heard from industry groups seeking amendments to the rules proposed for the processing of applications for habitat authorizations during the transition from the current legislation. In response, the committee adopted an amendment to provide for clearer transition provisions.

The committee also heard about strengthening the federal government's legal obligations when major fish stocks are in trouble. That is why the committee proposed the inclusion of requirements, under the legislation, that the minister sustainably manage or rebuild fish stocks that are prescribed in regulations. Legislation will require that when exceptions are made for environmental or socio-economic reasons, Canadians will be informed and will be provided with a rationale for those decisions. As with every decision, our aim is to sustainably manage fisheries resources for the long-term benefit of all Canadians.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee for their contributions to Bill C-68.Their previous study engaged Canadians right across the country and led to 32 recommendations, all of which are included in this legislation. Their further work after second reading has again contributed significantly to this bill, and Canadians will surely benefit from their diligence and their hard work.

This bill includes the re-introduction of the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, otherwise known as the HADD provisions, as well as the prohibition against the death of fish by means other than fishing. There are measures to allow for the better management of large and small projects that may be harmful to fish or fish habitat through a new permitting program for big projects and through codes of practice for smaller projects.

These amendments will enable the regulatory authorities that will allow for establishing a list of designated projects, consisting of works, undertakings, and activities for which a permit will always be required. Our goal is to streamline processes and provide greater certainty while protecting the environment, and we have engaged with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, and other stakeholders to make sure that we capture the right kind of projects under this designated project list.

Habitat loss and degradation and changes to fish passage and flow rates are all contributing to the decline of freshwater and marine fish habitats in Canada. It is imperative for Canada to restore degraded fish habitats. That is why amendments to the Fisheries Act include the consideration of restoration as a part of project decision-making.

One message that we heard clearly when we engaged Canadians in developing this bill was that much of the public trust in government was lost through the 2012 changes. Throughout the review of the changes to the Fisheries Act, a common message received was the need for improved access to information on the government's activities related to the protection of fish and fish habitat as well as access to project decisions and information. We listened and we introduced amendments to establish a public registry, which will enable transparency and open access. This registry will allow Canadians to see whether their government is meeting its obligations and to hold us accountable for federal decision-making with regard to the protection of our marine ecosystems. The new considerations under the amendments to the Fisheries Act seek to more clearly guide the responsibility of theMinister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard when making decisions.

The addition of new purpose and consideration provisions provide a framework for the proper management and control of fisheries, and for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution.

As we all know, fisheries resources and aquatic habitats have important social, cultural, and economic significance for many indigenous peoples. Respect for the rights of indigenous peoples of Canada, as well as taking into account their unique interest and aspirations in fisheries-related economic opportunities, and the protection of fish and fish habitat is one way we are showing our commitment to renewing relationships with indigenous peoples.

Amendments to the Fisheries Act include ministerial authority to make regulations to establish long-term spatial restrictions to fishing activities under the act, specifically for the purpose of conserving and protecting marine biodiversity and supporting our international commitment to protect at least 10% of our marine and coastal areas by 2020.

As I mentioned earlier, our government has reached out to Canadians in developing this bill. We listened to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and provided direction for the restoration and recovery of fish habitat and stocks.

We listened to environmental groups and adopted measures aimed at rebuilding depleted fish stocks by requiring decisions affecting a stock in the critical zone to consider whether measures are in place aimed at rebuilding the stock and when habitat degradation is a factor in the decline of the stock, whether measures will be in place to restore such habitat. We have presented in this bill the appropriate safeguards to sustain the health of our oceans and fisheries for our future generations.

We have also heard from Canadians on other important issues. We have proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act that would prohibit fishing for a cetacean, whales, when the intent is to take it into captivity unless circumstances so require, such as when the cetacean is injured, in distress, or is in need of care.

Over 72,000 Canadians make their living directly from fishing and fishing-related activities. Many are middle-class, self-employed, inshore harvesters. The minister has been clear on his commitment to make inshore independence more effective. Amendments speak to a specific authority in the Fisheries Act, rather than policy, to develop regulations supporting the independence of the inshore commercial licence-holders and will enshrine into legislation the ability to make regulations regarding the owner-operator and fleet separation policies in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

By restoring the lost protections and providing these modern safeguards, the government is delivering on its promise, as set out in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Since introduction of this bill, we have heard support from a broad range of Canadians for these amendments, which will return Canada to the forefront of protection of our rivers and coasts, and fish for generations to come. I urge all hon. members on both sides of the House to join with me in supporting the bill.