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.