Murray Rankin

[Export and Import Permits Act, June 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Control Arms is the international coalition of some 300 civil society partner organizations in all parts of the world. They campaigned for the creation and adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Today, Control Arms said this on social media:

Canada's #armstreaty bill loopholes should be closed, so that they fully comply, and help lead the world in stopping arms that fuel atrocities

How can the hon. member justify continuing with the bill when the main civil society partnership of some 300 organizations that built this treaty is telling them to close the loopholes?

In response to the last question, does the member not understand the difference between passing a treaty and ratifying it, as the Americans have never done?

[Committees of the House, June 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled “Main Estimates 2018-19”.

[Employment, June 8th, 2018]

Divide and conquer, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking of jobs, tens of thousands of Canadian jobs are under attack by the actions of President Trump. Millions of Canadians are worried about how a trade war will impact their families and their communities. No one can predict what President Trump will do next. Will the government focus on protecting workers here at home?

Can the government tell us exactly when meetings will take place with labour and industry to determine precisely how we can support our Canadian workers?

[Natural Resources, June 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians did not vote to buy a pipeline.

Yesterday, the grand council chief of the Anishinabek nation called the Liberals' decision to spend $4.5 billion on a leaky 65-year-old pipeline “very foolish”. He asked, “why is the government paying an international company when there are many needs in this country?” It is a good question. Think about how many communities across Canada, particularly indigenous ones, could benefit from that level of investment.

If the Liberals were to invest these billions of dollars in clean energy, would we create more or fewer jobs than this pipeline? Have they even thought—

[World Oceans Day, June 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today is World Oceans Day. Oceans regulate our climate, produce half the oxygen we breathe, fuel the water cycle, and provide nourishment for nearly three billion people, and yet our oceans are increasingly under threat from rising temperatures, acidification, and pollution.

In this regard, I am very proud of two institutions at the University of Victoria that are making a real difference. Ocean Networks Canada monitors all three of Canada's oceans and provides vital data for scientific research, and the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria has recently made superb recommendations on how to tackle plastics in our oceans.

My community of Victoria is surrounded by oceans on three sides. It is deeply concerned about the risk of a devastating bitumen spill that might result from Kinder Morgan's pipeline and tanker project, which the Liberals just purchased with our tax dollars.

Canada's coastline is the longest in the world. Today especially, on World Oceans Day, let us commit to protecting it and Canada's oceans.

[Export and Import Permits Act, June 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join others in saluting my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her tenacity and her long-standing support of the treaty as well as for pointing out the government's false narrative, if I can call it that, about the bill, the NDP's position on the bill, the position of those 33,000 people who provided their input on the bill, and the experts who agree that it is far from a good arrangement.

In her speech, the member talked about social media and Project Ploughshares, a well-known group, which suggested that one must distinguish between the treaty and Bill C-47. It has long supported the treaty, as has she, but it points out that “shortcomings” remain in the export controls, such as the loophole with respect to exports to the United States. That was the burden of the amendment by my colleague. I would ask her to elaborate on that so-called loophole.

[Fisheries Act, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note the member for Kootenay—Columbia. We have completed the geographic sweep of the province now—north, south, east, and west, and a little urban as well—so I am very proud to be here not only as a Canadian but also as a British Columbian participating in this debate.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Harper government gutted the enforcement of the Fisheries Act. It took out the sections we talked about, which were so central, and then it took away the people who could apply them. The Liberal government has enforcement money, but does it have the political will?

Justice Cohen, in his historic report on the fisheries, talked extensively about the failure to enforce environmental legislation such as the Fisheries Act. I salute the government for putting money in place, but we really have to make sure that it is prepared to also put in place legal resources and other tools so that we can get convictions and get the big fines that are contemplated, and do the kind of planning that is so necessary for cumulative effects, rebuilding the stocks, and all of the other things that have promise in this bill but will only be implemented if money and political will are in place.

[Fisheries Act, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to also recognize my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for completing the cast of British Columbia characters tonight. We need a token non-British Columbian in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps you could arrange that later.

On article 19 on free, prior, and informed consent, it is interesting that the bill we passed probably does not have retroactive effect, but that does not mean that a bill like this, which is not yet enacted, should not be read, interpreted, applied, and implemented in the spirit of the historic declaration that this House made. That declaration, if properly applied, could be as important as section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, for Canada's indigenous people, but it will take political will and a commitment to the spirit of reconciliation that is reflected in that document. I just hope the government puts its money, its enforcement action, and its policy where our collective mouth is as we pass this important legislation. If we do not do it, it will just be another bill on the shelf.

[Fisheries Act, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my friend the parliamentary secretary raises an excellent point. Supporting the amendments with $280 million is important, and enforcement is a critical aspect of any of these sections. As an example, the habitat alteration, destruction, and disruption section is central to protecting fish habitat, because without fish habitat, we do not have fish. Logging and other industries on the west coast n particular can devastate a stream on which salmon depend for rearing, and if we do not have people on the ground prepared to enforce those sections, we will never have any benefit from them.

Therefore, I could not agree more with the principle, but what it takes is not money as much as political will. Neither the current government nor the last government has shown itself ready to take the steps. Our environmental laws are replete with sections with large fines and great political commitments, but if we do the statistical analysis and see how often they are actually applied, the answer is pretty devastating: rarely, if ever.

[Fisheries Act, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to be one of the British Columbians to whom my friend referred. It seems this is a fully British Columbian night.

I am proud to speak in support of Bill C-68. I want to salute the enormous work and contribution made by our fisheries critic, the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam. This bill goes a long way toward restoring lost protections to the Fisheries Act and introducing some modern safeguards.

We believe that the legislation to restore the HADD prohibition, which is the prohibition against harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction, should have been introduced immediately following the last federal election. Then we could have been working together to modernize the act from there. However, we did not see that from the Liberals. Therefore, the modernization that we could have supported earlier took a bit of time to get in place, and of course we still have to enact it. I believe that Bill C-68 is okay, although it could have been a lot better, for reasons I will explain.

We introduced a series of amendments to further strengthen the Fisheries Act. Although we were successful in seeing a couple of them pass, the ones that were defeated were also important, for reasons I will come to. They would have strengthened the act and had positive impacts on the health and sustainability of the fish populations and their habitats for generations to come.

Bill C-68 restores much of what was lost under the changes made by the previous Conservative government in 2012, and it introduces a number of positive provisions that we support. I would like to talk about those before I come to some of the deficiencies, in our view.

First, returning the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat, and its applicability to all native fish and fisheries, as well as the prohibition on causing death of fish by means other than fishing, were critical. The fact that they were restored is an excellent feature of this bill.

Second, including in the act key provisions to strengthen how it is interpreted is important, such as a purpose statement, along with considerations for decision-making and factors to inform the making of regulations under this bill that reflect key sustainability principles.

Third, the bill introduces provisions that address the rebuilding of depleted fish populations. We talked about that earlier.

Fourth, it would establish a public registry to support the assessment of cumulative effects and to enhance the transparency of decision-making.

Fifth, strengthening provisions with respect to ecologically significant areas would move us from concept to action, at last.

Sixth, there is greater recognition of indigenous rights and knowledge, particularly in light of the historic commitment of the House in Bill C-262 to enshrine the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Finally, the fact that there is going to be a statutorily mandated review every five years is also an important evergreen provision in this bill.

The bill was amended at committee. One of the important amendments was the rebuilding of fish stocks section, because the core function of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is to manage our fish populations for the long term so that we have a sustainable fishery. That is what this is all about. If they are not at a sustainable level, we will not be able to allocate the fish because we will not have the fish to allocate. That is obviously important. For the first time in 150 years, Bill C-68 recognizes the importance of rebuilding overfished stocks by creating a legal duty to develop plans aimed at moving stocks out of a critical zone. I think that this is really important, if, as I suggested earlier, regulations are actually made to do the work that is necessary.

These are welcome and long overdue. I think we have to be sober about the state of our fisheries. Since 1970, over half of the biomass of our fisheries has disappeared. By some estimates, only slightly more than one third of our stocks are still considered healthy in this country. At least 21 of Canada's fish stocks are in the critical zone, and our fishing industry is precariously balanced on the continued abundance of only a few species.

Therefore, these changes are important, and I salute the government for bringing them in. However, I also have to flag some concerns. First, the minister can make exceptions to these requirements under certain conditions. We have to make sure that this discretion to exempt fish stocks does not get abused. Second, the law only applies to what are defined as “major fish stocks”, a phrase that will only be defined in future regulations. This creates a situation in which the government could circumvent the intent of the legislation by dragging its heels indefinitely on adding fish stocks to the regulations, thereby not requiring sustainable management measures or a rebuilding plan. These concerns were raised by my colleague at the fisheries committee, and I want to put them on the record again this evening.

The NDP introduced a number of amendments to Bill C-68, 22 of them to be exact. A few of those improvements are still valid. First, the NDP submitted amendments to broaden the information base so that the public registry captures all projects, and to ensure compensation for the residual harm to fish habitat caused by small or low-risk projects. Those amendments, unfortunately, were defeated.

Second, explicit protection for environmental flows and fish passages was an issue, and we proposed amendments to strengthen those provisions for the free passage of fish and for securing the environmental flows needed to protect fish and fish habitat. I am happy to say they were passed at committee and are part of the bill.

Third, I have already alluded to the recognition of indigenous rights and knowledge. The committee heard testimony, for example, from Matt Thomas of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. New Democrats believe that reconciliation should be a part of all legislation. A true nation-to-nation relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples, consistent with our Constitution, should be fully embraced and reflected in the Fisheries Act. The amendments along those lines were defeated.

Fourth, on measures to increase transparency and accountability, the committee heard eloquent testimony from Linda Nowlan from West Coast Environmental Law, who made some great suggestions to increase transparency and accountability. The NDP made amendments to that effect, but they were all defeated.

Fifth, provisions to apply owner-operator and fleet separation policies to all coasts were proposed. Some of the most compelling testimony we heard was from young fishers from the west coast, and yet the section in the act talks about an independent inshore commercial fishery as being in “Atlantic Canada and Quebec”. Canada's New Democrats fully support putting owner-operator and fleet separation policies in the Fisheries Act, but we wonder why we did not do the same thing for our Pacific coast. First nations and independent fishermen on the west coast want the same policy as Atlantic Canada. New Democrats moved an amendment to open that door, but the door was closed and the amendment was defeated.

I want to make one further point before I conclude. We support the bill. We recognize the need to protect fish habitat, but I cannot let the opportunity go by of talking about the impact that the Kinder Morgan, now Government of Canada, tanker project will have, and the possibility of its destroying, with a devastating spill of diluted bitumen, the essential habitat and aquatic ecosystems that our fish depend on.