Todd Doherty

[Fisheries Act, June 12th, 2018]

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.

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

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

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

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

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

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gave a great speech. He had talking points. It was a speech that was probably written for him by the minister's office, but I have to commend him. It was well delivered.

The fisheries committee studied Bill C-68. There were well over 50 witnesses, as well as written submissions. Not one witness was able to produce any evidence of loss of fish or fish habitat due the changes that the Conservative government made to the Fisheries Act in 2012. Is my hon. colleague aware that not one witness was able to produce any shred of evidence that there was a loss of fish or fish habitat?

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way talked about all the consultation.

I am going to go on again and again about it. Overwhelmingly, Canadians from coast to coast to coast said they felt they were not consulted. In fact, indigenous groups said that it was more of an information session, not really a consultation.

It is interesting that our hon. colleagues will talk about all the cuts that were done previously by the Conservative government, and will go on and on saying that the changes that took place in 2012 resulted in a loss of fish and fish habitat. Out of all the consultations we had as a committee and all of the witnesses who came forth, how many came forward with evidence of proof that the changes in 2012 resulted in a loss of fish and fish habitat? It was absolutely zero.

We have a lot of questions. The one I want to ask is this, and I will keep my question short. I know the minister likes to go on and on. Was the hon. minister aware that in all the consultations the fisheries committee had not one environmental group, academic, local group or department official came forward with any evidence that the changes made in 2012 resulted in any loss of fish or fish habitat? Not one witness who came before the committee offered any evidence that the changes made in 2012 resulted in any loss of fish or fish habitat.

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleague across the way talked about open and transparent ways and about consulting with Canadians. One of the issues our fisheries committee found when we were studying this was that a lot of communities and a lot of Canadians feel that they have not been truly consulted. By shuttering debate and forcing time allocation, the minister is indeed saying that all the members of Parliament on this side of the House, and all the Canadians, the electors, who elected the opposition, really do not have a say, and their views really do not matter. They are shuttering debate and not allowing all the members of Parliament to have a say on this bill.

It is interesting that the minister talks about the commitment to openness and transparency, because what this bill would also do is undermine transparency and due process by allowing the minister to withhold critical information from interested proponents. It would also give the minister sole discretion to make policy without consultation, something similar to what we are seeing with the surf clams and how that is impacting the town of Grand Bank. Bill C-68 is just another bill that would give the minister the authority to go in and make policy without consulting Canadians, and that is wrong.

Would my hon. colleague across the way not admit that perhaps shuttering debate on a bill that is so fundamental, while talking about openness and transparency, might be just a bit too far-fetched?

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, here we go all over again. I am going to bring the House back to 2015, when the member for Papineau was campaigning and said that if he were elected prime minister that debate would reign, that he would not enforce time allocation. Here we are, and I believe this is the 42nd time that we are seeing time allocation, and on such an important bill.

The Liberals are saying that they are restoring and fixing Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act, which is a historical piece of legislation, because they are undoing the harmful changes that our Conservative government did in 2012. They are putting back the HADD provisions, yet they sidestep any obligation to uphold the HADD regulations in this legislation by providing the minister with the ability to exempt certain provisions. We know that the Fisheries Act is vitally important. Why is the minister trying to once again limit the debate on such an important piece of legislation for Canadians?

[Committees of the House, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words about our supplementary report.

Canada has the largest, most geographically diverse coastline in the world. Applying a one-size-fits-all comparison to what other countries are doing or experiencing with respect to marine protected areas would prove problematic and ill-advised. A rush to expediently designate interim MPAs to capitalize politically on the international stage does not take into consideration those isolated communities along our coast.

Time and again we heard from witnesses who were not consulted by the Liberal government. By refusing to listen to stakeholders and by accelerating the process of creating MPAs, the Liberal government has replaced established processes for building consensus with expediency, serving a partisan interest.

Truly sustainable MPAs require a delicate balance upholding principles of conservation, indigenous rights, common resource, and the interest of all Canadians both today and in the future.

[Ethics, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries is under federal investigation for awarding a lucrative surf clam quota to his Liberal friends and family. His shady conduct has ensured that clam harvesting will not even happen this year, because the company he personally selected cannot even buy a boat. Meanwhile, the hard-working people of Grand Bank are losing their jobs because this minister wanted to make a few bucks for his friends.

Will the Prime Minister put an end to clam scam once and for all, and stand up for the people of Grand Bank?

[Fisheries Act, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, our hon. colleague mentioned the unsubstantiated surf clam allegations. Here are the facts, and these are substantiated by court documents. The minister's most senior official also substantiated that it was the minister's decision to award a lucrative surf clam quota to a sitting Liberal MP's brother. The government likes to say that it was all about reconciliation. The minister's most senior official confirmed that they had the least amount of indigenous participation. The Liberal premier of Newfoundland and the Liberal fisheries minister of Newfoundland said that this has nothing to do with reconciliation.

On the claim that our hon. colleague just made about unsubstantiated facts, the Ethics Commissioner has investigated. It has been substantiated.

[Fisheries Act, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to apologize to the House for my excitement. I am excited when we are talking about Bill C-68 and anything to do with fisheries. However, as our hon. colleague was speaking, a player who I coached in my community of Prince George, Brett Connolly, and his Washington Capitals just won the Stanley Cup. I am very happy for one of our players. He is a great kid.

I may not get a chance to congratulate him, but maybe our hon. colleagues could join me in actually wishing Brett Connolly and the Washington Capitals congratulations.