Fisheries Act  Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech intently, particularly the story about the gun range. We heard similar stories about fields and drainage ditches and the like. We know that industry wants certainty on their timelines and on their requirements. We also know that we have to start addressing cumulative effects, because we know that the effects of many small projects can be just as significant as the effect of one large project.

Fisheries Act  Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech, he stated that they were able to find no scientific proof of harm. Of course, it is hard to find scientific proof if they have fired all of the scientists, or they are muzzling the scientists they do have so they cannot even report what they are hearing in their own research.

Fisheries Act  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member his thoughts on enforcement. As he knows, the government is putting in more than $280 million to go along with the amendment to the Fisheries Act. A portion of that would go to enforcement. We heard that the previous government felt that the reason investigations into illegal activities on our waters had gone down by 80% was because of how efficient they were.

Fisheries Act  Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to any Capitals fans out there. Today, we are discussing Bill C-68. It is interesting. For the last month or so, I have been answering these unsubstantiated claims in the House on the surf clam issue. In fact, the member opposite found a way to bring it up on a previous bill we were debating some 10 to 15 minutes ago.

Fisheries Act  Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria and I have had a chance to work together on a number of issues with another British Columbian. It seems to be an all-British Columbian cast so far. I expect we will hear from other parts of the country. When it comes to the introduction of these measures within the Fisheries Act to enable the rebuilding of fish stocks, this is absolutely critical.

Fisheries Act  Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 would restore lost protections, including the HADD protections, and it would strengthen the role of indigenous communities. When I was first made Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, one of the things I did in my first summer was make sure that I went out and visited as many indigenous communities as I could get to.

Fisheries Act  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.

Fisheries Act  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.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, as I have risen to state in the House many times, many of these allegations are unsubstantiated. Our government believes that increasing indigenous participation in offshore fisheries offers a powerful opportunity to advance reconciliation. That is why we created a process that we are proud of to consult industry and indigenous communities on potential participation in the surf clam fishery.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, our decision to introduce indigenous participation is consistent with our government's commitment to develop renewed relationships in Canada with indigenous peoples. The minister made this decision to allow for an increase in indigenous participation in the fishery, and we reject any claim to the contrary in the strongest terms.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, as I stated in the House many times, these claims are completely unsubstantiated. The fact that there is a new participant in the surf clam industry should not be a surprise. As the member just stated, the Conservatives went through a similar process. The only difference, both in fact and opinion, is that they did not include indigenous people when they went through their process.

Fisheries and Oceans  Mr. Speaker, the protection of Canada's oceans and the sustainability of marine life are key priorities for our government. We also understand the importance of a safe, clean, and efficient marine transportation system that is environmentally responsible and that supports economic growth.

Fisheries and Oceans  Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague for the question. It is my pleasure to rise today and discuss an issue that is so close to the city of Nanaimo, a place where I previously served as a city councillor, and as my wife reminded me this morning, where I was first elected over 19 years ago.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, as the minister has already made clear, the allegations made by the other side, no matter how often it makes them, are categorically false, and we are happy to answer any questions the Ethics Commissioner might have. In the interim, we are absolutely proud of the fact that the process ensured that the best project was selected so the highest number of Atlantic Canadians would benefit, including first nations from four Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec.

Ethics  Again, Mr. Speaker, these claims are completely unsubstantiated. The fact is that a new participant in the surf clam fishery should be no surprise to the previous Conservative government. It conducted a very similar process about three years ago to include a new entrant into the surf clam fishery.