FOPO Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The witnesses answered questions.
The Chair called Clause 1.
On Clause 1,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 3 with the following:
“(10) Subsection 2(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the quantity, timing and quality of the water flow that are necessary to sustain the freshwater or estuarine ecosystems of a fish habitat is deemed to be a fish habitat.”
Debate arose thereon.
Mel Arnold moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the word “natural” after the words “ecosystem of a”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Clause 1, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
Clause 2 carried.
On Clause 3,
Fin Donnelly moved, — That Bill C-68, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 23 on page 3 with the following:“2.1 The purpose of this Act is to provide for
(a) the conservation and sustainable use of fisheries;
(b) the proper management and control of fisheries, including by rebuilding fish stocks as necessary to sustainable levels;
(c) the conservation, protection and restoration of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution; and
(d) reconciliation with the Indigenous peoples of Canada, including through the protection of their rights, as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007.”
Debate arose thereon.
Larry Miller moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the word “proper”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Larry Miller and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
The question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“the proper management and control of fisheries through the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution.”
Debate arose thereon.
Larry Miller moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting the word “proper”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Larry Miller and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
The question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 3 with the following:
“(b) the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries;
(c) the conservation, protection and restoration of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution; and
(d) reconciliation with the Indigenous peoples of Canada, including through the protection of their rights, as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 5.
“(a.1) the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 16 on page 4 with the following:
“shall do so in a manner that upholds the protection provided for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
(2) The Minister shall take all measures necessary to ensure that the Act is administered in a manner that is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 3, be amended
(a) by replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following:
“ing a decision under this Act, the Minister shall consider,”
(b) by replacing lines 25 to 28 on page 4 with the following:
“(d) traditional knowledge, as defined by regulation, of the Indigenous peoples of Canada that has been provided to the Minister;
(e) agreements with any government of a province,”
(c) by replacing lines 32 to 36 on page 4 with the following:
“(f) climate change;
(g) the conservation of biological diversity;
(h) fish habitat restoration plans, action plans, cumulative effects assessments and any other type of management plan that is developed by an Indigenous governing body for a specific site or region and that relates to the purpose of this Act;
(h.1) the rights, including fishing rights, of the Indigenous peoples of Canada as recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 6.
(a) by replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following:
“ing a decision under this Act, the Minister shall consider,”
(b) by replacing line 25 on page 4 with the following:
“(d) traditional knowledge, as defined by regulation, of the Indigenous peoples of”
(c) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 4 with the following:
“(e) climate change;
(e.1) the conservation of biological diversity;
(e.2) fish habitat restoration plans, action plans, cumulative effects assessments and any other type of management plan that is developed by an Indigenous governing body for a specific site or region and that relates to the purpose of this Act;
(f) agreements with any government of a province,”
(d) by replacing line 36 on page 4 with the following:
“eries and other fisheries; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
(a) by replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following:
“ing a decision under this Act, including under subsection 34.3(2), the Minister may consider,”
(b) by replacing line 35 on page 4 with the following:
“dence of licence holders and other fish harvesters in commercial inshore fish-”
(c) by adding after line 2 on page 5 the following:
“(j) any contribution made by the law of a province or of another jurisdiction to the furtherance of the purpose of this Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“(d) Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ken Hardie and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“(i) knowledge of fish harvesters.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Clause 3, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
On Clause 4,
Mel Arnold moved, — That Bill C-68, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 5 the following:“(1.1) The members of an advisory panel must include representatives of the fishing industry.”
Debate arose thereon.
Larry Miller moved, — That the amendment be amended by replacing the word “include” with the word “consider”.
The question was put on the subamendment of Larry Miller and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
The question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
Clause 4 carried.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, Clause 9 was allowed to stand.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 10 to 19 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 20,
Ken McDonald moved, — That Bill C-68, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 35 on page 14 with the following:“dertakings or activities also applies to the works, undertakings or activities of a designated project, except paragraphs 34.4(2)(a) to (c) and (e) and 35(2)(a) to (c) and (e).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ken McDonald and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
Clause 20, as amended, carried.
On Clause 21,
Mel Arnold moved, — That Bill C-68, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 15 with the following:“with other works, undertakings or activities referred to in subsection 35(2) that have”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
“been or are being carried on, including following the provision of a letter of advice under section 35.01, on fish and fish habitat;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(g) Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ken Hardie and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“(g.1) the public interest; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
(a) by replacing line 3 on page 16 with the following:
“34.2 (1) The Minister may establish, adopt or approve standards and”
(b) by adding after line 6 on page 16 the following:
“(a.1) the mitigation of any adverse effects that result from the death of fish; ”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 21, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 16 to 22 on page 17 with the following:
“(f) maintain the flow of water necessary to permit the free passage of fish; or
(g) maintain at all times the characteristics of the water and the water flow upstream and downstream of the obstruction or thing that are necessary for the conservation”
(b) by replacing line 26 on page 17 with the following:
“position of the water flow;
(h) maintain the quantity, timing and quality of water flow that are necessary to sustain the freshwater or estuarine ecosystems of the fish habitat.”
Debate arose thereon.
Mel Arnold moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the word “natural” after the words “ecosystem of the”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.
(a) by replacing lines 16 to 22 on page 17 with the following:
“(f) maintain the flow of water necessary to permit the free passage of fish; or
(g) maintain at all times the characteristics of the water and the water flow upstream and downstream of the obstruction or thing that are necessary for the conservation”
(b) by replacing line 26 on page 17 with the following:
“position of the water flow.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“(2.1) Before making an order referred to in subsection (2), the Minister shall consult with any federal or provincial department or agency that also exercises powers in relation to the protection of fish or fish habitat.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 9:26 a.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 9:28 a.m., the sitting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.
“(7) The Minister may make regulations respecting the flow of water that is to be maintained to ensure the free passage of fish or the protection of fish or fish habitat.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
“(7) If a request is made to the Minister for the making of an order under subsection (2), the Minister must respond, with reasons, within 90 days after the day on which the request is received.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“conditions established by the Minister;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert J. Morrissey and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
“authorized, permitted or required under”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Robert J. Morrissey and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
Clause 21, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 22,
Mel Arnold moved, — That Bill C-68, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 20 with the following:“or activity that results in the permanent harmful alteration, disrup-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 6.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 20 with the following:
“tion or destruction of fish habitat, unless they are authorized to do so under subsection (2).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 20 the following:
“(1.1) The portion of subsection 35(2) of the Act, before paragraph (a), is replaced by the following:
(2) A person may carry on a work, undertaking or activity, in an area other than an ecologically significant area or an area prescribed by regulations in which there are concerns about fish and fish habitat conservation, without contravening subsection (1) if”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 12 on page 20.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“permitted or required under this Act;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ken McDonald and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 3.
“(h) the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in relation to an artificial structure that was constructed for the purpose of operating a facility and is not ordinarily frequented by fish.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 20 the following:
“(2.1) The Minister shall ensure that for every harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat resulting from the doing of anything that is authorized, otherwise permitted or required under this section, measures are implemented to offset the loss of the habitat by, among other things, creating a new fish habitat, increasing the productivity of another fish habitat or maintaining productivity through artificial propagation.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(2.1) A person may carry on a work, undertaking or activity without contravening subsection (1) if the work, undertaking or activity is carried on in accordance with the recommendations included in a letter of advice provided under section 35.01.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Clause 22, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 23,
Fin Donnelly moved, — That Bill C-68, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 21 the following:“35.01 (1) The Minister shall provide a letter of advice to any person who informs the Minister that they propose to carry on a work, undertaking or activity that could result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.
(2) The letter of advice shall include an assessment by the Minister as to whether the proposed work, undertaking or activity is likely to result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat and, if appropriate, any recommendations for avoiding such harmful alteration, disruption or destruction.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
(a) by replacing line 16 on page 21 with the following:
“or activity that is part of a designated project and that may result in the death of fish or in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat except in”
(b) by adding after line 3 on page 22 the following:
“(2.1) If the Minister proposes to make a recommendation under subsection (2), he or she shall offer to consult with the governments of any provinces that he or she considers to be interested in the proposed recommendation and with any departments or agencies of the Government of Canada that he or she considers appropriate.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
(a) by replacing line 2 on page 22 with the following:
“tion of the Minister and in consultation with any affected persons, including electricity producers, make regulations designating eco-”
(b) by replacing line 34 on page 22 with the following:
“(9) The Minister shall, as soon as feasible, in consultation with any affected persons, including electricity producers, prepare a fish”
(c) by adding after line 29 on page 23 the following:
“(h) establishing a process for the awarding of fair and reasonable compensation to any person for losses suffered as a result of the designation of an ecologically significant area.”
Larry Miller moved, — That the amendment be amended by deleting paragraph (c).
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Larry Miller and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 6.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 22 the following:
“(2.1) If a request is made to the Minister by the government of a province or an Indigenous governing body for the designation of an ecologically significant area, the Minister must respond, with reasons, within 90 days after the day on which the request is received.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 22 the following:
“(2.1) A department or agency of the Government of Canada that proposes to carry on a work, undertaking or activity referred to in subsection (1) in an ecologically significant area or to provide funding for such a work, undertaking or activity shall, before making any final decision, consult with the Minister.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(2.1) If a request is made to the Minister by the government of a province or an Indigenous governing body for the designation of an ecologically significant area, the Minister must respond, with reasons, within 90 days after the day on which the request is received. The Minister must ensure that his or her response is posted on the Internet site of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Clause 23 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 24 to 27 inclusive carried on division severally.
By unanimous consent, Clause 28 was allowed to stand.
Clause 29 carried on division.
On Clause 30,
Fin Donnelly moved, — That Bill C-68, in Clause 30, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 33 the following:“(a.1) any plans referred to in subsection 6.1(2), any amendments to it and any notices respecting the suspension of the plans;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 30, be amended
(a) by adding after line 31 on page 33 the following:
“(b.1) any permit issued for the carrying out of a project that implements those standards and codes of practice;”
(b) by replacing line 33 on page 33 with the following:
“and 37 and the results of any studies, analyses, samplings or evaluations conducted under subsection 34.3(1);”
(c) by adding after line 7 on page 34 the following:
“(g) any statistical summaries of convictions for offences respecting fish and fish habitat protection and pollution prevention.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(b.1) any records relating to projects carried out in accordance with the standards and codes of practice established under section 34.2;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“and 37, and any responses referred to in subsection 34.3(7);”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 2; NAYS: 5.
At 10:10 a.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 10:12 a.m., the sitting resumed.
(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 31 on page 33 with the following:
“the Minister under section 34.2;”
(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 32 on page 33 with the following:
“(c) any orders made by the Minister under sections 34.3”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Churence Rogers and it was agreed to.
“35.2(7), and any letter of advice provided by the Minister;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Mel Arnold and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 5.
“(d.1) any letter of advice provided under section 35.01;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(e.1) any regulations made under this Act; and”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(g) any statistical summaries of convictions for offences respecting fish and fish habitat protection and pollution prevention.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 8 to 19 on page 34.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Clause 30, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 31,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 31, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 37 the following:
“(i.9) prescribing standards establishing the conditions under which the quantity, timing and quality of water flow to a fish habitat would be sufficient to not constitute a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(j.01) after consultation with the Indigenous peoples of Canada, defining “traditional knowledge” and providing for the manner in which traditional knowledge is to be considered for the purposes of this Act;”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(j.1) prescribing the circumstances in which the Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ken Hardie and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
“2012, c. 19, s. 149(4)
(12) Subsection 43(4) is replaced by the following:
(4) Regulations made under paragraph (1)(i.5) may include as a criterion for designation the fact that a decision has been made under an Act of Parliament to subject the project to an impact assessment.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ken Hardie and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
Clause 31, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 32,
Fin Donnelly moved, — That Bill C-68, in Clause 32, be amended(a) by adding after line 18 on page 39 the following:
“(1.1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations prescribing the conditions under which the Minister may issue a prohibition under paragraph (1)(a), the object of such a prohibition and the maximum period of time during which it may be in effect.”
(b) by replacing line 21 on page 39 with the following:
“made by the Governor in Council under this Act, other than under subsection (1.1), any or-”
(c) by adding after line 25 on page 39 the following:
“(3) The government of a province or an Indigenous governing body may make a request to the Minister for the making of regulations to prohibit fishing of one or more species, populations, assemblages or stocks of fish.
(4) The Minister must respond, with reasons, to a request referred to in subsection (3) within 90 days after the day on which it is received.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 32, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 39 the following:
“(3) The government of a province or an Indigenous governing body may make a request to the Minister for the making of a regulation to prohibit fishing of one or more species, populations, assemblages or stocks of fish.
(4) The Minister must respond, with reasons, to a request referred to in subsection (3) within 90 days after the day on which it is received.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Clause 32 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 33 to 39 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 40,
Churence Rogers moved, — That Bill C-68, in Clause 40, be amended by(a) replacing line 31 on page 42 with the following:
“(2) The Minister shall not require any Indigenous knowl-”
(b) replacing line 25 on page 43 with the following:
“Indigenous Knowledge of the”
(c) replacing line 27 on page 43 with the following:
“61.2 (1) Any Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous”
(d) replacing line 32 on page 43 with the following:
“(2) Despite subsection (1), the Indigenous knowledge re-”
(e) replacing line 18 on page 44 with the following:
“full or partial disclosure of the Indigenous knowledge re-”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Churence Rogers and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 0.
(a) by replacing line 7 on page 44 with the following:
“(3) The Minister shall, after consultation with the affected Indigenous peoples of Canada, impose conditions with respect to”
(b) by adding after line 10 on page 44 the following:
“(3.1) The Minister shall not permit disclosure of traditional knowledge under paragraph (2)(b) if the affected Indigenous peoples request in writing that it not be disclosed.”
(c) by adding after line 20 on page 44 the following:
“(6) The Indigenous peoples of Canada do not waive any intellectual property rights they have in respect of traditional knowledge by reason only that they provide the knowledge to the Minister under this Act or that the knowledge is disclosed under subsection (2).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Fin Donnelly and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
“(2.1) Before disclosing Indigenous knowledge under paragraph (2)(b) for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice, the Minister shall consult the person or entity who provided the Indigenous knowledge and the person or entity to whom it is proposed to be disclosed about the scope of the proposed disclosure and potential conditions under subsection (3).
(3) The Minister may, having regard to the consultation referred to in subsection (2.1), impose conditions with respect to the disclosure of Indigenous knowledge by any person or entity to”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ken Hardie and it was agreed to on division.
“(4) The person or entity referred to in subsection (3) shall comply”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ken Hardie and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 40, as amended, carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 41 to 48 inclusive carried on division severally.
On Clause 49,
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-68, in Clause 49, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 55 the following:
“(2) For the purposes of the review referred to in subsection (1), the Minister must provide to the committee, in respect of the relevant period, the following information:
(a) an assessment of the state of fish and fish habitat across Canada;
(b) a list of works, undertakings and activities carried out in accordance with section 35 that resulted in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat;
(c) a list of all fish habitat for which measures to offset the loss of fish habitat have been implemented; and
(d) a summary of the activities published in the registry referred to in section 42.2.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Elizabeth May and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Clause 49 carried on division.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 50 to 52 inclusive carried on division severally.
At 10:44 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.