Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 229
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleagues.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee again. I am always pleased to be here with you.
If you are having a hard time understanding me, it is because I have had a cold for about two weeks. My apologies.
Madam Chair, I want to congratulate you on being elected chair of the committee. You are very familiar with fisheries issues since the fishing industry is so important in your riding.
My sincere congratulations. I look forward to working with you and the members of the committee.
As you said, Madam Chair, I am joined today by two senior officials of our department, Philippe Morel and Mark Waddell. When you have very technical questions on particular sections of the legislation, rather than my trying to answer in a way that may mislead you, I would obviously want them to join in and provide you with that information.
On February 6, our government introduced in the House of Commons an anticipated piece of legislation that will bring some much-needed changes to one of Canada's oldest environmental laws.
Once again, I'd like to thank this committee for the study they did on the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act. I have said before that I believe that a great deal of what our government has suggested as amendments was inspired by the work of this committee, so I want to thank you. Your hard work helped shape the legislation you have before you today, which was voted on at second reading in the House of Commons, and as a government, we look forward to working closely with this committee.
We reached out to all Canadians to hear their ideas about how to restore and modernize the Fisheries Act and I think we listened. The response was incredible. We received thousands of letters and emails and held hundreds of meetings with partners, stakeholders, and indigenous groups. Tens of thousands of Canadians participated in online surveys through two phases of public consultation.
We have worked very closely with our provincial and territorial partners and with indigenous groups across Canada to make sure we hear their concerns and take them into account.
In addition to protecting fish and their habitat, we recognize that certain fisheries management measures have to be modernized for the long-term survival of our fisheries. The amendments proposed in the bill before you are as follows:
new tools to conserve and protect important species and ecosystems through modernized fisheries management measures; measures that will help rebuild depleted fish stocks and make habitat restoration a priority prior to the development of major projects; and amendments that will help clarify, strengthen, and modernize enforcement powers under the act.
If passed, the proposed amendments will also provide the power to implement regulations on owner-operator and fleet separation policies in Atlantic Canada and Quebec and will give force of law to these essential policies, which have existed for over four decades. This in turn, as you all know, will support the independence of inshore and midshore harvesters, which is critical to their economic livelihood as well as that of the families and coastal communities who depend on these important economic actors.
Our government promised to listen to Canadians about how to update the Fisheries Act, and I believe we've kept that promise. We've also listened to the concerns expressed by our parliamentary colleagues, with an aim to further improve, clarify, and strengthen this legislation. During the debate in the House on February 13, I took note of some of the concerns that were raised by our colleagues in the House of Commons. They included but were obviously not limited to a heavier regulatory burden placed on industry and major natural resource development projects; a need to protect environmental flows, which refers to the quality and quantity of water in rivers and how it contributes to the ultimate protection of fish; an unease about DFO's dual mandate to conserve wild salmon while promoting salmon farming, especially on the Pacific coast; and once this legislation is passed, the need for strong regulations around the rebuilding of fish stocks that have clear definitions and also consider the impact of climate change and species interactions.
I'd like to express my hope that we can work together again in the spirit of co-operation that I think this committee has always exhibited. Your committee did, we think, important work in improving Bill C-55, an act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, in which five opposition amendments were accepted and passed by this committee. Those, in my view, made the legislation better.
I hope the legislation you currently have before you proceeds in the same spirit of collaboration. Obviously I would be happy to work with all members of the committee, if you have particular suggested texts of amendments. If there's any way that our department and the Department of Justice can work with you beforehand to ensure that, from our perspective, the text achieves what a particular member hopes, it's sometimes easier than having at the last minute some confusion whereby the Department of Justice says to us that a particular text, for whatever reason, is technically not achieving what the particular aim is. If any colleagues at this table want, in the spirit of co-operation, to share with us some ideas and we can help in any way, obviously we would be happy to do so.
As you have seen, Madam Chair, the proposed amendments in this bill that will have an impact on fish and their habitat are intended to better protect our natural resources for future generations, while preserving economic opportunities for the many individuals and their families and the communities that depend on those resources.
The proposed amendments will help reduce the regulatory burden on the industry while giving major project proponents greater certainty, which will improve the transparency and predictability of federal environmental assessments.
For small projects, the codes of practice will be published in part I of the Canada Gazette and will provide clear direction on how to avoid harmful effects on fish and their habitat. The same is true for agriculture and small municipal projects. People often say that they do not want to harm the fish and their habitat, and that they want to obey the law. So we are trying to find a simple way of balancing those aspects.
Another example is DFO's commitment to rebuild fish stocks. In 2017, our department launched a plan to put into effect rebuilding plans for 19 fish stocks on a staggered basis over four years. We have policies that set out requirements regarding stock rebuilding plans, including objectives and timelines aimed at rebuilding these stocks that take into account factors such as ocean conditions, species interaction, and habitat.
I believe that there are a lot of positive elements in this legislation that reflect input from numerous parties, including this committee, indigenous groups, industry, environmental groups, provinces and territories, municipal organizations, and the fishers themselves.
I've always thought that our collective responsibility as parliamentarians is to steward our environment with care and in a way that is practical, reasonable, and sustainable. I believe that the proposed amendments strike that important balance by safeguarding environmental protections for fish and fish habitat, something that Canadians are deeply concerned about, while also ensuring that mechanisms are in place for sustainable economic growth, job creation, and resource development.
As I look around the table, I see many colleagues here, Madam Chair, yourself included, who represent communities that depend, in some cases overwhelmingly, on the economic impact of Canada's fisheries. That's why this legislation, from our perspective, is an important piece of environmental legislation. It's also an economic piece of legislation in the sense that if we get that balance right, we can ensure the long-term economic prosperity of the communities that many of you represent, for generations to come.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Those are just a few opening comments, but obviously, I look forward to questions from colleagues.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I'm sure that somebody at this table would be happy to take up that time, Madam Chair.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
First of all, Mr. Rogers, congratulations on joining this committee. I've had the privilege also to visit your constituency in your province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think you'll bring a great deal of insight to the work of this committee, and I look forward to working with you.
We have thought for a number of years, and Canadians have told us, that one of the challenges in managing ecosystems, fish stocks, and allocations is the issue of transparency. That's why, for example, we put in the legislation what we call modern safeguards. For example, should the legislation be passed, if a minister in our government or, obviously, a future government wanted to make decisions around commercial fisheries of a stock or the harvesting of a stock that was in the critical zone, that was under threat, there would be a positive obligation on the government to provide information to Canadians on rebuilding plans.
We think that a way to increase public confidence in these issues is to show Canadians the important work that our scientists do and the vast consultations that take place through advisory committee mechanisms and other meetings that industry has with our department. Anything, from our perspective, that would bring greater public confidence to those decisions would be positive.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
That question is one that I have heard discussed in every part of the country. I had the privilege to be in Regina some weeks ago where I met with the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and agricultural producer representatives. That was an area of huge concern for them.
These codes of practice, we believe, represent the right, flexible, common-sense approach to complying with fisheries legislation, without repeating some of the mistakes of a decade ago where fisheries conservation officers were enforcing the Fisheries Act in the middle of a farmer's field in Saskatchewan. We heard those horror stories and we recognized that this concern is real. That's what I have assured these Saskatchewan producers.
The same thing would apply to small municipalities undertaking small municipal works. Where they can comply with these codes of practice, which will be publicly known, and where they want to comply with them, as everybody would, it would not represent a regulatory burden. I have said to people around the country, to these rural municipalities in Saskatchewan, to municipal representatives I've met, and to my colleagues here today that we would welcome input. To this end, we will be reaching out directly to these organizations to ensure that their views are taken into consideration when we develop these codes of practice. We have scientists and other experts who can provide advice, but to make sure we have the right balance, we need to hear from those who would ultimately be affected, the people who would be using those codes of practice. We would welcome any and all suggestions on how to get that right.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Finnigan, you and I have had a chance to talk about this, and we have also talked with indigenous leaders from our province in New Brunswick. I have thought, as part of our government's framework for the recognition of rights and a nation-to-nation approach to reconciliation, that we should acknowledge, when making decisions on the management of ecosystems and fisheries resources, that one of the important inputs has to be the traditional knowledge that indigenous people have held for, in many cases, thousands of years. That can and should form part of the considerations that, in our view, ministers and governments must take into account when making decisions on the sustainable management of ecosystems.
We thought it would be important to clarify in the law an obligation on the government to consider traditional knowledge. It is also important to safeguard that traditional knowledge because, in the traditional intellectual property sense, that knowledge doesn't belong to us. It belongs to the indigenous nations. We wanted to have provisions to assure them that, if their knowledge was shared with governments as part of a scientific exercise in understanding ecosystems, this knowledge would be respected and also protected. We wanted to have that clearly spelled out in the legislation.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I'm not a patent or trademark lawyer. I used that as a public policy example, Mr. Finnigan. I've had the privilege of meeting indigenous communities on all of our coasts who talked to me about their impressions of resources, changes in water temperatures and ecosystems, and what they're seeing over time. That to me should form part of the scientific analysis that governments and other public policy institutions take into account. I think this can be done in a very collaborative way.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Arnold, for the question.
I'm more than happy to be transparent about why that important decision was made.
In your question, I think one of the key words was “apparently”. One of the challenges...and members of the former Conservative government would appreciate this. When you have an open process where you invite industry and indigenous partners to provide proposals and submissions on an issue like this, it is very similar to what former minister Shea did in 2014 when 14 different proposals were received, as I am told—I haven't seen those. I returned those proposals unopened to the proponents because, as we said before, they didn't include any indigenous participation in that particular process.
We followed a process very similar to that. We asked companies with experience in offshore fisheries to partner with indigenous communities, but one of the challenges is commercial confidentiality, and the commercial information that governments receive in these proposals is not made public. That's a very normal thing. It's a practice followed by previous governments, so when people—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Again, we can go into the details of particular proposals, and some people who were not successful in a proposal because in our view they didn't provide the necessary economic benefits that we were seeking to achieve have been offering all kinds of comments that have inaccurate information with respect to who.... I can tell you this without talking about specific proposals because that would be inappropriate.
In the proposals we received, should some of the suggestions you made be accurate, this particular proponent would not have been alone in some of those circumstances. You said, “apparently,” so I think you would acknowledge that perhaps some of them or not all of them are as precise. It's not public information because it's commercially protected.
What I am trying to say is that industry partnered with indigenous communities, and to say, by the way, that this particular proponent—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Arnold, I'm answering your question.
To say that perhaps this particular proponent, as you asserted, did not have indigenous partners at the time of their proposal is, I can tell you, on the face of it, absolutely inaccurate. It's just an example of some of the inaccuracies that are contained in this conversation, and as I say, one of the challenges is to respect the confidentiality of the commercial information we received from the nine proponents. I don't think it's fair to compare, in theory, one particular proposal to another proposal when in fact none of those facts are—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
No. First of all, I wouldn't have characterized them as “flaws”. That's your word. What I did say was that some of the inaccurate or misleading stories I have seen with respect to this proposal—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Again, “claim” has a negative connotation that I certainly wouldn't ascribe myself to. I don't think it's a claim that, when we were in third place in the House of Commons, we made a series of commitments to Canadians and went from third to first with a majority government. We intend to honour those commitments that we made, Mr. Arnold. In fact, many of the people who looked at this legislation when it was introduced in February commented positively on how the lost protections that were deleted by the previous Harper government in 2012 were not only restored effectively but modernized. That's why I think this legislation strikes the right balance.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I never thought that it was particularly useful to chase ghosts, Mr. Arnold. I don't know if other people are doing that. I'm certainly not doing that.
What I'm doing is saying to Canadians that the previous government not only deleted legislatively and weakened legislatively the environmental and fish and habitat protections in legislation, but the previous government also proceeded to massively slash the budgets available for enforcement, for conservation and protection officers, for science, for habitat protection—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Arnold, I'm trying to answer your question and you're interrupting me again.
One of the things that makes it hard to quantify.... Although massive public opinion and expert evidence was that those changes were negative in terms of protecting fish and fish habitat, if you proceed to massively reduce the ability of habitat protection officers, conservation and protection officers, and slash the budget also for scientists, then necessarily it makes quantifying what would be an abstract concept more difficult.
What I can tell you, Mr. Arnold, is that Canadians responded extremely negatively to those changes, and our government committed to restoring the protections, but also to modernizing those protections. I would submit that this is exactly what we've tried to do in this legislation.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Donnelly, thank you for your support of this legislation. You and I have had a chance to discuss it. I think the New Democratic Party can and should be an ally for us in trying to get the right balance and improve this legislation. Your support at second reading certainly was important for us. I want to honour that support by working with you if you have specific suggestions like that one.
As I said, I don't sit as a voting member of this committee, so I want to be careful when you ask if I'm open to amendments when this committee ultimately does its clause-by-clause work and considers amendments. It's more a question that should and can be put to your colleagues on the committee.
On the specific suggestion of the specific element you raised with respect to cumulative effects, I think one of the challenges in the past—and I saw this when I sat in that very seat on previous committees in the last Parliament—was that when colleagues had suggestions to improve the legislation and amendments, necessarily because of the legislative process and the House of Commons Library of Parliament staff who work with MPs to draft the text of amendments and so on, they often arrived at the last minute.
The Department of Justice, in advising my department of the government, identify technical problems, and then colleagues—colleagues in this room—may decide that because of a technical problem a particular amendment shouldn't be considered or supported at that time. What I'm saying to you, and I'm saying to all members, is that I certainly am sensitive to strengthening those provisions if it can be done in a proper way, as you and I have talked about before. If there's a way that we can work with you, I will be able to ask the Department of Justice to give me, and I would share it with you, that technical advice on how a particular amendment may interact with other clauses of the bill, and then you can consider, obviously, how you want to factor that advice into whatever amendments a colleague would choose to propose. If it, in a sense, short-circuits that last-minute confusion, where amendments may be defeated or not considered in a proper context, and if I can in any way work with you and other colleagues in a transparent way before the clause-by-clause process would begin, or notice has to be given, I would be happy to do so.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
As I say, Mr. Donnelly, a lot of those came from environmental groups, industry groups, and the fish harvesters themselves. I'm hoping that all of us receive some of those encouraging suggestions from myriad different groups as well.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
—when I say yes, it's subject to the right language. That would be an example where perhaps the committee can make some suggested improvements.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Again, I don't want to be technical. Whether I'm open or not to amendments is really irrelevant, because I won't actually be voting at this table on those amendments. I just want to be clear. I'm interested in those amendments. As minister, with the benefit of departmental staff, the Department of Justice, I would support looking at ways to strengthen that exact provision, the third item you mentioned around rebuilding.
I want the committee to properly be seized of its own work and do its work separate and apart from what personal views I might have.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I would be happy to work with you on that if, again, we can provide advice, and you'll decide how you want to dispose of it.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I wouldn't presume, Mr. Donnelly, to have that whatsoever.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Whether I'm open or not will not be relevant when your committee is voting on these amendments.
I'm very proud, obviously, of owner-operator fleet separation policies, and the impact it's had on Canada's Atlantic coast. I've said before that it applies in Quebec. Politics has made Quebec a central Canadian province. Geography makes it an Atlantic Canadian province as well. I often say that to our colleagues from Quebec.
You're a member of Parliament from British Columbia, and we have colleagues at this table, as well, who serve from that province. I'm open to understanding how we can create the circumstance for the industry. Harvesters who have spoken to me from your province are interested in benefiting from those policies.
I want the legislation—and that was our suggestion in the amendments you have before you—to be permissive if the circumstances in your province are appropriate for those policies to apply or to be phased-in over time. The legislation contemplates that, because it would be a regulatory provision made under the act.
In a sense, we have contemplated that, but we wouldn't presume that it would be the first place we'd apply it. We'd apply it where it has existed, I would argue, successfully, namely on the Atlantic coast. I'm wide open to figuring out how some of those benefits, which would be appropriate to British Columbia, could be applied to your province as well.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you for raising that, Mr. Donnelly.
As you know, our government is committed, and the Prime Minister spoke in the House of Commons in February about a rights recognition framework. I know that my colleague the Minister of Justice and cabinet are working on exactly how that would be rolled out.
Free, prior, and informed consent is a necessary part of that conversation. I want to be a bit prudent in saying, on behalf of the government, how amendments with respect to that in the Fisheries Act.... I would want to make sure they're concurrent—and concordant is the word in French—with other contemplated actions by the government in that respect.
Certainly, the policy thrust of your question and its application to this legislation is something to which we're enormously sensitive. There again we could work with you and other colleagues on if and how that would properly, in my view, be incorporated into the legislation. There's a lot of common ground we could achieve on that.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
You're not suggesting, Mr. Hardie, that I would rag the puck. I wouldn't filibuster your question.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
You're right, Mr. Hardie, that the oceans protection plan from our perspective is a very significant historic investment. A great deal of the work is obviously focused on the west coast. The same thing would apply on all of Canada's coasts.
In terms of the proper development of industries that necessarily use, for example, marine navigation and ocean transport, we think Canadians and the global community expect us to have world-leading safeguards to protect coasts, to prevent any environmental damage, but also to, for example, improve access of indigenous communities to search and rescue assets, to environmental response circumstances, and to improve the Coast Guard's capacity to respond to a whole series of incidents. There are search and rescue examples from the west coast and Newfoundland and Labrador, with real concerns expressed around search and rescue capacity that we've sought to improve.
All of those things, from our perspective, might.... The “crosswalk”, to use the bureaucratic phrase that my colleagues at the table will be pleased to hear me use, would probably be around modern safeguards. If we say that the legislation should have modern safeguards, we think that the government needs to have the tools to make those modern safeguards real for Canadians. It necessarily involves expenditures, and $1.5 billion in the oceans protection plan is a significant investment.
I would point out to colleagues that almost $300 million in additional dollars were also assigned to Bill C-68 and Fisheries Act modernization, so this legislation necessarily comes with an investment as well of almost $300 million.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
That's a very important question, Mr. Hardie, not only in your province but also, I would argue, nationally as well.
I know there are discussions between senior officials. Deputy ministers from your province were in Ottawa yesterday and met with our deputy minister, Catherine Blewett. Those discussions were around exactly that: how can priorities identified by the Government of British Columbia be reflected in oceans protection plan spending? The province is working with us on the concerns they have and the suggestions they have. There's a very active high-level discussion going on between our government and the Government of British Columbia. My colleague Terry Beech and others have been involved in those discussions on how we can respond to those concerns in the best way possible.
I'm confident that those suggestions from the Government of British Columbia can improve and strengthen a plan that we think is very important to all Canadians.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Hardie.
I remember some of the discussion. As you say, in the months that followed the election, I think Mr. Tootoo was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at the time. I remember those discussions around Comox and colleagues from your province certainly raised it in our caucus and spoke to me about it. I have insisted that the Canadian Coast Guard respond to the concerns of British Columbians and ensure that the facilities that I visited in Sidney are able to provide the highest level of service necessary for people navigating on the west coast. I acknowledge there were some concerns around outages or service gaps, radio towers or electrical outages, in some circumstances. These were raised as perfectly understandable concerns.
The Coast Guard has assured me that the investments they're making, have made, and are committed to continuing to make, will provide the highest level of service possible and it will be a better level of service and reliability than would have existed with the technology in the previous MCTS circumstance.
Mr. Hardie, we don't have a senior official from the Coast Guard here, but I'll ask Philippe Morel to make sure that the commissioner of the Coast Guard gives you the details of the circumstances, the investments we're making, and how we believe the Sidney facility can provide the appropriate coverage in British Columbia. If you have specific questions or concerns, obviously, I would ask the commissioner of the Coast Guard to be available to respond to them, but we'll get back to you with specific examples of concerns we've heard and what we've done to remedy them. If you would like to have a further conversation, I'd be happy to do so.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
The initial part of your question was instructive, and I'll respond to the specific circumstances in a second.
We value the input of agricultural producers in rural municipalities. As I said, when the committee considers its work, we should be alert to and listen to some of the voices we've all heard. I certainly was and want to be and will be. We recognize some of the very legitimate concerns that existed in the past. We think the solutions we've proposed strike the right balance but we would be open to continuing to listen.
Obviously, you'll appreciate I'm not familiar with the particular application on the Assiniboine River in Manitoba on September 29. I haven't been briefed on that specific issue. Obviously I will be informed on that and be happy to get back to the committee with details on that particular application. Our government is investing massively in improving infrastructure, particularly around climate change mitigation. I've heard, and your province—
Results: 1 - 30 of 229 | Page: 1 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data