Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 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—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Sopuck, obviously I wouldn't ascribe to the phrase about the shocking incompetence of the bureaucracy. I don't view that as the appropriate way to characterize the work that almost 11,000 men and women do in my department every day to serve Canadians.
You've identified a specific project, as I said. I would point out to the committee that this project would have been considered under the 2017 Fisheries Act, as amended by the previous Conservative government in 2012, so that particular proposal would be looked at in the context of the previous legislation.
I do believe that the—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I didn't interrupt your question. I don't know why you would interrupt the answer.
I would point out that the codes of practice are precisely the best way to resolve some of the smaller-scale infrastructure projects. If this committee and Parliament ultimately support this legislation, the codes of practice that we're proposing will remove the very heavy bureaucratic and regulatory process that necessarily must take place with respect to the more significant—in terms of environmental impact, fish habitat, and so on—projects. What we're trying to do is to find a path that's appropriate for the smaller, more local projects. If ultimately—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Morrissey. I think your question is germane in the sense that the codes of practice.... There are other jurisdictions—municipal organizations—that have successfully used this approach.
For the smaller municipal works projects and agricultural drainage operations, and where somebody wants to extend a particular dock by a few feet in an existing structure, we all have in our minds and our imaginations examples of what we would think of as small low-risk projects that necessarily need to be looked at in terms of ensuring that fish and fish habitat are protected. Canadians want to do the right thing when they're undertaking these kinds of works, as we've heard with respect to the minister from Manitoba.
We think that codes of practice, developed collaboratively with Canadians, with groups that have experience and interest in these particular structures, would say to Canadians that if they follow publicly available codes of practice...and we're looking at a way to ensure that we would be available to offer advice and support to people who say, “I want to undertake this particular local work project and I want to make sure I understand how a particular code of practice applies.” We need to be transparent and available to provide that advice and support, but if Canadians follow these codes of practice, then they're entirely compliant with the legislation, and the regulatory burden of requiring the authorizations, which necessarily take more time, would be alleviated.
We think that's the right balance between respecting the environment, fish, and fish habitat and also acknowledging that extending a dock or fixing a drainage facility in an agricultural operation in your province of Prince Edward Island or in western Canada is not necessarily the same thing as expanding a $200-million port operation on a particular river that has some of the most sensitive habitat and spawning grounds in the country. They're necessarily different discussions.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.
You will also be aware that in the oceans protection plan, as Mr. Hardie raised earlier, there was a $75-million coastal restoration fund as part of the previous $1.5-billion oceans protection plan. We thought that was a good start, but that Canadians and communities expect us to go further and have a sustained role, as you said, in restoring habitat. It's one thing to protect habitat, but if we're protecting habitat that has already been degraded or destroyed, it's much less significant than working with myriad community groups, organizations, volunteers, and provincial governments, that all have terrific ideas around how we can restore habitat and better protect it.
We want to make sure we have the funding as a government to partner with these groups to be able to support what is already happening, and enhance and accelerate that in terms of habitat restoration. Part of the investment in the Fisheries Act—almost $300 million of additional money as well to support this legislation—would be available to work with these community groups and others. We're also adding the legislative requirement that the government has a positive obligation to work to restore the habitat and not simply protect degraded habitat. That would not be as beneficial as restoring it. The support for that is massive. We just need to be able to come to the conversation with resources.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you for the question.
I want to make sure I understand the precise question. Are you referring to the Cabot Head lighthouse?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
You're referring to the harbour, the wharf structure itself.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
You and I know that the lighthouse was also an issue and we're working on resolving, I hope, the environmental contamination there so that tourism—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Based on the discussion you had with Mr. Beech, I hope we'll be making progress on that and we'll be happy to keep you informed. I've asked us to find options quickly.
With respect to the wharf, the harbour infrastructure, one of the things we have done is invest considerably in improving our capacity to respond when there is storm damage, which is unfortunately an increasing phenomenon, to many of these structures. One of the challenges across the country is that a number of these structures have been divested in the past. They're owned by municipalities, by community groups. I have some in my own riding. Obviously the challenge—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Obviously, the challenge, Mr. Miller, is that in those circumstances, we never have enough resources to repair the harbours. I have been told that we're working on options with respect to the one you identified, recognizing its importance. We haven't finalized the expenditures for this particular fiscal year. I hope we'll do so in the coming days, and I'd be happy to get back to you with specific options for that particular harbour.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Again, I wouldn't share the characterization of ragging the puck. Rattling the chain is something I'm happy to do if it's helpful to you—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
—so I'll look into that.
With respect, though, Mr. Miller, expenditures in a limited budget context, as small craft harbours necessarily are, are not yes-or-no answers. If you say yes to a particular project, you've perhaps said no to another one. That's why the calculation is necessarily a bit time-consuming. We want to make sure as we look at those expenditures, recognizing that there will always be more pressures than there are resources—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
If we say yes to one, we're saying no to another, so it is a yes and no, but it's a yes and no with consequences, and I want to make sure I have the best picture of those consequences before I say yes or no.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I'll make a huge effort to say yes in your context, Mr. Miller. I'm happy to do so.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I recognize that, Mr. Miller, but as I say, unfortunately, that's a circumstance across the country that necessarily exceeds the budget capacity even if we add a quarter of a billion dollars over two years to the budget. But I'll make every effort to ensure that we can be as supportive as we can to that project, as I do for all of them.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity.
As I say, we have a cabinet meeting that started 15 minutes ago, so I will excuse myself. Mr. Waddell and Mr. Morel are here. They're going to be joined by other colleagues who have intimate knowledge of the details of this legislation, and if I can ever be helpful and come back at a time that your schedule would allow, I would obviously be happy to do so. I thank you for this opportunity.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The pleasure is truly mine. I want to assure you of that.
I also want to join you, Chair, in saying how glad I am, Todd, to see you back in good health. I said to Todd that it's a hell of a way to lose weight. I thought your comments in the House of Commons yesterday, Todd, were very moving. It reminds us that we shouldn't wait for a difficult circumstance like that to befall a colleague and a friend to say and think those things. It's a chance for me to say publicly that I'm glad you're back and that you're healthy.
Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to, as you said, in very technical complicated terms, appear here on our departmental estimates.
As you can see, I am accompanied by the following members of DFO's senior management team and the Canadian Coast Guard: the deputy minister, Catherine Blewett, the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Jeffery Hutchinson, and the interim chief financial officer, Pablo Sobrino.
It's a pleasure to be here before your committee.
Allow me to take a quick moment to thank each and every one of you—the staff who work for our colleagues, members of Parliament, and also the committee staff—for what I think was terrific work done collectively on Bill C-55 on marine protection. I would note that a number of amendments in the end were incorporated in the legislation. I think it strengthened the bill, and I thank you for that important work.
I also want to thank you again, Mr. Chair, for the work you did in reviewing the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act. Obviously, at the department we work closely with members of the committee, with provinces and territories, indigenous groups, and with industry stakeholders across the country to ensure that the concerns and points of view that were expressed were taken into account as we drafted our amendments to the Fisheries Act. Many of our proposed changes or amendments in Bill C-68 are obviously inspired by the study, Mr. Chair, that your committee did and the recommendations that accompanied it. Again—and I've said it publicly in the House—I hope and believe that the bill will be referred to the committee in the near future. I look forward, as do my colleagues in the department, to working with all of you if you have suggestions on how we can strengthen the legislation. We're obviously interested in that conversation, and I look forward to those exchanges as well.
Mr. Chair, today we're here to discuss our departmental spending plans. I will provide you and your colleagues with a brief financial overview of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard's 2017-18 supplementary estimates (C) and 2018-19 interim estimates before speaking to a few recent accomplishments of the department.
The supplementary estimates (C) provide the resources for the department to launch, for example, the fisheries and aquaculture clean technology adoption program. You'll remember that this was part of budget 2017, in which there was an element for aquaculture and for the department to address the last ice area within Canadian Arctic waters.
In terms of our 2018-19 interim estimates, our initial ask to start the fiscal year amounts to $577.4 million, which represents three-twelfths of our approved reference levels.
I am pleased to say that our 2018-19 funding includes the following: $263.5 million in new funding for the oceans protection plan; new funding over a quarter of a billion dollars for the department to continue carrying out its mandate; $58 million in new funding for the Atlantic Fisheries Fund for this fiscal year; and $41.5 million for the renewal and expansion of indigenous fisheries programs and initiatives.
There's no question that the demands on our oceans and marine resources are higher than ever before. Our government's historic investment of $1.5 billion in the oceans protection plan will make our coasts cleaner, safer, and better protected. In collaboration with other departments and indigenous and coastal communities, we're well on our way to developing a safer marine transportation system that strengthens Canada's economy while preserving and restoring marine ecosystems.
Through the oceans protection plan and in all of our work, our government recognizes the importance of indigenous peoples in protecting our coast, addressing climate change, and the designation of new marine protected areas.
I am very pleased to say that, by the end of 2017, Canada had surpassed its domestic goal under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to protect 5% of marine and coastal areas. In fact, we have protected 7.75% of marine and coastal areas.
This achievement was made possible thanks to sound science and to sincere engagement with Canadians, indigenous groups, industry leaders, and environmental organizations that care passionately about Canada's oceans.
Our nation's prosperity depends on making sure that the benefits of a growing economy are felt by more and more people, with good, well-paying jobs for middle-class Canadians.
This is especially important to the more than 76,000 Canadians working in commercial fishing, aquaculture, and processing jobs, many in coastal and indigenous communities. I don't have to tell the people around this table, who in many cases—perhaps with the exception of Mr. Miller—represent communities along Canada's coast and remote communities.
Often the fishery and related industries are in fact the only or the most significant source of economic activity in these communities. That's why our government is focused, for example, on the Atlantic fisheries fund, which I announced in 2017. It's designed to encourage new and innovative ways to harvest, process, and deliver high-quality, sustainably sourced fish and seafood.
Other provinces, notably the Province of Quebec, have reached out to me about the possibility of negotiating a similar fund for their fishing industries. Obviously, it will be a pleasure for me to work with Minister Lessard and our colleagues from Quebec on that initiative. We remain open to looking at every possible opportunity on all of Canada's coasts that would in fact improve economic opportunities for Canadians.
I will stop here, Mr. Chair.
In your opening remarks, you said that my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, will be tabling the Main Estimates in April to ensure better alignment with Budget 2018.
This important change in timing is a key pillar of his estimates reform, which will ensure that we, as parliamentarians, are well-positioned to study documents that will be substantially more meaningful, relevant, and pertinent.
It would be a great pleasure to come back to talk to you about the Main Estimates at that time, if you wish.
Mr. Chair, with that, I wanted to leave some time for questions. I assume all of your questions will be very specific, technical questions related to supplementary estimates (C), and if that's the case, I said to Pablo that I would be happy to ask him or the deputy minister or the commissioner to answer. I will respond to the compliments that members will have with respect to my work as minister or the government's overall work, and those very technical questions on spending I could perhaps leave to the CFO or others.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you. I learned from you, Sir.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
The seaway itself, Marc, or would it be a piece of the coast along the seaway?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Bobby, for the question.
In fact, the increase in funding for the fiscal year starting in a couple of weeks and next year, I think, was largely a result of the work of parliamentarians on all sides who spoke publicly and consistently about the backlog in deferred maintenance and the long list of projects, important in small communities, that weren't able to be funded. I just want to publicly thank colleagues who have been supportive of trying to get increased investments in this program.
I do share your concern, Bobby, around the importance of not lapsing the funding. If we ask the Minister of Finance for that significant investment, and then at the end of the financial year that starts in a couple of weeks, we have lapsed $30 million or $40 million, or whatever the amount, short of what we wanted to spend on the appropriate projects, it will be hard to make the argument in future years that.... Even this amount of money will not clear the entire backlog of work. I think it's a very significant start.
I have worked with the deputy minister and with regional directors general to identify quickly.... That work is done. The deputy minister and I had a long conversation about this when we were in western Canada last week. I am confident that this money will be invested in the best projects across the country, but I'm going to be keeping a very close eye, as will the deputy, on how quickly we're going to tender projects in the coming weeks, and ensuring that those projects are on track to be completed in a timetable where that money can be invested in the financial years that the Department of Finance and Minister of Finance gave the money to us. There won't be any money that lapses, and we will obviously be happy to work with all parliamentarians and receive their suggestions as to the priorities in their area, and work with local communities and harbour authorities to identify those projects.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Your question, Bobby, I think is on the minds of many people in the industry. It's certainly on the minds of Canadians who we talked to across the country, not just in coastal areas. The tragic circumstances around the death of north Atlantic right whales on the east coast of Canada and in the United States last season is understandably something that is an enormous priority for our government and for provincial governments.
I'm happy to say for the fishing industry itself as well that from the beginning we have benefited from an enthusiastic and engaged co-operation from the fishing industry. They do not want to be seen as not taking every possible step to protect these highly endangered whales. We've had discussions, for example, with the snow crab industry in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The commissioner and I have spoken about trying to start the season a bit earlier—we're hopeful that this is possible—to allow the gear to be out of the water sooner.
We have looked at a whole series of measures around changing the gear. I hope to make some announcements in the coming days around piloting ropeless traps. If somebody had said to someone in your father or grandfather's generation, Bobby, that they'd be putting a crab pot at the bottom of the St. Lawrence and remotely detonating some buoy that would pop up to the surface with a GPS signal to identify the exact location of the trap, they wouldn't have believed it. That technology is available. It needs to be tested. We're going to be working with the industry, which is enthusiastic to test that as early as this year. We'll be in a position to see if we can apply those kinds of gear changes.
I have a final thing, Mr. Chair. I'm concerned about potential suspension of certification of the snow crab fishery in the Gulf. It's been reported in the media and the deputy tells me it was on CBC this morning. We've worked with the Marine Stewardship Council, and the deputy and others had meetings at a Boston seafood show a couple of weeks ago with the global leaders of the Marine Stewardship Council. I have concerns about the snow crab fishery in the Gulf and the potential suspension of its certification this season. That's why it's so important. This certification is important to Canadians, the industry, and to our exports, so it's important that we prevent and do everything we can to ensure that we don't repeat some of the tragic events that surprised everybody last summer. We'll work with the industry on that important issue as well.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
The cabinet meeting starts at 9:30. I'm not allowed to tell you what's on the agenda, but I need to tell you that I have to be at that meeting.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I'm already going to arrive 15 or 20 minutes late. I'd be happy to come back at another time, but we were invited for an hour and I do have to leave at 9:45.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Obviously I don't share the view that Canadian policy is being dictated by American NGOs.
Canadian policy, from our perspective, is dictated by what we think is in the best interests of Canadians: growing an economy sustainably; protecting the environment; providing jobs, including for indigenous communities like the ones you referred to, Mr. Doherty.
We made a commitment with respect to a tanker ban in northern British Columbia in the election campaign. That was a clear commitment we made in the 2015 campaign.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
The commitment we made in the election campaign was to proceed with that tanker ban. I have had a chance to meet the indigenous groups you referred to. I understand their point of view. I've listened carefully to their point of view. But my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has also had an opportunity—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Again, we made a firm commitment in the election campaign. People should not be surprised that we proceeded to implement the formal commitments we made in the election platform. That's what my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has done.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Fin, you've covered a number of significant areas. I'll offer some quick comments, and the deputy may have some specific answers to the more precise questions around funding opportunities.
With respect to the Namgis, we have obviously taken note of the court action. You'll understand that we cannot and should not comment on the specific elements of a court case. I have had an opportunity in previous visits to British Columbia to meet with the Namgis leadership, so I understand this personally, and senior officials from the department are in regular contact with them. Obviously, I understand their sense of frustration. However, the assertion that we do not and have not consulted with the Namgis, I don't think is necessarily representative, but—
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
I met with them on a visit to British Columbia last year. I can get you the exact date. We've had ongoing discussions with the Namgis.
With respect to the broader issue around aquaculture, Fin, you and I have talked about this. Our parliamentary secretary and other colleagues from British Columbia have spoken to me about it a number of times as well. I know that Terry has visited the Kuterra facility, and has worked with our department in his capacity as a parliamentary secretary to identify potential opportunities for some of that funding around innovation and testing, and whether that technology for closed containment land-based aquaculture can in fact be used much more broadly, from an economic and environmental sustainability perspective.
As to your specific question about whether the fisheries and aquaculture clean technology adoption program might be a source of funding, I would certainly be open to an application to that fund that would advance that discussion. I don't disagree at all, Fin, with your analysis of the potential of land-based aquaculture and the importance of British Columbia not ending up behind the parade of other jurisdictions that in fact have gone further.
That's a modest amount of money. That fund is not a huge amount of money. My colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, may have potentially other funding sources. I've had a conversation with him about that, and I know that our parliamentary secretary has as well.
Perhaps the deputy has a specific thing she wants to add.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Fin, I'd be happy to look into what certainly looks like a dire picture that you've painted of that program. I know the importance of the salmonid enhancement program and the community economic development program. I have heard every time I've been to British Columbia, but also from my colleagues from that province, about the enormously successful work the program has done.
If the funding has eroded—and I certainly don't disagree with the numbers or circumstance you described—I'd be happy to look into it. We can confirm your specific questions. We will be happy to get back to you with the exact details of those programs. I'd also be happy to look with the department at ways we could in fact improve the funding, because if we're leveraging $10 for every dollar that we put in, imagine the benefits that we could potentially get if we put in $1.25. I'd be happy to look at how we could perhaps, over time, improve that, and I can get you the exact figures with respect to the financing.
Results: 1 - 60 of 229 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data