Bill C-45 (Historical)

Fisheries Act, 2007

An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries

This enactment repeals and replaces the Fisheries Act. It seeks to provide for the sustainable development of Canadian fisheries and fish habitat in collaboration with fishers, the provinces, aboriginal groups and other Canadians.
It sets out management principles governing the exercise of responsibilities under the Act, and provides tools and authorities to improve the ability of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to properly manage fisheries and fish habitat.
Part 1 establishes a regime for the proper management and control of fisheries. It allows the Minister to stabilize access and allocation in fisheries, issue fishing licences, conclude agreements with groups that participate in a fishery and issue fisheries management orders.
Part 2 provides for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat.
Part 3 provides for the control and management of aquatic invasive species.
Part 4 provides the necessary powers to administer and enforce the Act.
Part 5 establishes the Canada Fisheries Tribunal and sets out a system of licence sanctions for fisheries violations to be administered by that Tribunal, which will also consider appeals of licence decisions.
Part 6 provides for regulations and other related matters required for the administration of the Act.
Part 7 sets out transitional provisions, consequential amendments and coordinating amendments and repeals certain other Acts.

Fisheries Act

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition today signed by well over 200 constituents from Glace Bay, Catalone, Main-à-Dieu and Louisbourg, who have voiced concerns about the forthcoming legislation, the changes in the Fisheries Act, Bill C-45. There is a great deal of concern about provisions in the owner-operator regulations and transfer of licence.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to not go forward with debate and call upon the government to go forward with honest and open dialogue with fishing communities and fishers, so that any change in legislation will have the best impacts on those affected.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to withdraw from Parliament Bill C-45, the proposed new fisheries act, and calls on the minister to engage in open dialogue with fishermen before proceeding.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of Bill C-16, it is obvious that the Liberal House leader is very concerned about having an election and wants to do anything he can to stop it. Having watched the news last night and having seen some numbers, I can understand his sentiments. That is not surprising.

However, I am also not surprised that he could not remember what the bill was about. That is because it has been out of this House for half a year while the Liberal Senate was trying to deal with it. If those members wanted it passed quickly perhaps they could have avoided making amendments to it. However, there are amendments and we have to consult about them. As well, certainly, the information about everyone having consented is very different from the information that has been provided to me by the other parties to this point.

We will continue to pursue that and we hope to move forward on democratic reform. At the same time, as we said earlier, we will invite the other parties to move forward with Bill S-4 in the Senate. If they want to see things move quickly, that would represent good democratic reform. As well, we invite them to indicate their support for Bill C-43.

However, this afternoon we will continue with the list of bills on today's Projected Order of Business.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill. When the House returns from the Easter break, it will continue with the budget implementation bill if it is not already completed tomorrow.

Also on the list of bills for that week are: Bill C-33, on income tax; Bill C-40, on the Excise Tax Act; Bill C-10, on mandatory and minimum penalties; the Senate amendment to Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, if we can get everyone's agreement on that to move quickly; Bill C-27, on dangerous offenders; and Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act, 2007.

Thursday, April 19 shall be the first allotted day in this supply period.

The Liberal House leader continues to make comments about moving quickly today. I wish he had been over there in the Senate talking to his Senate friends for the past six months while we were waiting. Perhaps while he is busying hurrying things up he can go and talk to the senators about Bill S-4.

I have a motion that I would like to make at this time.

There have been consultations, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, the remaining debate on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Health be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, April 18, at the end of government orders; and notwithstanding Standing Order 33(2), government orders shall conclude today at 5:30 p.m.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

It was interesting listening to the fisheries minister. It is amazing how people can change their views. He has said in the House and in the media that Premier Danny Williams is wrong, that he is not stating the facts. In a sense he is saying that he is lying, or that he does not understand, that he is not intelligent. I know him to be a very intelligent guy.

The Premier of Nova Scotia is saying exactly what that member said a couple of years ago; that the Atlantic accord has to be above and beyond any other change in programs, any new programs. He said that a decision did not have to be made. He said that premiers do not have to swallow a poisoned pill. The minister now has a different understanding. His mathematics are different.

A change happens in a member when he spends too much time in a Challenger jet. He sees numbers and the facts differently. As a minister, he now understands things in a completely different way than he did when he was a member. He somehow believes that he has a clear insight into the finances of Newfoundland and Labrador from his office in Ottawa, finances that are impossible to see from St. John's, that Premier Williams absolutely cannot understand. He cannot see that less is more.

I will speak about other matters also.

We cannot say that the budget is all bad. Not all the initiatives in the budget are bad. It is theoretically impossible to have the largest spending budget in the history of Canada to not have a few good initiatives in it. I welcome the capital tax exemption for Canadians. The Conservative government had a lot of money with which to work. It had large surpluses that were built up by the Liberal government. It had a lot of potential.

I cannot support the budget because it is a huge lost opportunity, and I regret that. The Prime Minister has not tried to hide the intent of the budget. It is intended to target a group of people in the most populace regions of the most populace provinces who are most likely to change their vote for the Conservatives and force a majority government. That is it. The budget is all about majority building, not nation building.

When we have the ability and the surpluses to build a nation, in my mind and in the minds of all Canadians, we should try to assist those who are most in need. We should try to develop potential when there are problems.

The government had an opportunity to assist Canadians in problem situations. With the proper investments, the government could have helped them out. It could have given them a hand up so they could have full participation in the economy. The government could have helped other regions. What do we see? We see targeted money going to the most populace areas, to the richest provinces. The government is ignoring single seniors and families and children in poverty who are in great need. The government needs to make real investment in innovation and post-secondary education. We do not see that. Money is not targeted for those who need it. It is very simple to send a lot of money to Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta in an attempt to influence those urbanites to vote for the Conservatives. That is all I see.

With respect to the Atlantic accord, Nova Scotia signed an agreement that its natural resources, such as offshore gas, would be used for its benefit and the money would be above and beyond any other funding program in equalization, health, education or infrastructure.

The Premier of Nova Scotia now has to swallow a poisoned pill. If he wants new money in equalization under the new formula, he has to forgo the potential benefits of the Atlantic accord, benefits that would have been there for the next 15 years. He has to sign away the future of Nova Scotia for much needed cash in the short term. This is unfair and it is certainly contrary to the intent of the accord and contrary to the stated intentions of the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. That is unacceptable.

There is no new money for ACOA. We see diminished funding. We see less spending and investments by ACOA. There is a huge opportunity to maintain the principle, but we know the Prime Minister does not like the agency and that it will suffer the death of a thousand cuts over time.

There were some good initiatives for our farmers a couple of weeks ago. There was an opportunity in the budget to assist the regions, to help farmers in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia where we produce less than we consume. We are not part of the problem in overproduction, but our farmers are being starved out of the industry. There is nothing in the budget to help them. The opportunity was there to work with the provincial government, but we do not see that potential.

When we see the attack on the Wheat Board, we know supply management is at risk. Some time ago he called it a glorified communist plot against the free market. I do not remember the exact terms he used, but it is the same type of thinking with which he has been attacking the Wheat Board. When the Prime Minister applies that to supply management, rest assured our supply management sector will be in trouble.

In my part of the country the poultry farmers and producers, egg producers and dairy farmers are the basic building blocks of the community. They are stable and doing quite well, not leaping great riches, but they are supplying jobs and participating in the economy. They need domestic protection to be maintained. A government sponsored price fixing cartel I guess is what he called supply management. We have to be very vigilant and seriously call the government to task on these matters.

I am pleased that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in the House to speak. He was on the committee of fisheries and oceans when a report called for more funding for small craft harbours, which I agreed with as a minister. I was minister of ACOA at the time. I was able to get a $100 million investment over five years into small craft harbours. That expired this year.

In our election platform last year we promised to put in even more money, and that is what is needed. What do we see? We see the government letting it expire. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans hypocritically called for more funding when he was in opposition. Now that he is Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he is calling for less funding. Not only did he let that $20 million a year lapse by not reintroducing the funding next year, but there is less funding for Small Craft Harbours.

I was amazed and amused, but irritated, yesterday when on a question from the Bloc Québécois, he indicated in the House that he would find some money here and there for the wharf in the Bloc member's riding to get his support for Bill C-45. There are good elements to Bill C-45, but there are some very difficult, scary elements for the fishing industry that he does not seem to want to clarify.

I remember the opposition talking about how it was important to invest in the Digby wharf. We do not see that any more. There have been five years of legal wrangling brought about because the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley made some very serious allegations, allegations and questions that I shared, and they had to be answered. The legal process ended up 14 months ago.

We were told that the fault was the contract written by the Department of Transport. Has the Minister of Transport stepped up to the plate? Do we see anything in the budget to get that facility back in the hands of the community? I believe it should be owned by Small Craft Harbours, like the other fishing harbours, and administered by a local harbour authority with the proper funding assistance. We see none of that.

There is the Digby/St. John ferry service. Last year I was pleased that the federal government, with the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, found a short term two year solution for that ferry service. However, I did not see anything about it in the budget, but I will keep some hope. I understand the bureaucrats within the Department of Transport are working seriously at finding a long term solution. I encourage the minister to take quick action to ensure that we know a good year or year and a half in advance of the termination of the agreement that there will be a long term service there so businesses can make the necessary plans.

The government had a real opportunity to assist working families. What did it give them? In some cases $20 a week. It did nothing for the working poor. We know the federal government does not want to put anything in the second budget or third budget next year. It wants to force an election. It gave away every opportunity it had to help the poor.

If promised next year, there will be another cut in the GST. That is $6 billion. The $6 billion invested in the child tax benefit would bring a million children above the poverty line, and he has given away that potential. We know that next year it will be a very difficult budget. I am afraid we may go back toward deficit financing in the medium to short term with the type of budget introduced this year. We are not helping to build our country or our nation. Nor are we helping those most in need.

I am afraid I cannot support this budget. While I like some initiatives within it, it would be impossible for me to stand in support of a budget that throws away so much opportunity to build a nation.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the hon. member for his question, let me also thank him and the Bloc for coming out publicly and asking the Liberals to move ahead with Bill C-45.

Let me say for the member, who is a very good representative for his fishermen, that we will, not through the budget but through the regulatory process and work already under way, be very shortly announcing positive moves that will help his fishermen and fishermen all across the country.

Fisheries

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, fishers in Cardigan and across the country have serious concerns regarding the federal government's proposed new fisheries act, Bill C-45.

The government wants to push this bill through the House of Commons even though it has failed to properly consult with fishermen, the very people who depend on the fishery for their livelihood. The fishery is a common resource property and as such, Canadians from coast to coast deserve to be heard on this new legislation.

The P.E.I. Fishermen's Association supports the Liberal motion to hoist Bill C-45 so that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans can hold proper hearings across the country.

Fishermen want to be heard. I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to support the Liberal motion so that Bill C-45 can receive proper hearing from the industry and the public itself. Why does the government want to shove this bill down the throats of fishermen without proper consultation?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the House will know that nobody has stood up more for the fisheries industry in Newfoundland and Labrador than our current fisheries minister, certainly more than anything that was done in the last 13 years.

If the Liberals really want to support the fishery in Newfoundland, they ought to get behind Bill C-45 and come up with a new Fisheries Act that actually modernizes and supports the industry there.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in three separate cases the Supreme Court of Canada was clear that the federal government had a duty to consult with first nations. Despite these rulings, the government has refused to conduct meaningful consultations. It imposes arbitrary deadlines that prevent real discussions from taking place: Bill C-2; Bill C-44; Bill C-45; nationhood; and now only seven days for consensus building on matrimonial real property.

Why does the government insist on taking such a father knows best attitude?

Opposition Motion—Aerospace Industry

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion. I want to focus on a particular aspect of the motion.

At the end of the motion, it calls on the government “to provide fair regional distribution of economic spin-offs for all future contracts”. That part of the motion is particularly important because I would argue that is what we are looking for from coast to coast to coast, opportunities to have meaningful economic development.

Canada is a resource rich country. We are a country that has a skilled workforce. We are a country that has the know-how to actively participate in a domestic economy and the international economy, yet we are seeing a shedding of manufacturing jobs. In the last couple of weeks we have heard announcements that there are going to be further layoffs in the auto sector in Ontario.

The New Democrats have been calling for national strategies in some key sectors. We have called for a national strategy in forestry. We have called for a national strategy for our shipbuilding industry. We have called for a national strategy for our auto sector. There are other sectors. For example, the garment sector is a big factor in Winnipeg. The member for Winnipeg Centre has been a tireless advocate for the garment workers in Winnipeg and in other parts of the country.

We need a mechanism that looks at economic development and that makes sure that our communities take advantage of the local resources and that we see spinoffs in all of our communities that create meaningful well-paying jobs.

A report that was issued today talked about the prosperity gap. It said that a significant number of people are falling behind. It is very disquieting to see those numbers in this day and age. We are in an economy that is supposed to be so hot, yet there are people who are losing ground. People are working more hours and their buying power just is not there.

There are some key principles regarding community economic development, there are some key principles. In the book Toward Sustainable Communities: Resources for Citizens and their Governments, Professor Mark Roseland from Simon Fraser University talks about the importance of local control over local resources. He indicates that community economic development is defined as:

--a process by which communities can initiate and generate their own solutions to their common economic problems and thereby build long-term community capacity and foster the integration of economic, social, and environmental objectives.

He states:

The main goal of most CED [community economic development] initiatives is individual and community self-reliance through collaborative action, capacity building, and returning control of business enterprises, capital, labor, and other resources from the global marketplace to communities.

He also states:

Local self-reliance does not mean isolation. It means diversification of local economies to support local needs, encourage cohesiveness, reduce waste and enable more sustainable trade practices with other communities.

Today we are speaking specifically about the aerospace industry in Quebec, but I would say that underlying this is the need for communities and provinces from coast to coast to coast to have that kind of self-reliance that is so important for the healthy functioning of our communities. There is a need to take into account the social aspects of our communities, the environmental aspects of our communities, and the economic aspects of our communities. Many people refer to this as the triple bottom line. Many of the decisions that we make do not take into account that triple bottom line.

One very important aspect of the aerospace industry is search and rescue. In British Columbia and many other parts of Canada, the fixed wing search and rescue aircraft are a very important part of how communities function. This is certainly something the Conservative Party has not addressed. There are 40-year-old Buffalo aircraft doing search and rescue. When the issue was brought up with the minister at the defence committee, he said that the process has stalled.

The Government of Canada has been proposing new fixed wing search and rescue planes for years but the last government failed to deliver on this and certainly the current government has failed to deliver on this.

I cannot imagine that members of the House from all parties would not support new search and rescue aircraft. My colleague, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, proposed Motion No. 283 in order to allow the House to express its support for new search and rescue planes. The Conservatives have not made search and rescue aircraft or more sovereignty a goal of their procurement strategy. The Conservatives have focused on C-17s which are American built and will be partly American maintained.

In the context of economic development and good paying jobs in Canada, surely we would want to invest in new search and rescue aircraft and we would want to ensure they are built and maintained in Canada.

One of the things many folks talk about is maintaining our economic sovereignty. It is important that when we are talking about economic sovereignty that we are making those strategic investments in Canadian jobs and Canadian industries.

Over the years, many of us have talked about the importance of local economic development. I think many of us can probably cite very successful initiatives in their own ridings. I know the members of the Bloc are passionate advocates of successful economic development in their own ridings.

I want to highlight a particular issue. It is rather timely because we have been talking about Bill C-45, which is a new Fisheries Act. When we talk about economic development, we know that sports and recreational fishers are an important contributor to the British Columbia economy. We have many successful economic initiatives in British Columbia and I will highlight one that is in Nanaimo. St. Jean's Salmon Fish Cannery in Nanaimo made a commitment to the sport fishing industry 40 years ago. I will read from its website where it states:

Armand St. Jean had created a cottage industry smoking oysters and canning clam chowder in the back of his garage. He impressed some American sports fishermen, who suggested he turn his hand to canning salmon. The idea made sense to St. Jean, so he fixed up an old boathouse and got to work. The rest is history. Gerard St. Jean joined his father, constructed a new building to house the expanding business, weathered the economic storm of the early 80's and saw the business expand in '86.

From canning salmon, oysters, and chowder, St. Jean's Cannery & Smokehouse expanded to include products like solid white albacore tuna canned without water or oil, canned wild West Coast chanterelle mushrooms, seafood pates, oyster soup and whole butter clams.

The website goes on to read:

What started as a backyard canning operation in 1961 is now virtually the only full-service processor catering to sport fishermen in British Columbia.

That is an example of successful economic development. When we are talking about the spin-offs in industry or in aerospace, there is something economists refer to as the multiplier effect. For every direct job, whether it be in aerospace, the garment industry, shipbuilding or in forestry, two to seven jobs are often spun off. It depends on the industry as to how many jobs will be spun off but I would argue that local economic development initiatives support other suppliers, the transportation sector and their important initiatives in our communities to keep our communities healthy and vibrant.

I want to turn briefly to softwood lumber. We certainly have had some fundamental differences with the Bloc on the softwood lumber agreement. In British Columbia we have talked about the importance of the softwood lumber agreement around economic spin-offs and around regional importance in our communities.

In a press release entitled, “Softwood Lumber Agreement spells trouble for jobs in BC's forest-dependent communities”, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives stated the following:

The new Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement, if it is ratified by the Canadian Parliament--

--and we know it was--

--spells bad news for BC's forest-dependent communities. According to a new Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report, the deal with dampen efforts to move BC's forest industry up the value chain, and will lead to more raw log exports, both of which mean fewer jobs in BC's forest sector.

When we talk about aerospace, the concern people have is not only for the direct jobs but for the spinoff jobs that are so vital. We know the multiplier effect is critical in terms of economic diversity in our communities.

In the same press release, it further states:

The report, Softwood Sellout: How BC Bowed to the US and Got Saddled with the Softwood Lumber Agreement, shows how the BC government made a concerted effort beginning nearly five years ago to fundamentally restructure forest policies in a failed attempt to appease the US softwood lumber lobby. The changes included:

scrapping laws that obligated forest companies to operate certain mills,

scrapping public timber auctions specifically for value-added manufacturers,

scrapping auctions of timber to small, independent mills, and

scrapping prohibitions on wood waste on logging sites.

“These changes and more were made to address US 'perceptions' that BC subsidized its forest industry”, Parfitt says. “None of them were in the public interest. All of them hurt BC communities. Value-added manufacturing is down, raw log exports are up and massive amounts of usable logs are being left on the ground instead of being processed.”

In Nanaimo—Cowichan, we are seeing the impacts of those kinds of policies. Sawmills have closed and pulp and paper mills are in desperate straits because of a lack of access to fibre supply. We are only beginning to see the impacts of this agreement.

We are talking about economic development. We are talking about regional disparities. In British Columbia we are certainly seeing some regional disparities.

The “Softwood Sellout” report made a number of recommendations. I will not be able to cover all of them in the brief time available to me, but one of the things that happened in British Columbia was an end to milling requirements. This was called the impertinency clause and it is particularly important because the impertinency clause talked about the fact that in B.C., a province rich in trees, 95% of the land is crown land. It is owned by the people of B.C. and there was a social contract.

That social contract meant that the trees that were cut down in British Columbia would be milled close to home. It is such an important element. This is a resource owned by the citizens in British Columbia. The citizens of British Columbia absolutely own those trees and therefore the direct benefits should come to our communities.

Instead, what we have seen is a disassembling of that social contract. Raw log exports have increased and the trees are being shipped south of the border to be processed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on the Liberal opposition motion.

Tomorrow morning we will begin debate on the procedural motion relating to the back to work legislation, to which the opposition House leader was referring. Also, we will have Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act, following question period.

On Monday, we would like to conclude the debate on the statutory order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act, which is very important for Canadians for public security reasons. We are also getting down to the deadline when certain provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act will sunset.

I have consulted with the other parties and I will propose a related motion at the end of my business statement.

Next week we will consider the following bills: Bill C-37, financial institutions; Bill C-41, competition; Bill C-11, transport; Bill S-3, defence; Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act; Bill C-36, Canada pension plan and old age security; Bill C-10, mandatory minimum penalties; and depending on developments regarding the railway strike, we may call the procedural motion relating to the back to work legislation.

Thursday, March 1 shall be an allotted day.

As I mentioned earlier, following discussions with the House leaders of the other parties, Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion. I move:

Motion

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, once the Statutory Order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act is called on Monday, February 26, and when no member rises to speak on debate or at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, all questions necessary to dispose of the Statutory Order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act be deemed put, a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, February 27, at 5:30 p.m.

Ontario Fishery Regulations, 1989

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the occasion to rise in the House today to respond to the disallowance resolution tabled by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. I thank the committee for its consideration and its considerable effort in reviewing hundreds of regulations each year and for specifically looking at subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations.

Canada's new government values the insight provided by the committee. However, I must join the minister and the Minister of Natural Resources for the Government of Ontario, the Hon. David Ramsay, in not supporting the committee's resolution to revoke subsection 36(2). Our new government has continuously maintained that the regulation as it stands is legally sound, within the authority of the Fisheries Act, and supported by case law.

This position, I add, is fundamentally the same position that was presented by the previous government. It is with a certain degree of consistency that our new government is supporting a position which is more procedural than it is political, but we do agree that bringing further clarity to compliance with licence terms and conditions as a requirement of the Fisheries Act would be important and useful in managing our fisheries.

We are doing that and more through Bill C-45, which the minister tabled recently, but until such time as Bill C-45 is passed into law and the new fisheries act comes into force, we must keep the regulation in place.

Far be it from me to suggest that politics is playing a role in the actions of the opposition members of the committee in pushing for disallowance. However, I believe it is important to step back and view this matter in context.

I understand the concerns expressed by the committee. However, members of the opposition, when they sat on this side of the House, took the same position as our new government. The apparent flip-flop is what makes average Canadians cynical about the political process.

We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to be accountable for our actions. This includes ensuring that Ontario can continue to conserve and protect its fish stocks and manage its fisheries in an effective manner.

Subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations is crucial to doing so. It makes compliance with licence conditions, which are a part of the rules that protect the fishery, a requirement.

As the minister mentioned, we are talking about 500 commercial licences and some 1,400 commercial bait fishery licences in the province. The landed valued of Ontario's commercial fishery is somewhere around $50 million a year, contributing between $250 million and $400 million to Ontario's and Canada's economies.

Fishing is important in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. As a gateway to beautiful Algonquin Park, its residents are concerned about what effect disallowance will have on conservation efforts in Algonquin Park and all parks. They fail to see where unrestricted fishing in our parks will benefit anyone, which could be a result of a vote of disallowance.

I am pleased to confirm that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters is in total support of our new government and the Government of Ontario in the need to maintain conservation measures to protect the resource.

Our fisheries are valuable and valued resources. Fishing licences, with the terms and conditions they carry, are fundamental to protecting and managing them. They set the rules for and limits on fishing activities to preserve these resources for the future so everyone can have a chance to enjoy and benefit from them.

The provisions of the Fisheries Act and its regulations give the minister the authority not only to issue fishing licences but also to place conditions on them. Fishing licences establish everything from the type and quantity of fish that can be taken to the start and close of particular fisheries, where fishing can take place, and the type of fishing gear that may be used.

Requiring licence holders to comply with the terms and conditions of their licence is one of the most fundamental parts of an enforceable fisheries management regime. Revoking subsection 36(2) would leave Ontario in a state of limbo in enforcing these licence conditions. This could result in potentially dire economic and environmental consequences for Ontario's fishing industry and thousands of Canadians who rely upon it.

Let me share part of a recent letter that was copied to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is from the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources to the standing joint committee joint chairs. It reads:

This subsection currently provides Ontario with a suite of adaptable enforcement tools, resulting in an effective deterrent system to ensure the conservation of the resource and proper conduct of the fishery. It also assures us that the deterrent system will be certain, effective, timely and proportional to the severity of the offence.

In the absence of subsection 36(2), we lose the ability to address licence violations, thus imposing unnecessary hardship to fishers for minor offences. In addition, we would also lose the ability to enforce terms and conditions on fishing licences, which would compromise the management of the commercial fishery and jeopardize conservation objectives.

Clearly, the Ontario minister agrees that licence conditions are a key element of proper fisheries management and control in his province. In other words, they are indispensable to protecting and conserving fishery resources.

By applying for and accepting a licence, fishers agree to go about their business in accordance with attached terms and conditions. They know they will be held accountable if they do not. Fortunately, most fishers follow the rules, but let us make no mistake about it, violations do arise. Revocation of subsection 36(2) would be more than an exercise in legislative authority. It would carry very real impacts in terms of enforcement in the Ontario fishery.

Since the year 2000, more than 400 charges have been laid for failure to comply with this subsection, resulting in fines for the offenders, but I should point out, further to the standing joint committee's concerns, that no jail terms have been imposed.

Let me read for members part of another letter, again from the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources, this time to the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans:

Without this provision, Ontario would literally have its hands tied with respect to the enforcement of the commercial fishery. It is entirely likely that the revocation of subsection 36(2) would result in chaos in the sector and threaten the sustainability of our fisheries resources.

Now consider the same prospect were fisheries governed by eight similar regulations. The standing joint committee has indicated that it would expect these regulations to also be revoked, based on the precedent this House could be setting here today. This would impact the management and conservation of virtually all fisheries in Canada.

Our party and our government accept very seriously our responsibility to the environment. The conservation pledge of the OFAH sums up our position completely:

I give my pledge, as a Canadian, to save and faithfully defend from waste, the natural resources of my Country--its soils and minerals, its air, water, forests, and wildlife.

This pledge of the OFAH is something that members should consider if they feel as strongly as I do when it comes to protecting our environment. Let us make no mistake about it: supporting disallowance of subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fisheries regulations will have an adverse effect on the environment.

As we proceed on this matter, I would like the members of this House to bear two things in mind.

First, by voting against disallowance of subsection 36(2) and returning the report to the standing joint committee, we would not be ignoring this regulatory concern. We would simply be taking a different approach and a more fruitful path for Canada's fisheries and the Canadians who benefit from them.

Second, the changes proposed to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-45 fully address the committee's concern with the regulation in question.

Bill C-45 clarifies that it is a requirement of the act to comply with fishing licence terms and conditions, but unlike a minor amendment bill, which the government would be forced to pursue to fill in the gap created by disallowance, Bill C-45 addresses the committee's issue and provides much more.

It will deliver greater predictability, stability and transparency in the sustainable management of Canada's fisheries. The new fisheries act will require ministers to manage the fishery, taking into account the principles of conservation, habitat protection and greater public input into decision making.

It will open the door to greater collaboration with the provinces, territories and resource users, who will work more closely with government in managing the fishery. It puts into place an effective administrative sanctioning system and brings greater stability and predictability to fishery access and sharing arrangements. It better protects fish habitat and provides a clear and more accountable licensing system.

The new licensing system will be more transparent. The minister will provide a context for all licensing decisions. That means licences will be issued according to the regulations made by the minister, but the minister will have no direct involvement in granting the licences to individuals.

Licensing officers will be the ones issuing licences according to these regulations and, under the new act, licensing officers will have the authority to refuse licences under specified circumstances. They can also attach conditions to the licence for the proper management or control of the fishery as well as the conservation or protection of fish and habitat.

However, under Bill C-45, the possibility of jail time as a penalty for contravening the requirement to comply with licence conditions has been removed.

Stakeholder groups in the provinces and territories have shown strong support for comprehensive changes to the 139 year old Fisheries Act. I do not believe it to be in anyone's interest to delay the speedy debate and approval of Bill C-45. We must move forward on this agenda as expeditiously as possible.

I do not support the standing joint committee's resolution to revoke subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fishery regulations. The better option is to concentrate our efforts on passing Bill C-45. That is why I am asking all members of the House to reject--

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this matter. I should perhaps summarize the ideas expressed to this point since we are going in different directions. We are presently debating the delegated legislation and discussing Bill C-45 and fisheries management in general.

In its 4th report, the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations asked that a part of the Ontario Fishery Regulations be revoked. Although I do not disagree entirely, the committee's conclusions state that the regulation adopted exceeds the authority set out in the act. That is true; however, we must look at the overall picture. A legal void is unacceptable. Consequently, we will support the government's motion to deal with this situation.

A remedy has been presented. However, I feel that the remedy threatens to give rise to more problems than the solution presently provided. At some point we will find ourselves in a legal vacuum.

Although I am not familiar with the Great Lakes fisheries, I do know that they are an immense expanse of water with commercial fishing activities and, primarily, recreational or sport fishing.

I do not feel it would be responsible to say no and just cause problems for the current government on the pretext that there is a problem. There is a legal problem. We have a duty to act responsibly.

That is what the Bloc Québécois has always done and will continue to do. The Bloc will therefore support the motion we are debating.

Given what has been said by the parliamentary secretary, the minister and my Liberal colleague, I do not believe that Bill C-45 has solutions to all the problems with fisheries management.

In my opinion, here again, we have to act responsibly and describe what is really going on. I do not believe that, in its current form, Bill C-45 is really the answer. That is why we are asking to amend the bill and hold public consultations. By meeting with people, stakeholders, fishers from across Canada and Quebec, we will have a more complete picture of the problems with fisheries management.

I would therefore invite the minister to agree to have the committee look at Bill C-45, not to completely change it, but to improve it in order to address the various crises.

The fishing season is about to begin in Quebec and other parts of Atlantic Canada. There are questions that need answers. I believe that, once amended or improved, Bill C-45 will provide some answers. At most, we are talking about next year. We are not talking about this year.

This year, the minister has responsibilities with regard to the season that will be starting for shrimp, crab, lobster and groundfish fishers. He currently has a responsibility regarding other species.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the government is taking too much time to act. I hope that, in the next few hours, the minister will be able to make announcements that will give shrimp fishers, for example, a good idea of what to expect. Shrimpers from New Brunswick and Quebec were here yesterday. I believe that they will be meeting with the minister today. The message is simple.

Last year, I delivered the very same message about how important it is to be able to take serious, meaningful action to help relieve the burden on shrimp boat operators everywhere, and especially in Quebec. This is basically a matter of survival for fishers, for fish plant workers and for coastal communities.

This all leads up to our position. This is about being as responsible and rigorous as always. We realize that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs came to a certain conclusion. We might agree with that conclusion, but in the end, we do not believe it is the best way to solve the problem. We do not expect to find an ideal solution, but this is not the kind of solution we are looking for.

I would go so far as to say that the proposed cure could be worse than the disease. We would end up in a legal void. Fishers would automatically find themselves in situations where they might commit offences. I do not think they would make that kind of mistake, but offences may occur.

Nevertheless, we would end up in a legal void. That means that the responsible thing to do would be to support the motion before us.

Today, the government has put forward an extraordinary measure that we support. That said, we must not make a bad habit of this over the years.

It seems to me that the new Fisheries Act, which is to be passed shortly, should improve the situation. Nevertheless I would once again urge the minister—I am told he is listening—to accept the invitation of the opposition—the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Liberal Party—to send it all to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans immediately, not to drag it out, but to act responsibly and broaden the scope.

I believe this situation calls for everyone's cooperation. If we all row together, we will reach our destination and produce good results. I would urge the minister to give it serious consideration.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what has been said by federal and provincial authorities, while the disallowance of subsection 36(2) may change the manner of enforcing complaints with terms and conditions of licences, it would not affect the ability to impose them.

The authority to issue licences and impose terms and conditions in the licence would remain, as would the ability to enforce them through licence suspensions or cancellations. The imposition of a fine or jail term for breach of a licence condition, as opposed to suspending or cancelling the same licence, has nothing to do with the sustainability of the fishery resource or conservation.

It is not unusual for licensing schemes to be established by federal legislation under which suspension or cancellation is the sole means of enforcing licences. While the enactment of new fisheries legislation may resolve this concern, given the substantive nature of the objection as well as the similar section of other regulations, the committee considers a resolution of this issue should not be delayed any further. It has been going on since 1989.

It is not acceptable that the requirements a citizen must obey upon pain of criminal prosecution be determined by a single official who decides what will or will not include the terms and conditions of a licence. That is the issue.

If I can put on my other hat as a member of Parliament and someone who has deep respect for this place, I believe there is time. This matter is very straightforward. The government could bring forward another piece of legislation to put the enabling clause in the existing Fisheries Act. It could come to the House and I am sure it would get unanimous consent to pass all stages at one sitting. The government has the tools to do it.

Bill C-45, even if it is amended to take into account provincial licensing officials, will not happen for a long period of time. In fact, parties are already clamouring for Bill C-45 to be referred to committee before second reading because they have so many problems with it.

After all this time and delay, it is clear the tools are available to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to address this item, which has been illegal under the laws of Canada because the regulation is not enabled in the legislation. That is the legal opinion of the lawyers from the Parliament of Canada who have been assigned to our committee.

The committee's fourth report, which calls for this disallowance, was unanimously approved. This matter must be dealt with because the regulation is illegal. That is our role.

I believe the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations has done its job. It has shown good faith and given the department every opportunity to correct this error, this illegality. The government now shows that it wants more time. We will have another bill which will totally rewrite the Fisheries Act. It will take many months if not years before the bill ever gets through all the stages of the legislative process. We will be back again asking for the same disallowance.

Now is the time. I ask particularly the Bloc Québécois to consider the concerns that have been raised with regard to whether Bill C-45 addresses this matter. It is the opinion of our officials and of the officials of fisheries that Bill C-45 does not address what the committee has brought to the House. I am pleased the committee has taken this important step again.

It is the sixth time this matter has come before Parliament to be resolved. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not shown good faith over all this period of time. It is time for the House of Commons to vote on this matter to ensure that if it does not take the time to fix it now, the regulation be disallowed.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating the motion tabled by the government.

In short, the exercise of an administrative discretion by individual officials is enforced as if it were law.

The government has agreed to amend the Fisheries Act, and indeed tabled Bill C-45. However, as I mentioned in my point of order at the beginning of debate, fisheries officials have confirmed that Bill C-45 does not address the problem, the illegality of subsection 36(2) of the Ontario fisheries regulations, because it empowers federal officials. It does not impact provincial officials.

The problem raised by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations is that we are talking about provincial officials. The motion is factually incorrect. I believe it is out of order.

However, if the members want to argue—

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we speaking to the bill, to the gist, to the thrust of Bill C-45, or are we speaking on debate about the ability of the bill to come to the House? My understanding is we are speaking to the bill.