Moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-68, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans considered 50 amendments and adopted 35. I will not speak to each amendment today; however, I will provide a quick overview of the major changes.

Following much testimony on the subject, several clauses were amended to clarify which portions of designated projects will be subject to permits. Modifications to the bill helped clarify that only those works, undertaking and activities that would negatively impact fish or fish habitat would be subject to permits.

Amendments were also brought to Bill C-68 to address concerns raised about water flows. For example, clause 21 was amended to remove the requirement for project proponents to manage flows upstream of an obstruction, which the committee heard was onerous and, in many cases, simply impossible.

Clause 1 of the bill was also amended to repeal a change proposed and adopted at committee stage in the House of Commons. The amendment returns the definition of “fish habitat” to the definition first proposed in Bill C-68.

The committee also adopted several amendments to clarify Indigenous rights. These amendments were proposed following testimony and briefs received from many Indigenous organizations.

For example, clause 3 of the bill was amended to reflect the non-derogation wording as proposed in Bill C-91, an Act respecting the Indigenous languages. I would like to thank Senator Christmas for his work on bringing those amendments forward.

Portions of Bill S-203, ending the captivity of whales and dolphins act and Bill S-238, the ban on shark fin importation and exportation act were also incorporated into Bill C-68 in clauses 15 and 18.1 respectively. In addition, the coming into force provisions of Bill C-68 were amended to accommodate these new additions. Habitat banking was also expanded through amendments to allow project proponents to provide offset payments in lieu of habitat credits when deemed appropriate by the minister, clause 22, and to allow for third parties to bank habitat in clause 28.

The committee also heard considerable testimony from fishers and their associations about the integration of the PIIFCAF, the policy on Preserving the Independence of the Inshore Fleet in Canada’s Atlantic Fisheries and the fleet separation policy. For the most part, Atlantic Canada fishers told the committee that these were welcome additions to Bill C-68. Although the policies had been in place for some time, witnesses explained that enforcing these policies was often difficult for DFO. The people involved in the fishing industry have been seeking this enforcement mechanism for many years. Our committee is confident that Bill C-68 protects and enhances, and now provides the enforcement tools to strengthen the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. Melanie Sonnenberg, president of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation noted that once Bill C-68 is passed, these provisions will clearly establish in law the minister’s authority to enforce the owner-operator and fleet separation policies.

However, the committee heard mixed feedback on the integration of similar owner-operator and fleet separation policies on Canada’s Pacific coast. The committee also heard how difficult a transition from the current regime to a new regime could be. The committee understands these difficulties but certainly hopes the DFO continues to consult fishers on the West Coast of Canada on these very important matters.

During its study of Bill C-68, the committee also heard testimony regarding succession planning for family-owned fishing enterprises and the need to integrate shore skipper status into the bill for this reason. Following that particular testimony, Minister Wilkinson sent me a letter noting that consultations had been undertaken by the department on the subject, although feedback had been mixed.

In his letter, he noted that DFO would pursue further dialogue with stakeholders about the issue of substitute operator allowances in order to identify a strong and fair regime that will balance needed flexibilities while also striving to preserve the underlying objectives of the owner-operator policy. I would like to thank the minister for his letter and his willingness to address this matter, and we look forward to further clarification.

I also would like to take the opportunity to say that I was approached by Senator Black, who raised an issue with me. I want to make sure that it is brought into my speech today. His concern was there was a lot of concern about the bill when it came to the Senate because of an amendment that was made in the other place. That amendment changed the definition of “fish habitat” to include any body of water that could support fish. Senator Black’s concern was that this would include puddles in the middle of a field, trenches dug along farm land, et cetera. There was a great deal of concern about the impact this would have on primary agriculture and this was raised and brought up to Senator Black during several stakeholder meetings that he had over the past several months. He wanted me to assure him that the amendments the committee put forward in the bill resolved this issue.

I want to thank Senator Black for raising the concern with us and for his continued hard work and representation on behalf of the thousands of individuals and families involved in Canada’s agriculture industry.

Our committee also heard testimony from agriculture groups that reflect the concerns raised, but also heard similar concerns from other industry stakeholders. In fact, many witnesses suggested that the definition of “fish habitat” be changed back to what was originally proposed in Bill C-68. As I mentioned earlier, clause 1 of Bill C-68 was amended by the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to repeal the amendment proposed and adopted at committee stage in the House of Commons to designate water flow as fish habitat. The amendment therefore returns that portion of the clause to its original form as first introduced in the House of Commons.

In addition to this, during clause-by-clause consideration, Mr. Nicholas Winfield, director general of Ecosystems Management at Fisheries and Oceans Canada assured our committee members that the department had met with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and other agriculture groups and associations to consult on Bill C-68. Mr. Winfield also confirmed that these groups would be consulted should DFO develop any regulations that could impact their ability to undertake these activities. Our committee is hoping that DFO lives up to its commitment of consultation put forward by Mr. Winfield. Once again, I thank Senator Black for raising this important issue with us.

Honourable senators, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the committee for their thoughtfulness and time they devoted to consideration of Bill C-68. In particular, I wish to recognize Senator Gold, the deputy chair, for his work. We don’t see eye to eye on everything, as you would understand, but we get along well. Members have devoted their time and effort to Bill C-68 and, previous to that, to Bill C-55, which required a fair amount of work. I also want to take the opportunity to thank our clerk Chantal Cardinal and our analyst Daniele Lafrance for their work with the committee and for putting a lot of time and effort into ensuring that we finish our work.

When it will become law, this bill will affect many stakeholders such as Indigenous organizations, environmental groups, multiple industry sectors and more. We had a chance to hear from many of these groups and receive many briefs. As chair of the committee, I want to take this opportunity to thank our witnesses and those who provided briefs to the committee and the knowledge and expertise they brought to the table, especially for people who may not be as familiar with the fishing industry as those people are.

Honourable senators, I look forward to seeing Bill C-68 move forward here and welcome any further participation in the debate.

I have a question for Senator Manning, if he would take it.

Senator Manning, would you accept a question?

Yes.

Senator Manning, thank you very much for your speech and for you leadership on the committee, on which I sit. We had a fairly robust discussion on habitat banking, led by Senator Christmas at times, Senator Griffin at times, and by me. There was some commentary from DFO regarding habitat banking. Of course, the amendments at committee passed. Could you give us some comment on your view of habitat banking and how that’s helpful to habitat and the natural resource industries?

Thank you, Senator Wells. As you are aware, we passed several amendments in our committee on habitat banking to address the concerns of protection of the habitat, but certainly in cases where other industries are involved, sometimes we do encroach on habitat. In the process of habitat banking, with the amendments that we have put forward, we hope that companies and different industries will be able to build up credits to bring forward to address habitat banking and ensure not only the protection of habitat, which I think we all are concerned about, but the fact that other industries also operate in the ocean. We have to make sure we find ways to accommodate all the industries that provide economic activity to many Canadians from coast to coast.

Being from Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishing industry is very important to our province, our tourism industry and our oil and gas industry. All of these industries operate with the ocean around us. There are agreements made and everybody comes to the table and makes a concerted effort to make sure we protect the environment, we protect the ocean, but we also find ways to provide the necessary economic activity.

I think the amendments we brought forward through the bill address those concerns and habitat banking will be a way of making sure that we consider all of the issues that are out there, but at the same time make sure we move forward.

Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading of Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act and several other acts.

My real concern in relation to this bill is its effect on the fishers in my constituency. I come here today with the words of fishers across the country, including many from New Brunswick. For months, I have received letters imploring me to support the legislation before us. I have also met with industry representatives several times, and they have told me what this bill means to them.

The list of representatives includes Carl Allen, President of the Maritime Fisherman’s Union, who is a constituent of mine. Indeed, he lives close to my home. I make this point to demonstrate to you how much my region is defined by the men and women who work in the fishery. It is not just a question of those who go out on the water to harvest fish; it is a question of jobs created in our communities by those same people who invest their money locally. In short, the fishery is the epicentre of local economies that rely on a resilient fishery to sustain the people who live there.

I am torn on the bill. It has serious flaws that should be addressed and, indeed, have been addressed in many of the amendments. However, the people I represent are steadfast in supporting a key tenet. It is this part of the bill I will focus on.

When meeting with our fishermen and fisherwomen, what struck me was their unity. That’s very interesting if you have ever been to a meeting of a fishermen’s union. It is rare to see any two Maritimers agree on anything, let alone a whole swath of an industry. Independent fishermen in the Maritimes have been clear: They believe Bill C-68 will protect a foundational principle that has always defined our fishery. That principle is that of fleet separation and ensuring fishermen remain owner operators.

As someone who lives in a rural community on the Atlantic coast, I can see the concerns they have raised about a hollowing-out effect if we don’t protect our fish harvesters. Up and down our East Coast, independent fishers are an essential, integral component of the communities they live in. Many of these predominantly rural communities are just holding on by the skin of their teeth to their economy. Coastal economies in the East are struggling to avoid being swallowed whole by large corporations that buy licences en mass and administer them through controlling agreements.

Fishermen have told me how their lives have been directly affected. Wages on a controlled boat are much lower than what an independent fisherman would receive. Much of what fishermen earn in these cases is paid out to the big corporation. This can and, anecdotally speaking, has resulted in captains having to pay their crews out of savings from previous harvests.

It can often be difficult to find out who these corporations are. Fishers associations have tried to identify who is responsible for these conditions and have been met with stonewalling either from searching through various numbered corporations and shell companies or from our own officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans failing to answer.

Controlling agreements offered by these corporations are managed for the benefit of multinationals. Canadian fishermen want a fishery managed for their benefit and do not want to work under these conditions.

This issue affects all fishermen. My constituents tell me that while Indigenous fishermen hold the control of their licences, further encroachment by multinationals would result in ownership in name only and erode the role that this traditional knowledge has always had in sustaining our fishery.

Independent fishermen are shrewd environmental stewards who are invested in keeping our resource safe and sustainable for now and generations to come. This attitude is essential for keeping our rural communities alive and would be lost if major corporations that are not accountable to the communities they work in take over.

The fishermen in my province are convinced that this bill is the tool they need to use to protect their livelihoods and communities both now and in future. Industry representatives I’ve met with have framed the codification of fleet separation and owner operators as the deal of the century. They fear that if this bill does not pass, they may not see it codified in law again.

This strong support brings me back again to the serious reservations I have. Bill C-68 is a step backward from the measures the previous government took in 2012. Before 2012, it was difficult to even dig a ditch in certain areas, and Bill C-68 will no doubt make it difficult once more for those in the energy, gas and agricultural sectors if the amendments are not adopted.

However, we have an election in October — an election that may replace the current government with one committed to both responsible development and economic growth. I’m confident that a new government would be able to reverse the worst elements in this bill while keeping essential protections our fishermen are asking for.

I would truly add to my speaker notes that I think that when we come back, the Fisheries Committee should do an investigation of the licensing process in this country regarding who are holding the licences. Specifically, the West Coast fisheries are more concerned about this. East Coast fisheries have managed to hold the line a bit. We can lose our own natural resource if we don’t protect our industry.

As a New Brunswick senator and someone who strongly believes in representing the people, I listen to my constituents. I have publicly said that on serious issues my vote must reflect the wishes of those I represent. In this case, New Brunswick’s fishermen have been clear. Fishermen in New Brunswick and across the country have told me they need this law — that it is critical for their future — so I will vote in support of this bill.

I urge my colleagues from the Maritimes and Atlantic Canada to carefully consider how they vote on this legislation. Thank you, senators.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division, and report adopted.)

Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Christmas, bill, as amended, placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)