Bill No. 24 - Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act - 3rd Reading

CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : We have spoken to this a couple of times, as my colleague said. On third reading, I'll reiterate, in light of the stated purpose of this bill, which is efficiency, it is our position that effectiveness trumps efficiency.

Here, as we heard eloquently spoken of by my colleague, the member for Clare, although to a different point, effectiveness relies on trust. We remain concerned that these legislative changes are happening in the absence of a regulatory review. Just to remind folks, these regulations are subject to review every five years, and in the terms of reference of the Nova Scotia Aquaculture Regulatory Advisory Committee, and I'll table these, it says in the background:

"The panel recommended that the process of implementing the proposed framework be regarded as the beginning of an ongoing process of continuous regulatory improvement, rather than as a one-time regulatory reform that ends with the implementation of the recommendations. This is the rationale for establishing the Aquaculture Regulatory Advisory Committee."

People are eager to see a review of the regulations because there are concerns about whether there's adequate communication right now with communities and individuals and whether the department is, in some people's eyes, perceived as being biased. Again, I think the effectiveness relies on a basis of trust, and that trust can easily be engendered by following the five-year review, which, again, is overdue.

That review was recommended by the Doelle-Lahey report, and to quote from that report, which I've previously tabled in this House:

"Another important rationale for a mandatory and independent five-year review is that it puts the DFA on notice that it will be accountable at the end of five years for showing that the regulatory framework has been diligently and effectively implemented. This will help to ensure that the commitment to producing a world-class regulatory framework that was expressed when we were appointed to develop a new regulatory framework will be maintained through the process of translating our recommendations into effective action."

We know, as I have mentioned earlier, that this advisory committee has not been meeting regularly and in fact their meetings have diminished in frequency since the establishment of that committee, so without offering an opinion on the content of this specific bill, it is our position that this legislation, and any other legislation related to this specific area, should not go forward in the absence of that review. If the government is serious about regulatory reform, if the government is serious about social licence, then there is no need to rush legislative change in the absence of that review. For that reason, we will not be supporting this legislation.