Bill C-68 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 6, 2018
- Debated in principleApril 16, 2018
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 20, 2018
- Passed the second chamberJune 6, 2019
- Became lawJune 20, 2019
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament at [email protected]. On 6 February 2018, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard introduced Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-68 amends the Fisheries Act to, among other things, (a) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister shall consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, include provisions respecting the consideration and protection of traditional knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, and authorize the making of agreements with Indigenous governing bodies to further the purpose of the Fisheries Act; (b) add a purpose clause and considerations for decision-making under that Act; (c) empower the Minister to e…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
40% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (23,040 words introduced, 20,313 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core amendments on Indigenous rights consideration, knowledge protection, advisory panels, habitat rules and enforcement were retained with only wording tweaks. New fish-stock maintenance and rebuilding duties were added, and the Indigenous-rights clause was strengthened.
- Changed the non-derogation clause on section 35 rights from a 'for greater certainty' savings clause to an affirmative upholding obligation.
Before: “For greater certainty, nothing in this Act is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from the protection provided for the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 .”
After: “This Act is to be construed as upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 , and not as abrogating or derogating from them.”
- Replaced the term 'traditional knowledge' with 'Indigenous knowledge' throughout the decision-making considerations.
Before: “traditional knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada that has been provided to the Minister;”
After: “Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada that has been provided to the Minister;”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill uses many subjective phrases that turn on ministerial opinion or assessments of appropriateness rather than fixed, objective rules. Defined terms and numeric limits exist but are outnumbered by open-ended grants of power.
Open to argument
“impose any conditions that he or she considers appropriate in the”
Leaves the content of permits entirely to the Minister's subjective judgment.“If the Minister is of the opinion that it is not feasible or appropriate, for cultural reasons or because of adverse socio-economic impacts”
Key obligation can be avoided on the basis of the Minister's personal view of feasibility or appropriateness.“the Minister considers likely to result in the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat”
Designation power hinges on a predictive and evaluative standard open to debate.“If the Minister considers that doing so is necessary to ensure the free passage of fish or the protection of fish or fish habitat”
Trigger for orders rests on the Minister's assessment of necessity.
Clear-cut
“which shall not exceed 45 days from the day on which the order is issued”
Hard numeric cap on duration of fisheries management orders.“sedentary species means any organism that, at the harvestable stage, either is immobile on or under the seabed or is unable to move except by remaining in constant physical contact with the seabed or subsoil”
Provides a clear, observable biological test.“Fees that are fixed under subsection (1) shall not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the service or the use of the facility”
Objective ceiling tied to actual cost.
Discretion. Ministers, fishery officers and prescribed persons may issue orders, set conditions, designate projects, refuse licences, and decide what measures are necessary or appropriate in dozens of provisions, with publication and consultation requirements also left to their choice of manner.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'in the opinion of the Minister' and similar subjective standards creates a plausible vagueness or overbreadth challenge under the Charter doctrines, particularly where liberty or property interests are affected.
Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of breaching an order or condition can readily dispute whether the Minister's view of necessity, appropriateness or likelihood was correct or whether alternatives existed.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
too early to tell
The 2022 DFO internal audit found a management framework in place for implementing Bill C-68 commitments but identified needs for better integration, capacity, and finalized regulations/guidance as of mid-2021. The statutory five-year review by the House Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO) remains ongoing with its report expected in spring 2026, and no comprehensive outcome evaluations of fish habitat protections or other goals have been completed by official bodies.
- Audit of the Implementation of the Fisheries Act (DFO Internal Audit, Project 6B313)auditThe Department had a framework in place to support implementation of amended Fisheries Act commitments through committees and plans, but opportunities exist to adopt an integrated approach, address capacity gaps, and finalize regulations/guidance.
- FOPO Review of the Fisheries Act (ongoing)reviewThe committee's comprehensive review of the Fisheries Act, including 2019 amendments, concluded hearings in December 2025 with a report and recommendations expected in spring 2026.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.