Bill C-55 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act

This enactment amends the Oceans Act to, among other things,
(a) clarify the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to establish a national network of marine protected areas;
(b) empower the Minister to designate marine protected areas by order and prohibit certain activities in those areas;
(c) provide that, within five years after the day on which the order of the Minister designating a marine protected area comes into force, the Minister is to make a recommendation to the Governor in Council to make regulations to replace that order or is to repeal it;
(d) provide that the Governor in Council and Minister cannot use the lack of scientific certainty regarding the risks posed by any activity as a reason to postpone or refrain from exercising their powers or performing their duties and functions under subsection 35(3) or 35.‍1(2);
(e) update and strengthen the powers of enforcement officers;
(f) update the Act’s offence provisions, in particular to increase the amount of fines and to provide that ships may be subject to the offence provisions; and
(g) create new offences for a person or ship that engages in prohibited activities within a marine protected area designated by an order or that contravenes certain orders.
This enactment also makes amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to, among other things,
(a) expand the Governor in Council’s authority to prohibit an interest owner from commencing or continuing a work or activity in a marine protected area that is designated under the Oceans Act;
(b) empower the competent Minister under the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to cancel an interest that is located in a marine protected area that is designated under the Oceans Act or in an area of the sea that may be so designated; and
(c) provide for compensation to the interest owner for the cancellation or surrender of such an interest.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to speak with somebody from the other coast. I'm from British Columbia.

We too have been looking at marine protected areas and the impact, on the north coast especially, because some have been put in place up there.

There may be a little clarity needed with respect to Bill C-55. I'm just going to read this. “Clause 5 of the bill amends the Oceans Act to empower the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to prohibit certain activities within a marine area of interest...identified for conservation...”.

This is, if you like, an emergency measure to deal with what the department and the people on the ground see as a troubling issue. We could perhaps think back to 1992 when the cod moratorium was instituted in Newfoundland and along the coast. We saw that coming. A provision like this perhaps could have prevented such a drastic collapse of that fishery, when everybody knew that things were under stress and something needed to be done.

The main element of Bill C-55 is to give the minister powers to basically freeze the activities in a certain area, using the precautionary principle, while they look at the elements that may be necessary for a marine protected area sometime in the future. What we heard generally here was an interest in preventing certain things, especially oil and gas exploration and seismic testing, but not so much to change the fishing activities that were going on.

If this provision comes in, although some fishing closures might take place, for the most part, the focus—which at least I heard anyway—is on the extraction industries. If we look now at your areas of interest and your commercial activities, have you noticed any particular changes with respect to what you fish and where you fish, or has it been, if you like, fairly constant over the years?

[Kenneth Arsenault]

I represent the oyster fishery, soft shell clam fishery, and the quahog fishery. We did see changes in the tides in P.E.I. over the last 10 to 20 years. It's hard to say how much.

You asked if we were consulted on the MPAs. I would have to say no. I've only been the president for a couple of months, and Friday was the first I heard about it, about MPAs or this new Bill C-55.. I've had limited time to do any research, or make a presentation to the committee today, so I apologize for that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Bill C-55 has been described by the minister, and indeed the government, as a way to fast-forward our marine protected areas program. We are pushing the government to make sure we get this right. When you are dealing with people's lives and livelihoods, you should be getting it right. Would you agree that if it takes seven years or nine years to get it right, we should be doing what we need to do to make sure that it is right and that any negative impacts are mitigated?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Are you also aware—and this is for the panel—that Bill C-55 gives powers of authority to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as well as the Minister of Natural Resources, as it pertains to MPAs and natural resources?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our guests.

Mr. MacPherson, you could not have spoken truer words in your opening comments than when you said more time is needed in terms of getting it right as we move forward with a piece of legislation that is going to impact so many people who live in our coastal communities and depend on fishing to support their families, to support others, and to support their communities.

Bill C-55 is being pushed through very quickly. On this side at least, we feel that adequate consultation has not been done. In your earlier comments, you were saying that the tight timelines to accomplish these goals make you feel that it is being rushed through.

We all agree that we should do whatever we can to conserve our waters and make sure the fish are there for the future. There's probably nobody else in this room who understands that more than the three there.

Bill C-55 will have an impact on our coastal communities. It will mean fisheries closures. The minister was before us last week and did state that there will be fisheries closures.

One of the things you commented on was that there was compensation. You were happy to see that there was compensation for displaced fishers. Did you know that Bill C-55 does not offer compensation for fishers? It only offers compensation for oil and gas companies if their certificate has been pulled.

[Ian MacPherson]

Thank you, Chairman Simms.

The Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association once again welcomes the opportunity to present to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

My name is Ian MacPherson, and I am the executive director of PEIFA. Our president, Bobby Jenkins, was unable to attend this morning. He sends his regrets. I am joined, though, by Melanie Giffin, our PEIFA staff member who is handling the marine protected area file. Melanie is a lobster biologist and also has extensive knowledge regarding other marine species.

With all due respect to the committee, I would like to request that, in future, more lead time be provided to our organization when requesting a presentation to the committee. We were invited this past Friday afternoon to present this morning. There are many important files occurring in the fishery at present, and we have a keen desire to make our presentation as complete and informative as possible. We thank you for your consideration of our request.

The PEIFA represents 1,280 independent owner-operators who participate in our local fishery. Each of our captains has a sizable investment in equipment, training, and sweat equity to make their fleet successful. Therefore, very few people connected with the fishery have a bigger personal investment at risk should our fisheries not remain viable and sustainable. As a side note, we would like to commend Minister LeBlanc and this committee for supporting the strengthening of the owner-operator and fleet separation policies at this critical time.

The harvesters of Prince Edward Island have supported many conservation and gear reduction initiatives and the Marine Stewardship Council certification of our lobster fishery. These efforts are assisting in keeping our fisheries viable for Canadian generations to come. Therefore, when we speak of our concerns with the marine protected area and Bill C-55, we are speaking from the perspective of making our fisheries better. Recent announcements have confirmed that Canada has met the 5% target on MPAs with a further 5% being targeted by 2020. We know that these areas will be national in scope, and for the most part the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is our fishing area, has not been significantly impacted at this time. However, several areas are under consideration. Our concerns rest with a number of unanswered questions regarding the MPA program, how the process is being conducted, and the lack of new information.

In terms of some proposed changes outlined in Bill C-55, the PEIFA has been a strong advocate of enforcing the rules and regulations around the fishery and setting sufficient deterrents to prevent future abuses. There have been cases in the past when fines have been viewed more as a cost of doing business rather than the deterrent they are supposed to be. The PEIFA is not in a position to comment on the amounts of fines that are stipulated in the offences and punishments section of the national strategy, proposed sections 39.6 to 39.92. We do, however, support updating and strengthening the powers of enforcement officers as outlined.

We are supportive of a review process that will assess whether an MPA is achieving some, or any, of its intended targets after five years. We support the suggestion that compensation may be provided to an interest owner should their activity be discontinued because of the marine protected area designation.

The PEIFA continues to have numerous concerns around the proposed oil and gas development known as Old Harry in the waters off Newfoundland and Quebec in the Magdalen Islands. We find it contradictory that we can be discussing MPAs in one area of the gulf, and oil and gas development in the same general vicinity. As we understand it now, you can have a limited fishing zone in a designated MPA area, yet oil and gas development may be allowed. This is a troubling example. The continued granting of exploration permits for this area and the suggestion that a rigorous environmental assessment will ensure safe exploration are also troubling to the harvesters in the gulf. This suggests that this type of development is a fait accompli. MPAs and oil and gas development do not mix. Bill C-55 should reflect this.

The PEIFA has specific questions on MPAs that require answers or clarification.

One, we understand that some areas may be shut down with exemptions. What does that mean, and how will it work?

Two, if an MPA is declared but target results are not achieved, how will this be assessed? How often will MPAs be reviewed?

Three, is there a possibility that some protected species will be identified and others can be added after an MPA opening? Will there be additional consultation if this happens?

Four, is the Governor in Council able to make decisions separate from the minister? Why is this role being expanded?

At present there are two newsletters per year being produced with updates on the MPA process. We find this to be too little information, too infrequently.

We would like to have language added to the proposed changes which stipulates that more industry consultation take place before an MPA is designated. We are keenly aware that the federal Ministry of Fisheries has had and continues to have ultimate discretion in making decisions involving the Canadian fishery.

The PEIFA is advocating for a process that is transparent and more inclusive of the experts who make their living from the ocean. This is a serious, long-lasting process that requires a high degree of dialogue and true consultation. Recent issues with whale mortality in the Gulf of St. Lawrence underscore that the ocean is a fast-changing environment. We must also have a process that addresses these changes while not severely limiting the ability of our harvesters to supply food for Canada and beyond.

We ask the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to take our input into consideration when drafting changes to Bill C-55.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We're going to break, and then we're going to go straight to our guests next.

Do you want to do it before we go into Bill C-55?

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

There we go, Mr. Speaker, she answered the question. That is exactly what I said the Liberals are worried about, their brand. She said that it was because of their “brand”. Oh my gosh, the arrogance is staggering.

Let me speak first to this “FYI”. It is not about the brand of the Prime Minister, it is about the policy that impacts Canadians. We know that 80% of Canadians pay more tax under the current government than they did with us.

Let me also talk about the consultations of the Liberals. Whether it is with respect to Bill C-63 or Bill C-55, Canadians are saying that the current government is not listening to them. Therefore, in my file on fisheries, oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard, time and again, Canadians, whether they are our first nations, stakeholders, fishermen, or farmers, those people at the grassroots are telling us that the Liberals are not listening. They are more worried about their brand than they are about Canadians. That is the problem.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the topic of first nations co-management, the federal government's commitments to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and working in true nation-to-nation relationships with Canada's Indigenous peoples, consistent with the Canadian Constitution, should be reflected in the Oceans Act. Marine protected areas are an opportunity to advance reconciliation. Bill C-55, however, fails to include specific provisions to accomplish this.

There are already successful examples in Canada of co-management that the government can look to for guidance and inspiration, for example, the co-management agreement between the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada over Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, or Parks Canada's co-operative management model in the Arctic.

Is the government considering including in Bill C-55 recognition of indigenous governance rights and co-governance models, appropriate recognition of indigenous protected and conserved areas, and—I think you've spoken to this—the delegation of monitoring and enforcement authority to indigenous guardians?

[Kevin Stringer]

That's a really good question. First of all, it's incumbent upon us to ensure that we are working with the other agencies. Particularly in the last two years, as we've launched the process to get to 5% by this year, we have had close coordination between DFO, Parks Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. Also, CIRNA—the department formerly known as INAC—NRCan, and Transport Canada are all involved, working closely together on these things.

One of the purposes in Bill C-55 is to provide clear direction: this is an area that we are going to protect, and the Government of Canada will not look at any other new developments that aren't currently taking place during the period in which we're reviewing it over the next five years.

[Kevin Stringer]

A big part of the purpose of Bill C-55 is to ensure that we're actually applying a legal protection, so that it wouldn't be possible to move forward with other regulatory measures, regardless of which department, whether it's Transport or whatever department—

[Kevin Stringer]

I don't know. We heard it last week from this committee. We've heard it this week from this committee. We need to reflect on that. We need to make sure we're fully engaged. You'll see when we table, that we've done a lot of engagement, but we need to reflect on that and make sure we are. Again, Bill C-55 gives us some tools to be able to do that effectively, and some comfort that we're going to engage before things get locked down. The fishery groups and community groups are our partners in stewardship, and we need them on board for these things to be as effective as they can. We need to make sure we are doing that.

[Kevin Stringer]

One thing that Bill C-55 should help with is to ensure that we have the time. You're identifying that we have enough information to say that an area is going to be protected; then we freeze the footprint, which basically means fishing that was going on before and other activities that were going on before can continue, but no new activities.

We take the time. We give ourselves five years to engage to do the socio-economic analysis—there has to be some done ahead of time as well—and to engage communities, etc.

We need to take the time. We understand how important this is to communities and are as concerned as you are as fishermen express concerns.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Let me move on to the next question, because we're short on time.

You mentioned—and Mr. Stringer, I believe, backed it up—that with the Bill C-55 process, areas are closed unless there are exceptions made. This has fishermen in Atlantic Canada terrified. We heard this in testimony over the past few weeks while we were out there. They are concerned that once an area is closed, it's never reopened.

What are you telling their families? What are you telling fishermen on the Atlantic coast?

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you to my colleague for sharing his time, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

My question today may or may not be relevant to Bill C-55, but I want to talk about CAST, Collaboration for Atlantic Salmon Tomorrow. In my riding, of course, it has a major effect on determining whether we can help the salmon survive.

As you surely know, CAST is in trouble right now. There have been some issues, and it's very hard to know exactly where the issues lie. Tomorrow I will be meeting with two of the chiefs in my riding about this.

I would like to have some information about where we are and why this is stalled at this time. A lot of investment has been put in there, including private money, government, scientific research, universities. We're almost at a point at which some might pull the plug on this.

I would like information on where this stands and what the real issue is.