Thank you.
On the MERAs, we are just reflecting that Parks Canada itself has also recommended that this policy be updated.
Regarding oil and gas, we submit that marine protected areas should exclude all oil and gas development, including seismic activity. It's just not compatible with protection.
At the moment, officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have told us that they are not entertaining marine protected areas where there may be existing oil and gas rights. This is under the 30-year-old Canada Petroleum Resources Act, which gave petroleum absolute priority over every other value and did not consider any other value. We think this is wrong and should be changed. We also believe that it is wrong-headed to provide indefinite rights, as the Canada Petroleum Resources Act does. To give indefinite rights is just not defensible.
Finally, we submit that the revisions of the Oceans Act that are coming our way should consider new approaches, such as Inuit marine protected areas where, when there is a clear expression of a desire to protect the marine area by the community, a rapid process—not a 30-year process—to deploy that protection should ensue, driven by the community itself and assisted by the Government of Canada. Inuit conservation management, allowing for continued harvesting and community uses, would be paramount.
I'd just like to conclude.
The Arctic is a heritage that is important not only to the communities that are there; it's also a heritage that Canada holds for the rest of the planet as well. It is vital for the well-being of communities. It's also vital for the planet. We believe that a minimum goal of 30% protection over the long term, perhaps more, is what we should be aiming for.
Thank you.