Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm going to ask Mr. Méla to go to the microphone, please.

Thank you.

[Philippe Méla]

I can try.

My understanding of the difference between Ms. May's and Mr. Donnelly's amendments is that Ms. May is proposing to have a regulation that prohibits a number of activities and Mr. Donnelly would like to entrench that in the act. So at the end of the day the result is the same. One is done by regulation and the other is done by the act, except for paragraph (e), which is not included in yours.

It's a question of which the committee prefers, without (e) or with (e), basically, or regulations versus the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Méla.

Mr. Hardie.

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

I think the intent of both PV-2 and NDP-3 are good. They're great, although I would argue whether they should go into the act, hard-wire it in, versus being in regulation, which gives you a bit more flexibility.

In regard to the flexibility that putting it in the regulations allows, there's going to be a national advisory panel on MPA standards, and they'll actually, we would presume, drill down deeper into what should be in the regulations and what shouldn't be in the regulations. If we didn't have that process under way, we could support PV-2 and discuss whether it'd be PV-2 or NDP-3. But with that process under way, I think we'd be better just to stand back, let that process take place, and then see what emerges in the regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We are voting on PV-2, as moved by Ms. May.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We're at GP-3. Ms. May, you have the floor.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, this is, again, to allow the minister to have more capacity to prohibit extractive activities. It's permissive, not mandatory.

“Extractive activity” is defined as activity that removes or extracts any resource from an area, and includes fishing. Extractive activity would be oil, gas, mineral, or fishing, but again it is a permissive regulatory capacity being created for the minister, and there's nothing mandatory here.

I certainly think that this would conform, as I mentioned earlier, to the evidence from many witnesses as well as where we know the Canadian public thinks a marine protected area should be. I hope you'll consider this one.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Hardie.

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

This is an area where the distinction between an interim order and a fully declared marine protected area becomes important, because the amendment is beyond the minister's scope of power under ministerial order. In order to make this stick, he would have to declare a full marine protected area. In this bill, he's only talking about an interim order, so basically, he wouldn't be allowed to do this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Do you have any further discussion, Ms. May?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I don't know if I'm allowed to do this, but I just wanted to ask officials if that's actually the case, that he couldn't provide on an interim basis action to ensure that extractive activity wasn't occurring under an interim protected area's status for the area in question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. MacDonald.

[Jeff MacDonald]

I'll have to go back to the section on the interim protection order. In the interim protection order in Bill C-55, as it reads right now, the minister has to list ongoing activities. If an ongoing activity is an extractive activity, he would have to list it as an ongoing activity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

We're voting on PV-3.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Now we go to NDP-2.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Mr. Chair, this relates to proposed section 35.11. It would require that new MPAs include a no-take zone covering, at minimum, 70% of the entire MPA.

We're saying that Bill C-55, in clause 5, should be amended by adding after line 40 on page 3 the following:

35.11 (1) A regulation made under section 35 after the day on which this section comes into force that designates a marine protected area or an order made under section 35.1 must provide that extractive activities are prohibited in at least 70% of the area of the sea that is designated by the regulation or order. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), extractive activity means an activity that removes or extracts any resource from the area and includes fishing.

I just want to add that scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that no-take fishing areas are a key component of effective MPAs. Recent research shows MPAs that permit “varying levels of...fishing and other activities, are less effective at achieving biodiversity than fully protected areas”. I refer to Dr. Fuller from Ecology Action Centre, who testified that MPAs' core no-take zones should encompass around 70% of a given MPA.

Canada is nowhere close to reaching that high bar. Right now, the minister has the discretion to determine what activities are allowed in an MPA and how restrictive each zone is or can be in an MPA. So far, Canada's fisheries minister has implemented a no-take zone in only five MPAs to date. Those areas are tiny in comparison to the overall MPA. Canada should follow international examples and make no-take zones the rule rather than the exception in MPAs.

This amendment is based on the brief provided and committee testimony from leading environmental organizations in Canada who are working on MPAs. I'll just mention those—I've mentioned them before—West Coast Environmental Law, East Coast Environmental Law, Ecology Action Centre, CPAWS, WWF-Canada, David Suzuki Foundation, and the Conservation Council of New Brunswick.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Hardie.

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

I think the same comment applies to NDP-2 as it did to the previous PV-3. It goes beyond the scope of the minister's authority to designate an interim MPA. If he was designating a full-fledged MPA, then this obviously could apply, but not in the case of an interim MPA.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Seeing no further discussion, shall NDP-2 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Now we go to NDP-3. This one was linked, wasn't it?

[A voice]

It's similar.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It's similar, yes, as we discussed before, but we still have to go through the procedure of voting on NDP-3.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't read out all of proposed section 35.11(a)(b)(c)(d) and (e). You can see it's in front of you. I'm going to assume, given what Mr. Hardie mentioned previously, that it will apply to this one in terms of the committee that's going to be struck to look at this, in looking at the national committee to look at minimum protection standards. However, we're obviously anxious to see that happen now. I think we've had years where we've only been at 1% protection. The government is saying we're now at 5%. We'd like to know what minimum protection includes and the activities allowed. We would argue to include those subsections in 35.11 now. This amends the act to include a set of minimum protection standards for all proposed future MPAs and those prohibitions are oil and gas and mineral exploration and development, wind farms and tidal power, open net aquaculture, bottom trawling, and ocean dumping.

We've heard earlier that polling from WWF-Canada shows that 80% of Canadians believe that MPAs should not allow oil and gas activities, and that 87% believe MPAs should not allow bottom trawling. The recent public outcry over a proposal to allow oil and gas in the proposed Laurentian Channel MPA shows the depth of public support for oil-free MPAs. We're certainly arguing to listen to what the public is saying and include it now in Bill C-55

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Shall amendment NDP-3 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

We now go to CPC-10.

Mr. Doherty.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would put a reporting clause into Bill C-55, a responsibility for the minister to report back to Parliament within a year of an interim marine protected area. We are suggesting.... Again, I'll take it back a bit. Time and again, whether it's this study that we've done, the Fisheries Act review, the northern cod study, or the Atlantic salmon study, what we've heard previously is that initiatives have been launched or the department has come before the committee and—no offence to those who are here—has promised to do better and be better. But as we've seen from testimony and have gone through for years and years, we're not seeing some of the results that we perhaps would have anticipated or desired in any of the processes that have been put in place.

This is merely a management tool. It is an opportunity for the minister to come back and say what has been working well and what hasn't been working, perhaps. It includes stakeholder feedback as well, and it really gives Parliament and this committee an opportunity to then be able go back to Canadians again, as we talked about throughout the testimony in this and other studies. If it's working out, it is an opportunity for the government to say what is an overwhelming success and, if it isn't, to say, “Here are the challenges and here's how we're going to adapt it.”

Mr. Chair, what we are recommending is that, on page 3, clause 5 be amended by adding after line 40 the following:

(4) The Minister shall, within a year after the coming into force of this section and as soon as feasible after the end of each fiscal year after that, prepare and cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a report that (a) focusses on the operation of this section; (b) lists the marine protected areas designated during the relevant reporting period; (c) sets out the extent to which the conservation objectives stated for each marine protected area designated under subsection (2) have been achieved; and (d) sets out any recommendations for further steps to be taken in order to achieve the stated conservation objectives in relation to each marine protected area designated under subsection (2).

Mr. Chair, I'll leave the committee with this final comment. We have heard from a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee and said that things seem to happen in a void or a vacuum. This would provide the government an opportunity to report back. As I said, trumpet it if it is wildly successful, but also be open and transparent with the Canadian public in terms of how there are perhaps some challenges and how maybe we need to rethink some of the things we're moving forward with.

Thank you.