Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2017

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

To my friend Mr. Hardie, I don't think my amendment is in any way inconsistent with what you just described. It's just giving the minister some more proactive considerations with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples in their jurisdiction, in the coastal areas, as we go forward with the regulatory regime for how marine protected areas are managed, and to engage indigenous peoples, as you say, as eyes and ears on the water, but also as enforcement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. I have a very similar one in NDP-5, but I am in favour of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Seeing no further discussion, I want to point out to the committee that PV-5 is consequential and linked to NDP-5 in your package. They are consequential to the point that they are identical, actually.

I want people to know that if PV-5 is adopted, NDP-5 cannot be moved, since we would have already voted on PV-5 and they're the same. In addition, if PV-5 is defeated, NDP-5 is also defeated. Consequential means they both suffer the same fate, or rejoice in the same glorious moment if passed.

Ms. May.

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

We've had a lot of collaborative, non-partisan activity around this table. With the committee's permission, I'd like to withdraw PV-5, so that the amendment that's considered is NDP-5. If it's accepted, my friend Fin will have some of the wonderful experience I've had today of having an amendment accepted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before we get to comments, do I have unanimous consent to withdraw PV-5?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

(Amendment withdrawn)

We're on NDP-4.

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Mr. Chair, NDP-4 talks about establishing the restoration of ecological integrity as the top priority of MPAs. We had a long discussion earlier in the committee. That amendment passed. Essentially, the difference on this particular amendment would be to just put it at the top of the list, so that the minister has that as a top priority. That is essentially no different from the earlier discussion we had. The committee agreed to include it. This would be putting it at the top of the minister's radar.

The amendment is that Bill C-55, in clause 5, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 4 the following:

(2) Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Governor in Council and the Minister when exercising their powers or performing their duties and functions under section 35 or 35.1

Then we define ecological integrity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Hardie.

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

Again, there's a hitch on this one. If ecological integrity is required here, it will also require a baseline that assesses the condition before an interim order is put in place. The purpose of an interim order is to move quickly using the precautionary principle where not all is necessarily known. An unintended consequence of this could actually delay putting an interim order into effect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Mr. Chair, we already adopted, in PV-01, ecological integrity. I just wanted to clarify that, to make sure I'm on the right track.

I'm not sure if Mr. Hardie realizes that, or....

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

Seeing no further discussion—

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

Couldn't he just have an answer to that, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Well, he doesn't have to speak if he doesn't want to, so I don't see—

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

No, I'm recognizing that, but does he not want to speak?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Apparently it's no.

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

I'm just trying to find PV-1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

No, it's PV-01.

Mr. Doherty.

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

We talked about ecological integrity earlier, with Ms. May's motion. It's interesting that in the Oceans Act, in Canada's federal marine protected areas strategy, ecological integrity is not mentioned. Instead, it says that an MPA include the “conservation and protection of marine areas of high biodiversity or biological productivity”. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but we do see that we've had a couple of very similar, if not identical, amendments put forth.

To our honourable colleague across the way, to Mr. Hardie's comment, again, Bill C-55 is about interim protection areas, not necessarily the long-standing or....

I just think this is going beyond the scope of Bill C-55.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Mr. Chair, I was assuming that we could read the definition. I think I should read it into the record for clarification, because I know that in the previous discussion the question came up about what “ecological integrity” means. This is what would be added:

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), ecological integrity means, with respect to an area of the sea that forms part of the internal waters of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada or the exclusive economic zone of Canada, a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes.

I think Ms. May talked earlier about what ecological integrity means. We had a good discussion about activities that impact or that could change the form and function of ecological integrity. I think providing this in terms of definition, and putting that priority slightly higher than what we had already agreed should be included, is the only difference here in this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Hardie.

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

I think in the discussion we had on PV-01, Ms. May's first amendment, we concluded after some discussion that ecological integrity could be an optional criteria for use in designating an interim protected area.

NDP-4 suggests that it be the first priority—if you like, a primary consideration—and there are some significant differences. Obviously, if enough evidence is known, to use it in the optional sense, as was concluded in PV-01, that's one thing, but to have it as the primary criteria, as suggested in NDP-4, would require a baseline to be established, and to go through the rigorous process to establish that before moving to interim protection. The idea of interim protection is to move quickly, using the precautionary principle where not all is known.