Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, everybody.

Carry on, Mr. Doherty.

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

The amendment adds a line to clause 5 that would have the minister specifically state the purpose of the designation. It's straightforward. We are asking that Bill C-55, in clause 5, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 3 the following:

"(a.1) shall state the purpose of the designation;"

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Shall amendment CPC-6 carry?

What is the French translation of the word “negatived”?

[An hon. member]

It's “défait”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It's “defeated”. Okay.

(Amendment negatived)

We are now on CPC-7.

Mr. Doherty, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I think it was mentioned earlier by Ms. Green—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I think you mean Ms. May.

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

Yes. I'm sorry.

I looked at her and I saw “Green”. I don't know why.

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

I knew who you meant. It's okay, Todd.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sure that title has been afforded to her on many occasions. However—

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Mr. McDonald spoke French and rattled me for the whole day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, as most of us all.

Mr. Doherty.

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

We know that there are significant or unique geological and archeological features that perhaps might be found in our marine areas. What we are suggesting is that clause 5 be amended by replacing line 13 on page 3 with the following:

removes from that marine protected area

Also, I have a subamendment on this, if I can. The original amendment currently reads:

any significant geological or archeological features or any living

It would then continue:

marine organism or any part of its habitat or is likely to do so;

In the subamendment, if I might, we would like to substitute the word “unique” for the word “significant”. The subamendment would read at line 13, on page 3:

removes from marine protected area any unique geological or archeological features or any living

If you'd like me to read the entire paragraph, I can, so that those around the table can understand it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Does everybody understand what the change is and that we're voting on an amendment to amendment CPC-7?

(Subamendment agreed to)

Now we'll go to amendment CPC-7 as amended. Is there any more discussion?

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

On amendment CPC-8, Mr. Doherty.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment is so we can be certain. If I may, I will read the whole section. On page 3, proposed paragraph 35.1( 2)(d) currently reads:

may exempt from the prohibition in paragraph (b) or (c), subject to any conditions that the Minister considers appropriate, any activity referred to in those paragraphs in the marine protected area by a foreign national, an entity incorporated or formed by or under the laws of a country other than Canada, a foreign ship or a foreign state.

We are suggesting as an amendment that we replace line 28, on page 3, with the following:

or a foreign state, or any Canadian individual, indigenous group or organization.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Donnelly.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm opposed to the suggestion.

If used broadly, I think the new exemption provision could undermine the ecological goals of MPAs. There are better ways to protect indigenous rights and title than this legislation, and for that reason, I'm going to oppose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Doherty.

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

I would differ from my colleague. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that the minister provide the same exemptions for Canadian individuals, indigenous groups, and/or organizations. As it currently reads, it is solely dealing with foreign entities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I respect the right of my colleague to vote against this, and I hate to use the word “hypocritical”, but it seems to me that a few minutes ago, we supported a motion that, in my mind, really was irrelevant because aboriginal rights are already protected in the Constitution, the charter, and what have you.

Aboriginal communities made it very clear, and I'll go back to what Mr. McLeod who was here as a witness a few weeks ago, said. He said that there was no consultation with their groups whatsoever.

All of a sudden, you have something in here that actually does give aboriginal communities some say in it, which they should have because they're affected, and my colleague is going to vote against it. It just makes no sense to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Doherty.

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

If I might, for our honourable colleague Mr. Donnelly, the intent of this paragraph and this section is that the minister.... If I may, Mr. Chair, I will read proposed paragraph 35.1(2), which is on page 3:

The Minister may, by order, designate a marine protected area in any area of the sea that is not designated as a marine protected area under paragraph 35(3)(a) and, in that order, the Minister

Then it goes through “shall list the classes of activities”, “shall prohibit”, and “may prohibit”.

The paragraph we're talking about is (d), “may exempt from the prohibition in paragraph (b) or (c)”. It deals with foreign entities. It does not speak to Canadian or indigenous communities. Our intent on this was solely to make sure Canadian stakeholders, indigenous groups, and organizations are given the same consideration that foreign entities would be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Seeing no further discussion, shall amendment CPC-8 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

On CPC-9, Mr. Doherty.

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

This part of the bill outlines the exceptions to the ministerial order, that is, activities that would not be prohibited. Currently Bill C-55 states that these activities would include activities carried out in response to an emergency as well as marine scientific research. We are asking to include “sustainable aquaculture” in this list.

It is page 3, paragraph (3), “Exceptions”. It currently reads, “The prohibitions set out in an order made under subsection (2) do not apply to the following activities”. Then paragraph (a) lists activities, and (b) currently refers to “marine scientific research activities”. What we are suggesting is “sustainable aquaculture and marine scientific research activities”.