Evidence of meeting #81 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was may.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
If I understand our colleague correctly, the original amendment is on page 20, number 9275744. Is that correct?
Liberal
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
This amendment would enshrine ecological integrity as a “first priority of designations made through this process. The concept of ecological integrity and the need for amendments to recognize it as a top priority was put forward by West Coast Environmental Law. Essentially, ecological integrity would maintain that the areas must be “undisturbed by any human activity” and that ecosystems regenerate naturally and in a “self-sustaining” way.
Our concern, obviously, is whether that recognizes the activities that were going on previously.
Green
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I just want to fully understand—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Yes, I understand.
Are you asking Ms. May a question? Do you want to do that?
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Through you, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask our honourable colleague a question.
We've all submitted our amendments and recommendations. We've all had time, and the legislative assistants as well, to work through and fully understand the intent of each amendment and how it pertains to this act. I appreciate our honourable colleague's asking us for unanimous consent, but I just want to fully understand if there is anything different from what she has suggested in 9275744. Could she perhaps go into a little more detail as to what she intends?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
You are asking the question, and you don't need time; you're okay with just—
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
This process is a little awkward for everyone because of Mr. Tootoo and I having the position of not being members of the committee, but being instructed to be here to present amendments, as we don't get to do them at report stage. I am here based on what the committee has determined, but it means that I can't move my own motions, which is why we have this extra level of process.
The first version I had would make it mandatory for the Governor in Council and the minister to.... I regret to have to say this, but I am weakening my own amendment to take it from being a mandatory responsibility of the government to exercise powers in this direction.
To your point whether my original amendment would affect existing activities to the extent that any of the structure, composition, and function of the ecosystem has existing human activities, that's not a problem. The question is how much of the structure, composition, and function of the ecosystems is essentially undisturbed by human activity.
This would actually take that from being a mandatory duty to being a consideration. The language is the same around defining “ecological integrity”, but the impact is quite different, because my first amendment would have made it the minister's top priority in exercising control and management of a marine protected area. I am substantially reducing that mandatory duty by saying that when you are creating a marine protected area, this is a consideration.
I am hoping that it improves the act. What I am doing voluntarily today, in the hope of getting ecological integrity accepted in the act, is to reduce the mandatory responsibility of the minister and create a criterion that when you are creating a marine protected area, this is a consideration.
If anything, I think it reassures you as to what that language would mean. It no longer has the impact of saying that the minister shall do it; it's a consideration when you create a park, a marine protected area.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I am wondering whether the witnesses, who I assume have this amendment before them, have any comments. What are the implications of this amendment versus the procedure that's in the act now?
Jeff MacDonald Director General, Oceans Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Are we talking about the amendment that's proposed or this subamendment?
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I'm talking about Ms. May saying that the amendment she's proposing—I don't know if she has unanimous consent for it yet or not—weakens her original amendment a little. I'm asking the officials what the implications are of this new amendment in a marine protected area. Where is the department on it?
Director General, Oceans Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Subsection 35(1) is the subsection of the Oceans Act that we use when we bring regulations forward to designate a marine protected area. We have to refer to one of those subsection 35(1) paragraphs (a) to (e) in the current Oceans Act when we propose a regulatory package to the Governor in Council. This subamendment would add new proposed paragraph 35(1)(f), which would mean that an MPA could be proposed under new proposed paragraph 35(1)(f) for the purposes of maintaining ecological integrity. That would become one of six reasons that the minister could create a marine protected area.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Normally we go directly to unanimous consent. If that's your concern, however, given the fact that there seems to be a fair bit of confusion here over what's going on, I'm going to let this go for now so that unanimous consent can be done with more knowledge to this.
Mr. Easter, and then Mr. Doherty.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I guess my interpretation of what you said then with the amendment is that it would actually enhance the ability to get ecological integrity. I think that would be my summary of what you're suggesting.
Director General, Oceans Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It would allow the minister to propose to the Governor in Council a marine protected area based on ecological integrity as a criteria among other reasons.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Can Mr. MacDonald give an example of where that might be applied?
Director General, Oceans Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We did examine the concept of ecological integrity when we saw the original amendment, and it is a concept that's used obviously more in a terrestrial context, but our understanding in the marine context is that this would allow for the establishment, for example, of what would be considered a marine reserve in other countries. It's one where the primary reason for creating that protected area would be to preserve the ecological integrity of the whole area for particular species, etc. It's a concept that is also linked to marine protected area networks in the sense that you are trying to link ecologically different sites, but it is a policy practice in the oceans program, especially in network development, to seek ecological integrity.