Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2017

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

Again, under the Oceans Act we're looking, first, at the question of how you designate a marine protected area. All subsequent questions of how you manage marine protected areas are undertaken by Governor in Council, and they wouldn't necessarily.... You might, and you might not. Nothing's dictated by this that's different from other marine protected areas. You're creating the designation for the purpose of protecting ecological integrity, and decisions that are taken on a case-by-case basis are based on science.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thanks for that response, but proposed paragraph 35(1.1)(a) states:

the structure, composition and function of ecosystems are undisturbed by any human activity;

To me, that would preclude any human intervention once the MPA was established under this criteria.

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

The interpretation you're taking is that the reason you're creating a marine protected area is that you can't have any human activity. We're already saying that the “structure, composition and function of ecosystems are undisturbed by any human activity”. It doesn't mean that the zone has no human activity. It means the structure, composition, and function of the ecosystems.

For instance, when you look at our national parks system, which has a definition of “ecological integrity” that applies, you see that national parks on land are to maintain ecological integrity. That's a fundamental goal, but we know there's a lot of human activity in national parks. We don't want the activity on our terrestrial parks to overwhelm the ecosystems such that the structure, composition, and function of the ecosystems are disturbed by human activity. It doesn't mean there is no human activity occurring. It means that the level of human activity does not compromise natural ecological processes that you want to have continue and be self-sustaining, which includes, of course, the natural restoration of marine animal populations.

The health of the marine ecosystem is defined by criteria in proposed paragraph 35(1)(f) to say you are creating a marine protected area for this purpose. It won't be every marine protected area, but it does not preclude human activity even when you designate it because of its ecological integrity goal. That does not mean you can't have human activity in the area. It just means the human activity you have is consistent with maintaining ecological integrity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Mr. Arnold.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Perhaps then I could ask if any of our expert witnesses could respond to my concern that “undisturbed by any human activity” would preclude any fisheries or wildlife management within that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. MacDonald, I'm only singling you out because—

[Jeff MacDonald]

I can answer Mr. Arnold's question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay.

[Jeff MacDonald]

He was originally asking in the context of interim protection MPAs with regard to the minister's order. Bill C-55 currently says that when the minister makes an order—he has the option not to—he shall list the classes of activities that are ongoing activities. If there is an ongoing activity, the ministerial order can't restrict that, with the exception of paragraph (c) where, as he is also the minister responsible for fisheries, he may curtail fishing activities under his purview as the minister responsible for fisheries management.

Any other activity would have to be listed as an ongoing activity in the context of the interim protection MPA. The restrictions over and above that would need to come through a Governor in Council regulation after the interim protection MPA order is within the five years as outlined in Bill C-55.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

The other Mr. McDonald is next.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I would simply encourage this subamendment to at least move to a vote. We have other amendments on this clause. I don't know how everybody else feels about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

This is an amendment.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Amendment or subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Are we ready for the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

That being said, this is now amendment PV-01, which replaced PV-4.

Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now go to CPC-1 from Mr. Doherty.

Mr. Doherty.

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

It's simply adding the word “marine” to line 6. Our amendment would be on line 6, page 2. It reads:

“national network of marine protected areas on behalf of the Gov-”

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. McDonald.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

We'd agree with the modification; however, the French text should read:

“dans le réseau national d'aires protégées au nom du gouvernement du Canada”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

First of all, I'm dazzled by your good French, sir.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I appreciate that, sir, from one Newfoundlander to another.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

From one Newfoundlander to another, that was quite exceptional and pleasing to the ear. Not only that, but now I have to ask you to repeat it, and I expect the same eloquence.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

It should read: “dans le réseau national d'aires protégées au nom du gouvernement du Canada”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but do you have that in writing?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Yes.