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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Darren Goetze  Director General, Conservation and Protection, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Jeff MacDonald  Director General, Oceans Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Philippe Méla  Legislative Clerk

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Ms. May, go ahead.

9:15 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

I'll direct your attention to proposed new subsection 35(1.1) in my amendment. It essentially sets out a definition, although it doesn't say it is a definition. It says, “ecological integrity means a condition in which”, and then there are four paragraphs.

As I mentioned, this came from this particular language. In looking for language that would be appropriate for ecological integrity in a marine context, for instance, I looked at the definition of “ecological integrity” found in the Canada National Parks Act. However, it was quite terrestrially bound. This language comes from a 1999 work of the British Columbia government on the park legacy panel and, as I mentioned, was suggested to me in working on this with the West Coast Environmental Law team. It means a condition in which:

(a) the structure, composition and function of ecosystems are undisturbed by any human activity; (b) natural ecological processes are intact and self-sustaining; (c) ecosystems evolve naturally; and (d) an ecosystem's capacity for self-renewal and its biodiversity are maintained.

Bear in mind, again, that this becomes one of the paragraphs (a) to (f) reasons for creating a marine protected area. It doesn't mean that every marine protected area must meet these conditions. It just means that this gives the minister an additional criterion with which to establish a marine protected area.

I hope that helps.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Mr. Doherty.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

I really appreciate the conversation we're having on this, wrapping our heads around what this could mean in terms of let's talk not just to our fishers but our shippers as well.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to our honourable colleague, we talked about the structure, composition, and the function of the ecosystem. When we're talking about ecological integrity I think in the conversation we had earlier on this topic, we talked about bottom trawling and how our fishers and some activities, whether it's exploration or something else, could damage some of those areas. But our ecosystem is always flowing, it's ever moving. We heard testimony from a number of witnesses that ecosystems flow, and whether we designate it with some invisible lines and boundaries or not, that ecosystem is always moving. This is, as you mentioned, about a network of marine protected areas. It could be applied more to a network of marine protected areas.

To the comment of my honourable colleague, Mr. Arnold, on whether it's shipping, whether it is other human activity, whether it's on top of the surface, whether it is below the surface, or whether it is impacting the solid structures of the marine base, this language could have an impact on that.

Again, we just announced an Arctic moratorium, because whether there has been commercial fishing or fishing in those areas, most of it is beneath the ice surface. Again, we have significant areas along our longest coastline that have a lot of trade that goes through, and we have international agreements with other countries in terms of shipping and trade.

To my honourable colleague, how would this impact that? Again, I appreciate the conversation and I'm glad you're here so that we can have this discussion, because now we're looking at ecological integrity at a few different levels. We're not looking at it just as the structure base; we're looking at it as a flowing system, whether it is, as I said, the surface or below the surface or the marine base, the land below it.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Ms. May.

9:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Again, to go back, section 35(1) sets out the conditions that prompt the minister to want the designation, so not every marine protected area would be created for the purpose of protecting its ecological integrity.

The definition of “ecological integrity” encompasses what you're saying in terms of it is an evolving condition so that the natural processes are understood to be evolving. To go back to the example of the Hecate Strait, as you say, there is nothing untouched by human activity, and if we start talking about ocean acidification, all bets are off on marine protected areas, but I'm going to stay away from ocean acidification for the moment and use the example of the Hecate Strait.

You have shipping. It's not disturbing the structures of the corals.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Sorry, Mr. Chair, may I...?

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

But it could be deemed as having an impact on the ecological integrity, though, by your definition of this. Is that correct?

9:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

No, because the structure, composition, and function—

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Function.

9:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

—are undisturbed by human activity.

So if you're looking at the structure.... Human activity can take place.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

But shipping could, though. Is that correct?

9:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

It wouldn't interfere with the structure, composition, and function of the ecosystem at all.

The answer is going to be that if this is the reason you're creating a marine protected area, for its ecological integrity, that's when you create it. Then your management systems are a whole set of additional decisions, regulation-making, and so on.

I have additional amendments further on in this package that I can tell you're not going to like, that would say that we shouldn't allow bottom trawling in marine protected areas. But that's not the decision that's made at the creation. The creation of a marine protected area now has criteria (a) to (e). With this amendment accepted, it would have criteria (a) to (f) and that criterion (f) might never be used by a minister, but if it were used, then the purpose of creating the marine protected area would be to protect its ecological integrity and that would apply to specific ecological treasures that we find in our marine zones.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Mr. Doherty, did you...?

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Really quickly, I will give the example of a tanker moratorium.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Ms. May.

9:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

I don't think that is an apt.... It's a non sequitur because what we're talking about is when you create a marine protected area, what is it about that natural zone in the ocean that you want to make it a marine protected area.

Around the world marine protected areas have, for instance, caused a tremendous improvement in fishing results for local fishermen, because a zone has been created where the fish populations can replenish themselves, and it actually improves fishing activity.

A tanker moratorium is quite distinct from anything to do with a marine protected area.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

I'm just using that as an example.

9:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

I just don't think it really works. I'm sorry. I'm really trying to answer the question in terms of a legal statutory interpretation. I don't think it's in the same basket of considerations that applies to what you're doing under proposed subsection 35(1).

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Mr. Arnold.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask Ms. May or perhaps our expert witnesses.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Which one?

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

I'm not sure which one may be better to answer this.

Should an interim MPA be designated under this section for the purpose of maintaining ecological activity, would that prevent any management measures within that MPA, say, for predator control or fisheries management?

9:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Ms. May.