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.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Give me a moment, please.
We're going to hold on for just a second until we get the right wording.
This comes in the way of a subamendment. I'm assuming you're finished with the discussion, unless you want to continue to wax on so eloquently as you did before. I'm not making fun of you, by the way, I thought that was good.
We will vote on the subamendment, and then on the main amendment CPC-1. We're fixing the French for the correct translation.
Mr. Miller.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
We shouldn't need a subamendment just to make sure the text is in the proper French. I'm going to trust the analyst to make sure that it is. I fail to understand why we need a subamendment. We're correcting it, and that's what we want. We want it to have the same meaning in both languages.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I understand what you're saying, but given the amount of time it would take, we have to do this anyway. Why don't we just do the subamendment to make sure. As you pointed out earlier, it doesn't take a long time, right?
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Or, they can work on it afterward, and we can move on to the next one.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I kind of need their attention as well. We're new here. I apologize that it's taking time, but let's get this right. After all, this is legislation, right?
We're going to need about two or three minutes, so we'll suspend.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
That may have been the longest two minutes of our lives.
Nevertheless, it was suggested earlier about doing these fixes at the end, but quite frankly, folks, I want to let you know that wording is very important here. You have to vote on the exact wording as eloquently put forward by Mr. McDonald.
Is he ready to repeat it to vote on the subamendment?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
In its correct form. We did manage to hammer something out here. Could I get you to read it out?
9:40 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Saint-Pierre and Miquelon has a big French influence, so he's naturally good in French.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL
Placentia, which in French is “Plaisance”, has a very French connection as well. It's in my riding.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
Just to make sure I understand what the French would look like, it would be:
“d'un réseau national d'aires marines protégées”?
9:40 a.m.
Director General, Oceans Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but the wording in French is “une zone de protection marine”.
That's the term used in French. That's referring to a marine protected area under the Oceans Act, whereas the context in which the amendment is made is in networks of marine protected areas, which include other forms of marine protection besides those under the Oceans Act. It's a term that we bandy about in English. We say MPAs and in this case, we're talking about a network of MPAs.
It's clearer in French. It can say “zone” in the Oceans Act, and “un réseau d'aires marines protégées” for a network.
9:40 a.m.
Legislative Clerk
I have a question for Mr. Doherty, if I may.
Since you want to change “protected areas” to “marine protected areas”, there's a heading just above that in the bill that says “Network of Protected Areas”, would you like to change that as well at the same time? It would be “Network of Marine Protected Areas”.
9:40 a.m.
Legislative Clerk
Then in French, again if I may, it would be
“réseau national d'aires marines protégées”.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
We're going to combine those two changes into one subamendment.
Does everybody understand what Mr. Méla just read out?
Shall the subamendment carry?
(Subamendment agreed to)
Shall amendment CPC-1 as amended carry?
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
I think someone said politics is like sausage making.
Mr. Miller.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Chair, could I suggest that if any of the committee members have any more clauses where French interpretation is a problem that we give it to the legislative clerks now so they can work on it so we're not spending a huge amount of time on this?
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
The problem with that, Mr. Miller, is that I need their undivided attention, but rumour has it that's the only one.
PV-1 is where we travel to next.
9:45 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, based on the change we just made, I may want to amend my own amendment. I was working off of the chapeau paragraph for mine, which was subsection (2), where we omitted the word “marine”. My amendments that work from there do the same thing.
Let me explain the purpose of the amendment, and then if it's acceptable to the committee to insert the word “marine” before “protected areas” in both instances in this amendment, that would be great, although someone other than me may need to move it.
This amendment comes from evidence and testimony you've heard from groups like Ecology Action Centre, West Coast Environmental Law, Conservation Council of New Brunswick, and so on. What we're looking at here is the network of protected areas and what the minister shall do to lead and coordinate its development. I'm adding a subclause to that, an additional subclause, (2.1), as follows:
(2.1) In performing his or her duties and functions under subsection (2), the Minister shall ensure that (a) clearly identified objectives are set with regard to each protected area; and (b) the network of protected areas covers diverse habitat types, biogeographic regions and environmental conditions.
This way, the network, like a network of terrestrial protected areas, talks about having representative ecosystems. A network suggests something different from an individual area. It's a question of putting together clear objectives for an individual protected area that we have within a network of several protected areas, diverse habitat types, biogeographic regions, and environmental conditions. In other words, a network is more than the same thing over and over again. You're looking for some diversity.
That's what amendment PV-1 would accomplish if you're so kind as to consider it.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Something's been pointed out here, namely, the similarities between PV-1 and what follows with NDP-1. They are not similar enough such that they would be coupled together and there would be only one vote. However, this is where the wrench comes in. Adopting one means it's difficult to adopt the other. We're going to have a vote on each one, but the committee has to decide which one it goes with.
That being said, we just heard PV-1, and now, to try to make things more simple, I'm going to go to Mr. Donnelly to discuss NDP-1. That way, if we have to make a choice, the choice will be in front of us and both members will have had their say.
With the committee's permission, before I go to Mr. Doherty, can I go to Mr. Donnelly to discuss NDP-1?
Is any more explanation required? They are different enough that they require two different votes, but you cannot have one with the other. Therefore, this committee has to come to terms with which one it wants.
I'm now going to Mr. Donnelly to discuss his amendment.
