Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2017

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the committee for considering this.

NDP-1 would require the minister to prioritize ecological objectives when creating networks of MPAs. Canada's Oceans Act sets the ground rules for MPA network planning and marine spacial planning. This amendment would require the minister to create more comprehensive, meaningful networks of MPAs. It instructs the minister to use his or her power to establish marine protected area designations over a broad area or a suite of sites that comprise an MPA network for enhanced protection following the completion of comprehensive ecosystem-based management plans.

England and Scotland have demonstrated that this regional approach can lead to rapid designations of multiple sites in a short time frame.

This amendment is based on the briefs provided and committee testimony of the leading environmental organizations in Canada working on MPAs—West Coast Environmental Law, East Coast Environmental Law, Ecology Action Centre, CPAWS, WWF-Canada, David Suzuki Foundation, and the Conservation Council of New Brunswick.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

It's not because I'm trying to do this, folks, but we have one other complication that we have to deal with right away.

If you recall, on CPC-1, the term “marine” was put into the heading. If you turn to the bill itself, the current title is “Network of protected areas”. We changed it to “Network of marine protected areas”. Since we are still under that part, we now have to amend both amendments, even though we're only going with one. We still have to amend both PV-1 and NDP-1 to include the word “marine” in both.

Now, NDP-1 we'll get to, but in the meantime, someone has to propose a subamendment to PV-1 to include the word “marine”.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

So moved to amend PV-1, in proposed paragraphs (2.1)(a) and (b) to insert the word “marine” just before protected areas.

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

Exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you for that, Mr. Hardie. I appreciate it.

Mr. Miller.

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

Could I ask Mr. Hardie, through you Mr. Chair, for a friendly amendment that his amendment, which I support, be slightly amended so that it would include all future references to where “marine” should go. I think it's unnecessary to have to vote on this every time we come to it. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

True, but we cannot do that, sir. This is called clause-by-clause consideration for a reason: we have to go clause by clause.

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

I understand that, Mr. Chair, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Each one has to be done.

I understand that you want expediency, sir, but we have to—

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

I know it's been done in the past, Mr. Chair, with no problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Oh. Which wasn't done correctly—sorry.

Right now, we only have the one heading. Just to put your mind at ease a little bit, we only have to do it within these few amendments. Once we get past this heading in the legislation, “Network of protected areas”, which is now “Network of marine protected areas”, we'll be done with that.

Okay, we have a subamendment on the floor put forward by Mr. Hardie.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now, back to the main amendment, PV-1, as amended.

We have PV-1. We've also had NDP-1.

If there are no more comments on that, you now have to make a choice as to which one you want.

I still have to go through the process of calling for a vote on PV-1 and NDP-1, one of which you'll accept. Is that understood?

Shall amendment PV-1 as amended carry?

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

That's ours, or is that the NDP's?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It's the Green Party's amendment, PV-1, Parti vert.

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

Okay.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Now we go to NDP-1.

We already had comments from Mr. Donnelly.

Shall amendment NDP-1 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, folks, for your patience. That's one of the longer clauses in history now, isn't it?

Shall clause 4 as amended carry?

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 5)

We have amendment CPC-2.

Mr. Doherty.

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

Mr. Chair, we are suggesting to delete the definition of “ongoing activities” in the bill and change it to “eligible activities”. Essentially, the amendment gets rid of the one year prior and allows eligible activities to continue regardless of an arbitrary timeline.

We've heard testimony from a number of witnesses that one year was not enough. They would like to see up to five years. What we are suggesting is, if everybody's following along that clause 5 be amended by replacing line 26 on page 2 to line 3 on page 3 with the following:

eligible means, with respect to an activity in the area of the sea that is designated by an order made under subsection (2) as a marine protected area, that the activity has not been identified in the order as a prohibited activity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before we go to any more comments, I'd like to point out that there are a couple of things that are going to happen as a consequence if this passes.

This is CPC-2. Have a look at that. It's consequential to CPC-5, which means the vote on CPC-2 would be applied to CPC-5 if it is passed, because of their similarities, or it's negatived, CPC-5 would be negatived as well. I've been wanting to use that word all day, negatived.

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

Would you like us to talk about CPC-5?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Since they're consequential, you can add further comment regarding CPC-5, if you wish, but before you do that, there's another consequence. If CPC-2 is adopted, CPC-3 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

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

CPC-3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Right. If you adopt CPC-2....

At this point, Mr. Doherty, you can add to your comments on CPC-2 to discuss CPC-5, which is consequential.

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

Stand by, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

How much time should I stand by for?

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

Can we have just a second, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Sure.

Mr. Arnold, do you have a comment?