Mr. Donnelly.
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.
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.
11:05 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm going to be supporting this amendment. I think it would provide some accountability. It would be informative for Canadians to keep government accountable. I appreciate the amendment put forward by my colleague, and I'll support it.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Chair, although I agree with the intent of the amendment, my concern is about reporting to Parliament after a year and the ability to collect the evidence and data that we need in order to do that. I think it might be more appropriate if we consult throughout the whole process rather than to put in legislation that they have to report within a year, simply because we heard from witnesses that it will take longer than a year to determine the effectiveness of an MPA. Because it doesn't give us the time or the ability to collect the data that is needed to see if something is working, I won't be supporting this.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
[Technical difficulty—Editor] with our honourable colleague's comments saying that while she believes the intent of this is good.... Perhaps, then, she would propose an amendment to this, with an appropriate time frame. Two years? Again, it's—
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I agree that, in respect of monitoring and measuring, bringing something to the House may not provide as good a platform as bringing it to the standing committee. The standing committee should be the one that does the study, that does the assessment of the effectiveness of the interim protections or permanent protections, the permanent MPAs. This would be a more complete study out of which a report would go to Parliament providing the details we'd want to coax out of this process.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I think it is the responsibility of the department or the minister to come before committee. If it is this committee, then I would suggest an amendment be put forth by those across the way, with an appropriate time frame.
I don't believe we should be studying this in two years' time. We're working towards a piece of legislation that is going to have effects that we won't know. I agree that we need to have a time frame, but there has to be accountability within the department for reporting back. The biggest issue we have had and heard, whether it is this study or others, is that legislation gets passed, and then we don't hear whether it is working or not until it's too late. I believe it is incumbent on this committee, and outside this committee, on all of us as members of Parliament representing Canadians.... As Mr. Donnelly mentioned, it is truly about putting accountability on this. This is a program that will have far-reaching impacts.
I am in a landlocked area. Most of our colleagues across the way are in coastal communities. It will be their electors and stakeholders asking about the impact on how this is moving forward. They will be asking for answers. This is merely providing a tool for the minister to come before Parliament to say what is working and what isn't working. If it is a glowing report, then the opposition will not have much to say. What are you going to say when someone is saying that it's an overwhelming success? However, Canadians need to know. If we are moving down a path of some major challenges, I believe the government needs to be accountable.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Folks, we are closing in on the closing time. However, we can extend for another 30 minutes, if I see a favourable response to my suggestion, which I see. However, I think we should have a health break. Is that what it's called?
11:10 a.m.
A voice
How about a bio break?
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Oh, my goodness, that's a little too descriptive for my ears. Nevertheless, we'll have a health break if you can do it fairly quickly.
We'll suspend for a few minutes.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay, folks, welcome back. We are now going to pick up where we left off. We'll extend this to 11:45, or later if so desired. We'll see how this goes.
Nevertheless, that now brings us to amendment CPC-11.
Mr. Doherty.
December 7th, 2017 / 11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, as it reads currently, Bill C-55 states that the minister may “not use the lack of scientific certainty”—the precautionary principle is what we're talking about—“regarding the risks posed by any activity that may be carried out” in the ocean “as a reason to postpone or refrain” from designating an MPA. This amendment would delete the section that states this. Therefore, it puts the onus on the minister to demonstrate that there is scientific evidence, and follows the government's own narrative of using evidence-based policy in its decision-making.
Mr. Chair, on page 3, we are suggesting that Bill C-55, in clause 5, be amended by deleting line 41 on page 3 to line 4 on page 4. The line in question is:
The Governor in Council and the Minister shall not use lack of scientific certainty regarding the risks posed
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, I can't support this amendment. It would remove the precautionary principle language from the bill, so I am not supporting this.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Shall amendment CPC-11 carry?
(Amendment negatived)
That brings us to amendment PV-4. However, as you will recall, it was unanimously withdrawn.
We will go on to amendment PV-5.
Ms. May.
11:15 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, of any amendments we've seen today, this amendment is closest in intent to that of Mr. Tootoo's which the committee passed, but it's different. It deals with indigenous issues. It attempts to have the Oceans Act proactively reflect the federal government's commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to work in a real nation-to-nation relationship.
We already have reflections of that in the Oceans Act, in the ability of the minister to establish regional ocean co-management bodies. What this amendment does—I really think it is an exciting one—and I don't know how familiar members of this committee are.... I know the environment committee has studied the tremendous potential of co-management of protected areas in terrestrial zones with indigenous people. One of our best examples probably is Gwaii Haanas and the Haida Gwaii watchmen program, but there have been other watchmen programs established in our northern parks.
Let me just run through the amendment. It is a longer amendment. I'm not going to read it to you, but it does require that the minister:
shall recognize the jurisdiction of aboriginal peoples over areas of the sea in respect of which they have aboriginal rights or title, having particular regard to protected and conserved areas, and provide for the participation of aboriginal organizations or persons in the management of those areas.
Specifically, the next section sets up the concept of guardians, and the guardian, in subsection (3):
has all the powers and may perform all the duties and functions of an enforcement officer
These provisions would allow coastal indigenous peoples to be full participants in management, enforcement, protection, and engagement in the MPAs as they go forward. As I said, there are a lot of terrestrial precedents, and this would, I think, be a really exciting way that Bill C-55 would be consistent with the recent announcement of our Minister of Justice that the government is going to support Romeo Saganash's private member's bill to bring the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into all of our legislation. You'd be ahead of the curve here in the fisheries and oceans committee to accept this amendment.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Again, the spirit of this is something that was brought up numerous times in our discussions with indigenous communities, about having them as eyes and ears on the water. The glitch is that under the Fisheries Act, the term “guardian” is actually a subset of enforcement, and it doesn't actually have the same enforcement power; whereas under the Oceans Act, it can be designated with the full enforcement power. It exists and it's there. It's just a matter of invoking it at the appropriate time.