House of Commons Hansard #207 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was mpas.

Topics

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, Canadians recognize the importance of protecting marine areas and the marine ecosystem, not just in Canada but around the world. In fact, it was 25 years ago that the world came together and identified in an agreement that each member nation should look to protect at least 5% to 20%, and identified a timeline for that. Canada is well behind that timeline. However, the current government has made a commitment to move us toward those protection targets of 5% and 20%, and the bill before us, I think, is a step in that direction.

My question is on minimum standards. We have not yet moved toward identifying minimum standards of protection with MPAs. I wonder if the hon. minister could comment on that.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam for his constructive efforts on so many shared priorities. Obviously, protecting Canada's ocean territory is one of them.

The member is absolutely right that successive governments going back a quarter of a century or more have formally made these commitments internationally, and I share my colleague's concern that we are not where we should be when we stand here in the House in 2017. However, as I outlined in my comments, by following what we think is an ambitious but aggressive plan, we will reach or exceed the targets that we set for ourselves at the end of this year and, most importantly, the one for 2020. I look forward to working with the member, people from his province, and many other Canadians in achieving these important objectives.

With respect to minimum standards, I very much share my hon. friend's concern about the importance of establishing minimum standards in MPAs. I have had discussions with environmental groups, industry, and provincial governments as to what these might look like. I think there is an opportunity to put in place a floor of basic protections that would apply to all of these areas. I look forward to working with him and others in the coming weeks to set up a process that would give Canada those exact minimum standards that so many people properly expect us to have.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his presentation on Bill C-55. I also recognize the point by the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam that these targets have basically been in place for 25 years now.

There is a reason that the targets have not been met. It is because these marine systems are extremely complex, difficult to understand, and it takes a long time to consult with whoever may be affected. However, the bill would impose a five-year limit on whether an area would be permanently protected or not, and there is no wiggle room: either it is, or it is not after that five-year timeframe.

If there is a need for more consultation, more consideration, why not allow for that possibility in the bill?

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Madam Speaker, I share the concern of my hon. friend from North Okanagan—Shuswap with respect to the time frame and the amount of time it has taken successive governments of all political stripes to achieve these designations under the current Oceans Act. This is why we are asking Parliament to consider these amendments, which we believe would offer a more expeditious path to freezing the footprint and protecting what needs to be protected urgently, while at the same time allowing the final regulatory process to have the necessary consultation that my hon. friend so correctly points to.

I do recognize the certain contradiction. We say on the one hand that we are not where we want to be, and my friend and others have said that, but on the other hand we say that we need to ensure that we can consult. However, I think that five years of consultation with two years of preliminary consultation leading to one of these interim orders should be enough time, if there is good faith, enough resources, including scientific resources in the Government of Canada, in my department and at Environment and Climate Change, to achieve this result. Therefore, I am very hopeful that we have the balance right.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, his team, and all departmental officials, who are doing remarkable work on research and on protecting the oceans.

This summer, I had the opportunity to welcome the minister in my riding, to announce a huge $27-million investment in the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, a world-renowned francophone ocean research institute. On top of this $27-million investment, the minister also announced that the government would be creating of a number of jobs in my riding, to increase the department's research capacity.

In his excellent speech, the minister spoke about the progress our government has made in the past 23 months. Given the importance of the matter, I would ask that he once again tell the House and all Canadians what progress our government has made on protecting our oceans in the past 23 months.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for his comments and for working tirelessly to support scientists at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, which is world renowned and which does very important work for our government.

I also congratulate my colleague on his unwavering support for the fishery. My colleague understands, as does our government, how important it is to support the inshore fishery and to acknowledge that independent ship owners, for example, are vital to the economies of communities like the one he represents.

I look forward to working with him. We recently talked about some ports and other pieces of infrastructure. There is no need to mention Carleton-sur-Mer or others, since I hope to have good news and to visit his amazing riding with him to make the announcements and to continue our work.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-55, an act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. I want to start my speech today by saying that we all agree that there are things that we can do better. We want to keep our rivers, lakes, streams, and oceans pristine, not just for today but for the future.

Today I want to talk a bit more about the process. I will start with a quote because the minister spoke about the three or five-point plan that the government has with respect to its MPA process. One of those points was about the use of scientific data. We have had a number of witnesses at committee and time and again we heard similar stories.

I will start with this. Looking at some of the previous testimony, it was claimed that there was overwhelming scientific proof that MPAs are beneficial and wildly successful. I think that was a misrepresentation of the actual science. My colleague just cited some of the studies that found that MPAs are not broadly successful. Enforcing MPAs would be hugely expensive and unlikely to be an effective scientific tool. They are not easily replicated. When we put in an MPA, its effectiveness is subject to a great degree of what we call, “location and time”. One cannot just create a nice experiment where we have three of the same type of MPAs in one place and then three control areas in another place, because they are wide open to outside perturbations and environmental changes that are not within our control.

If we want to build on a process of trust and goodwill, we should not ignore what our stakeholders say and consult on only a minority of the protected areas being recommended. I offer that comment from Professor Sean Cox of Simon Fraser University. We have more.

One of the other points that our hon. colleague brought up was indigenous consultation and reconciliation. As the Hereditary Chiefs’ Council of Lax Kw’alaams, from our neck of the woods in British Columbia, states:

...we categorically reject interference of outside environmental NGOs (especially those foreign-based) who appear to be dictating government policy in our traditional territory.

My speech will not counter what our hon. colleague said and not step away from the importance of making sure that we are doing everything we can to protect our rivers, lakes, and streams. Rather, we will talk about the notion of consultation, which we like to discuss a lot in this chamber. As we have seen from the very beginning, it is just a word to the government. The action depends on who is there. The government likes to say that it is consulting.

Our hon. colleague stood in the House and said that it is important that the government is working collaboratively with the provinces and territories. However, is the government really listening, because we are still hearing from so many stakeholders that it is alienating them? Whether it is indigenous peoples or those whose livelihoods depend on these areas in remote coastal communities across Canada, the government is forgetting these people.

Whether it was on the electoral reform process, access to information reform, or the most recent proposal by the Liberal government to implement tax changes that will significantly harm the competitiveness of small business, we often hear it say that it wants to be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. However, when it comes down to consultation, it is really just about ticking that off in a box to say that it did the consultation, that it met with those concerned. It did not really listen to them, but it ticked the box.

It has no real intention to make changes for the betterment of our communities or for the people who will be affected by the contents of its bills, like the one we are debating today. Our hon. colleague mentioned the spirit of working collaboratively with the provincial and territorial governments.

I believe he said, and it was a Liberal campaign promise, that they are going to work with all parties in the House to be more collaborative, yet we still get announcements through question period. Indeed, some of the Liberal MPs are finding out about government initiatives through the media.

Going back to the closure of our salmon enhancement program and the potential Coast Guard closures, some of the Liberal backbench MPs who are part of our committee found out through the media. Again, that is just not open and transparent.

Bill C-55 in its current state will have serious consequences for our tourism, shipping, and fishing industries. This is yet another nail in the coffin for our small communities and the businesses in our communities that rely on our waterways from coast to coast to coast.

Bill C-55 stems directly from the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, which instructs him to work with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to increase the proportion of Canada's marine and coastal areas that are protected to 5% by 2017 and 10% by 2020.

Bill C-55 will allow for an interim designation of significant or sensitive areas, again defined by scientists through consultation with indigenous people, local communities, and others interested in the area. That is what they say.

Immediately when the Liberals start this, there is a five-year ban. Is it going to be a complete stop? Does it mean there will be no take at all? Is there any activity that will be restricted? These are things that have not been communicated to the communities and to the fishers and families that depend on this industry for their livelihoods.

Once this interim protection is in effect, the minister would have up to five years to recommend that a permanent MPA be put in place. From the previous Conservative government's work on marine protected areas and from the committee testimony, we know that the average time to declare a single protected area ranges from roughly five to seven years. That is not to be debated. We know that. That is what is required to get it right, to make sure that true consultation takes place.

We had a professor from California who talked about a series of MPAs that they had instituted off the coast of California. They talked about true consultation. I sat through this presentation by this gentleman, and I thought, “Now, there is a group that got this right.” They started early on. They communicated what their objectives were to their stakeholders right from the start, including the indigenous groups, industry, communities, environmental groups, and NGOs. They brought them all to the table and they set out what they wanted to do off the coastline of California.

They set out what the goal was and tasked the stakeholder groups to go and really talk to people, engage the communities, and find a way to holistically reach their goal. That was one of the testimonies that really stood out. We always talk about Conservative this or Liberal this, but this non-partisan person came in to speak about the science behind the MPAs and said that it has to be right, that we have to look at the total, holistic process of the MPA and look at the ecosystems. Fish do not know where the marine protected areas are. They do not know that there is an imaginary boundary. They move.

They looked at a series of marine protected areas off the coast of California and they had buy-in from everyone. It is probably the most successful marine protected area testimony that we have seen to this point.

We also know that the Liberal government is taking measures to speed up the MPA designation process, because it knows that it will not be able to meet its political targets and timelines outlined in the mandate letters. It has missed promises from the campaign. The minister said himself that this is one that the government can say it finished, but it is going to come at a cost to those economies, those local communities that desperately rely on fishing and trade for their local economies, and indeed at a cost to Canada's economy.

Liberals know that if they do not ram this through, it will add to their mounting pile of broken promises.

In addition to speeding up the designation process, the Liberal government is also proposing amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act that would prohibit oil and gas activities in marine areas where interim protection is in effect. To move this forward, they would allow the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs the power to cancel companies' oil and gas interests.

We have talked about the process and we have talked about how these companies and stakeholders are not part of the process. We have asked a number of times that the minister sit in on the committee meetings and listen to the testimony, because the stakeholders are pleading, even stakeholders that one would think would be on the side of the government. Liberal members are saying that they are finding out stuff in the media and in QP announcements, and in their own communities in Atlantic Canada or on the Pacific coast they are hearing from their constituents.

In my riding, if there is an issue with small business or tourism, I hear about it and I bring their voices to Ottawa. There are 30-some Atlantic Canada MPs and outside of committee, they have not really been standing up. I think they are afraid to voice their opinions, but we are hearing it. We are hearing it in sidebar conversations.

We have already seen, in the last little while, further uncertainty in terms of business development. Whether it is the northern gateway or the Pacific NorthWest LNG, businesses are being spooked by the uncertainties, primarily by the Liberal government, because it does not know which way the wind is blowing or where the goalposts are anymore. Giving a minister the ability to say yes or no or “Wait a second; this might be a Liberal insider here, and we are going to say yes to this one”, is unacceptable. That is shameful.

Mr. Brian Clark, an environmental adviser and registered professional biologist in the Pacific northwest had this to say at committee:

...there is a lack of clear process for integrated coastal planning that leaves proponents to develop strategies in an information vacuum. Where are the no-go zones? What are the thresholds for impacts? ... ...we need specific plans for coastal areas of high industrial activity. The Pacific NorthWest project [was] located in a federal port within an industrial zone, yet there are no accepted activities to streamline environmental assessment processes. ... [In addition], there is a tremendous lack of scientific examination and resources to set baselines and determine thresholds on the north Pacific coast.

We all agree that some of the federal agencies need more funding, but Mr. Clark said, “...but don't overlook the knowledge database of proponents.”

Industry and communities are all doing their part. Industry has now become more keenly aware than ever that everybody has a cellphone. Whether it is the shipping industry, the cruise industry, or the fishing industry, everybody has a cellphone. We all want to make sure that we are doing our part, and industry is doing its part. Time and again we have heard at committee that it has offered up its findings, offered up the technology it is using, only to have that offer fall on deaf ears in the government. It is the “Thanks, we got it” type of thing. That is unacceptable.

The Liberal government has had numerous opportunities to work with energy proponents that want to ensure the health of our marine areas. With Bill C-55, we have another example of the government's heavy-handed, anti-development approach to our resource and marine industries.

I have to admit that when I took over the fisheries and oceans shadow portfolio last year, I remember thinking that the targets outlined in the Liberal mandate letters were ambitious. The previous Conservative government set the protection target at 10% by 2020. That was the previous Conservative government's target: 2020. We wanted to make sure that we got it right.

Do members know that Canada has one of the largest coastlines in the world, if not the largest coastline in the world? Disproportionately so, the north and the Pacific are going to face the brunt of these MPAs. We are hearing that over and over again.

The primary difference was that we were not intent on meeting these targets if it meant forsaking the needs of the local coastal communities across the country that depend on the ocean for their livelihoods.

Having recognized that the minister of fisheries and oceans might look to designate MPAs without proper consultation, my colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap tabled a motion to study the issue further at committee. We began this study prior to the minister's tabling of Bill C-55, just days before the House adjourned for the summer. Unfortunately, it seems he has failed to take a look at the testimony that has come forward from this important study.

I remember the words in his speech when he said he was looking forward to hearing the testimony of Canadians, industry, and stakeholders. He acknowledged the hard work and great work the committees are doing in this House and in the other House. I can see folks in the gallery nodding their heads. They heard the same.

However, the government has continued to disregard the testimony we heard from stakeholders, from witnesses that one would think would be on the side of the government.

Over the past several months, we have had the opportunity to hear from a significant number of academics, industry professionals, commercial and recreational fishing groups, NGOs, and environmentalists. Many of them had one thing in common, and that was their inability to support the government's rushed timeline with regard to the MPA designation process. They all said one thing: “Get it right.”

One of the main issues we heard time and again was the deeply flawed nature of the consultation process. One witness, Mr. Leonard LeBlanc, the managing director of the Gulf of Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board, had this to say:

The process DFO used to approach harvester associations and consult on the areas of interest for designation was unorganized and totally not transparent. They indicated that the process to establish MPAs is typically a lengthy process over many years, yet they seemed to be rushing the process along to meet strict deadlines....

Later he said:

Finally, this consultation process on the area of interest for MPA designation...perpetuated the lack of trust between industry and DFO. The lack of inclusion and answers during the consultation phase, the lack of real scientific evidence for reasoning behind the area of interest, and the lack of guarantees that traditional fisheries could continue all led to further distrust of DFO's consultation and decision-making process.

The testimony did not stop there. Jordan Nickerson, an independent fish harvester who was speaking on behalf of his family business, said this:

This current directive to protect the ocean leaves me with more questions than answers. As [a] harvester and processor, I would like to know how I, my business, my employees, and our shared future will be affected. What are our goals for MPAs...?

Canada should be a leader in listening to its people, taking the time to listen, spending money, and doing the proper science before coming to a huge decision such as establishing MPAs, supposedly based on science. Time and again we have heard that this is not being done. As a matter of fact, I have a quote from Christina Burridge of the BC Seafood Alliance, who says, “On the west coast, we're not seeing a lot of evidence-based decision-making. It's beginning to look like political decision-making.”

I am going to pare some of my comments down because I know my time is winding down.

Nunavut cabinet minister Johnny Mike used his member's statement just last week to speak specifically to the Liberal government's lack of consultation when it came to Bill C-55. He said:

[My residents] are well aware of the potential in our offshore areas which are used for economic opportunities today by interests from outside of Nunavut.

He continued:

This proposed bill for marine management and petroleum industry sector management which is being developed seemingly turns its legislative back on the people of Pangnirtung.

The federal government never consulted any northerners or my constituents on what concerns they may have about this proposed bill.

We are not against MPAs. We are against the fact that their consultation process, the process as a whole, is a sham.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Fisheries

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George on the difficult work he did in regard to to the forest fires in his province. I was on the other coast of Canada and watched the work that he was doing, as well as many other members of Parliament who were deeply affected by that very difficult circumstance. I just wanted to compliment him publicly.

I have heard from a lot of people, maybe some of the same people whom my colleague referred to, who appeared at the standing committee before the introduction of the bill. I have taken note of the testimony, and my parliamentary secretary and my colleagues on the committee have talked to me at length and in detail about the witnesses and the work the committee has done.

What is the view of my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George on the precautionary principle and the importance of ensuring that we have the available tools necessary in the case of a pressing need to act to protect a sensitive or threatened marine ecosystem in a provisional or interim way? Does the member not think that the application of the precautionary principle is something that many people in his province would support?

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments about the wildfire situation that we had in the province of British Columbia. I can say with complete sincerity that the utter devastation that my community and my riding, as well as others, are seeing will be felt not only in the immediate future but years down the road.

The minister brought up the term “precautionary principle”. At any given time, we always have to make sure that we are doing whatever we can to maintain our waters. I think I said that. I am not going to repeat myself. We are under the agreement. However, we always have to engage our stakeholders. We have to use scientific data with that. We also have to look at the social and economic sides of it.

However, to go back to the premise of my speech in regard to consultation, the process is flawed to this point. We have heard witness after witness. If my hon. colleague asks me that question, I would throw it back and just ask if he is willing to extend the period of consultation and perhaps not make these areas no-take zones as we move forward.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George about one specific thing he talked about in terms of the efficacy of MPAs. Do they work? I would add that around the world, governments, first nations, scientists, environmental organizations, and fishing organizations have come together to say that marine protected areas do in fact work and that they are one of the best ways to protect the marine ecosystems and to help restore fisheries and protect endangered marine species. In fact, the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, spells out not only a clear definition of MPAs but also provides evidence-based examples from around the world of where protected areas have shown remarkable benefits in terms of protection from harmful activity.

Does the member not agree that MPAs must be one of the tools in our tool box to restore our damaged oceans?

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of testimony over the course of our study, including unequivocal testimony that MPAs are not the only tool, and maybe not the only tool before us, as he suggests. Therefore, we need to have other tools in our tool box to preserve our oceans and rivers, lakes, and streams. However, right from the very beginning, we need to look at how the process is done.

I would also throw this back to our hon. colleague, that from the start the process must be done right if it is going to be effective. We have heard before that if MPAs are to be truly effective, the process has to include true engagement, that consultation has to be there, and that from the start it has to be done right.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the discussion with the member from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, who actually initiated a study that is under way right now. We looked at the criteria that should be reviewed when it comes time to put in place a marine protected area. Could the hon. member, for the benefit of the House, replay some of the things he has heard so far about those criteria, one of which has to be consultation, but also the other things that we need to consider to ensure that a marine protected area does what it is intended to do?

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for his work on the committee. At times he challenges the government and all of us to do better and continue to do the good work that our committee is doing.

Some of the criteria we heard included the need for true consultation with our indigenous peoples 100%. Another criterion is the use of scientific data, but we have also heard that scientific data is not 100% accurate. Again, fish move. The boundaries are there. There has to be a holistic approach. There are also criteria looking at what our goals and objectives are for the MPAs in their entirety. How do we do that?

Again, going back to the science, going back to what we have learned from previous MPAs, the only MPA that has been brought forward as a successful to this date is the one off the coast of California, and it took more than seven years to get right. It included true consultation and engagement right from the start with all stakeholders.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the term “protection”, it always implies it is black and white. It is either a protected area or it is a totally exploited area. However, the devil is always in the details. If the goal of a marine protected area is to protect the ocean bottom and the vertebrates that happen to live there, perhaps ocean going traffic would be allowed on the surface. Perhaps a certain kind of pelagic fishery would be allowed, and those kinds of things.

In the case of a locally productive angling area cherished by the local community, if that were completely sewn up so that no recreational angling could take place, it would cause great economic harm to the region, as happened in California because of the lack of consultation in the California establishment on the marine protected area. I had the honour of sitting on the fisheries committee while this topic was being debated.

It goes back to my hon. colleague's comments about consultation, because it is the local people who know the complexity of the area. Has there been enough consultations with local people, and how valuable is that consultation with local communities?

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Madam Speaker, that is a great question by my hon. colleague who has served for seven years on the fisheries committee and did yeoman service for us, and did Canadians, fishers, and our committee a great service from coast to coast to coast.

I will say categorically 100%, no, that local knowledge is not being taken up, again going back to the industry, whether it was in regard to the Atlantic salmon, northern cod, or indeed Bill C-55. Local knowledge is being offered but not being taken up. It is being pushed aside for whatever reason. In the quote I read earlier from the Lax Kw'alaam hereditary chiefs, they believe that foreign interests are being looked at before local interests.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Education; the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Ethics; the hon. member for Essex, Steel Industry.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-55, an act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, and to offer a few suggestions on how the bill could be improved.

Let me say at the outset that I share the government's commitment to the international community and to the protection of 5% of Canada's marine areas by 2017 and 10% by 2020, with the aim of protecting our oceans by halting the destruction of marine ecosystems. However, since signing the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to take meaningful action to make good on this international commitment.

In the protection of marine areas, until very recently Canada lagged behind China at 1.6%, and is still behind Japan at 5.6%. Australia and the United States are much further ahead, with 33.2% and 30.4% of their oceans protected respectively.

This legislation would provide some much-needed new legal tools to speed up the creation of marine protected areas, but it falls far short of Canada's international commitments to protect our marine biodiversity.

While it has been encouraging to watch repeated announcements this past year of new marine protected areas, Canada is playing catch-up. The best parts of the bill will help us get there. The problem is that in the rush to meet our international commitments, the government has prioritized quantity over quality in the areas protected. That is a big mistake.

Most Canadian MPAs are not meeting international conservation standards and this legislation will do nothing to address that deficiency. It fails to set minimum protection standards and targets for zoning of marine protected areas, which renders the designation inconsistent at best and meaningless at worst.

It goes without saying that ecological integrity should be the foremost priority of MPA management. However, due to a lack of minimum protection standards, at this point Canada's MPAs offer an insufficient level of protection of sensitive ecosystems.

In its report, “Linking Science and Law Minimum Protection Standards for Canada's Marine Protected Areas”, West Coast Environmental Law states that ecological integrity should be a top priority for MPAs. The report states:

Decisions on activities permitted within marine protected areas should be required to prioritize maintenance of the protected ecosystems' processes, and functions.

The Canada National Parks Act (CNPA) and associated regulations require the prioritization of “the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity” to guide decisions on allowable activities.

The national parks policy elaborates this in principle, stating that “national park ecosystems will be given the highest degree of protection to ensure the perpetuation of natural environments essentially unaltered by human activity” and that “human activities within a national park that threaten the integrity of park ecosystems will not be permitted.”

The CNPA also gives the Minister the power to designate Wilderness Areas in “any area of a park that exists in a natural state or that is capable of returning to a natural state”, and when that designation is made, the Minister may not authorize any activity to be carried out in a wilderness area that is likely to impair the wilderness character of the area.

Including requirements to maintain ecological integrity of protected marine ecosystems within Canada's Oceans Act would ensure adherence to protection standards and thus link science to legal practice.

A concern that we are hearing more and more about is ocean plastics and marine debris. We firmly believe that the government needs to implement a strategy and to fund programs that will preserve the ecological integrity of our MPAs from this growing hazard.

Some current and proposed MPAs allow harmful activities like oil and gas exploration and extraction, mining exploration, industrial fishing, including bottom trawling. Banning these activities from protected areas should be the obvious choice.

When we compare MPAs to the protections offered to terrestrial parks it becomes even more striking. In the words of World Wildlife Fund President David Miller:

Oil and gas extraction is not compatible with conservation and should never be permitted inside a protected area. National parks on land have long had this in place as a minimum standard. It seems outrageous that a marine area could be designated as protected and yet an oil and gas platform could still be placed there, but that's exactly what going to be allowed in the Laurentian Channel unless the government of Canada changes course. The channel is a critical migration route for some of our most endangered whales, and oil and gas exploration and extraction threatens them with noise pollution, habitat disturbance and physical injury from seismic blasting.

This situation is an appalling double standard. We would not allow oil and gas exploration in a national park on land, so why would we allow it in a protected area in our oceans? The answer to this problem is clear. A strong set of protection standards, in line with the International Union of the Conservation of Nature, and legislated protection targets should be adopted by the government in order to meet our international commitments.

This is exactly what 59 scientists from across the world requested in an open letter to the fisheries and oceans minister and the environment and climate change minister. The letter stressed that scientific studies have shown repeatedly that stricter protection provides greater biodiversity benefits. They argue, at minimum, we should ban the most damaging activities to marine biodiversity, such as oil and gas activity, undersea mining, ocean waste dumping, and industrial scale fishing. Marine protected areas are home to countless at-risk species, and by definition, those ecosystems are in great need of protection.

This is important. We cannot allow a lack of legal rigour and haste to prevent us from accomplishing the goal we have agreed to. The government has made much of its commitment to science-based public policy, but with Bill C-55, it has again chosen to ignore the best available conservation science. The Liberal government should listen to the scientists within the scientific community, and not let the bill be another broken promise to Canadians.

Unfortunately, the government's environmental record is a string of broken promises and unfulfilled campaign commitments. It begins with the stunning approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, with the promised review of public consultation and environmental assessment. The people of British Columbia did not vote for a seven-fold increase in the number of oil tankers in Vancouver harbour, and they certainly did not vote for the accompanying risk of an oil spill that would devastate our coast.

It continues with no action on their promise to restore essential environmental protection legislation. On the campaign trail, Liberals promised to restore the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and the Navigation Protection Act. While we wait, they have approved the construction of the now defunct Pacific NorthWest LNG terminal on critical salmon spawning grounds, and cleared the way for development of the Site C dam under the weakened legislation.

The Liberal record of saying one thing and doing another is why we should all be concerned that the bill gives the minister far too much latitude to decide what activities are permissible in an MPA.

Ministerial discretion has become a red flag for Canadians. Too often, the government has promised one thing in regard to environmental protection and climate change, while using ministerial discretion to accomplish the exact opposite. Recently, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made an exemption to the Fisheries Act to allow one of the potentially most destructive projects on the planet to move forward, the KSM mine in British Columbia.

KSM will be the largest open pit mine in North America. Building this mine will require destruction of upper tributaries of the North Treaty and South Teigen Creeks, which flow into the salmon-bearing Nass and Bell-Irving rivers, for tailings storage. Alarmingly, KSM will store more than 27 times the amount of tailings stored at the Mount Polley Mine, using the same technology that failed three years ago.

We need clear legislation with strong guidelines to constrain ministerial discretion. These powers should be used to forward the ecological integrity of a marine protected area rather than permitting harmful activities. Recent research shows MPAs that permit harmful activities are less effective at achieving biodiversity than those with large no-take zones where extractive activity is banned.

Dr. Susanna Fuller, from the Ecology Action Centre, believes that MPAs core no-take zones should encompass 75% of a given MPA. Canada is nowhere close to reaching that high bar. Right now, the minister has the discretion to determine what activities are allowed in an MPA, and how restrictive each zone in an MPA can be.

So far, Canada's fisheries minister has implemented a no-take zone in only five MPAs to date, and those areas are tiny in comparison to the overall MPA. Canada should follow international examples, and make no-take zones the rule rather than the exception in MPAs.

I would like to speak for a moment about opportunities for co-governance of MPAs between indigenous nations and the crown in Canada.

West Coast Environmental Law has published a paper entitled “An Ocean of Opportunity: Co-governance in Marine Protected Areas in Canada”. It states:

Indigenous peoples have been governing marine territories using their own legal traditions since time immemorial. For the most part, indigenous legal orders have not been recognized or upheld in the governance of marine protected areas (MPAs) in Canada. The current Government of Canada has committed to “a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples, based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.” Co-governance arrangements in MPAs are one way of achieving a true nation-to-nation or Inuit-to-Crown relationship by creating space for the healthy interaction of Canadian and indigenous laws. With the Government of Canada’s renewed commitment to protect at least 10% of Canada’s oceans by 2020, there is a unique opportunity to implement co-governance arrangements in both new and established MPAs.

The report states that Canada has an opportunity to become a world leader in recognizing and implementing meaningful co-governance in MPA law, and I agree.

In closing, Canada's New Democrats understand there is no one-size-fits-all solution to marine protected areas, and we recognize that different MPAs are going to require different types of protections. Canada is large and geographically diverse. Local context must be taken into account. While uniform standards may not make sense for all coasts, minimum protection standards absolutely do, and that is what is missing from the bill.

The government needs to listen to scientists, first nations, working fishers, the provinces and territories, and concerned Canadians, so that we make the necessary improvements to Bill C-55.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalMinister of Fisheries

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the many shared objectives that certainly I, and I think the government, have with the positions he enunciated. He mentioned the Laurentian Channel MPA, and referred to comments made by the WWF chair David Miller. I have also taken note of those comments.

Of the thousands of submissions we received from Canadians after the first publication of the draft regulations with respect to the Laurentian Channel, the vast majority of them understandably expressed significant concerns around this question of oil and gas. I would ask my friend to be patient. When the second and final version is made public, I hope that many of those concerns can properly be answered. I said that at the time, and I certainly want to reiterate it now in light of his comments and the comments our government has received.

My question for our hon. colleague might be on this notion of minimum standards. As I said, in response to a question he asked after my remarks a few moments ago, I certainly share the concern people have about not establishing the right mix of minimum standards that would apply to all MPAs.

Does he have specific suggestions as to how we could quickly establish those minimum standards? One suggestion that was made was the idea of an expert scientific panel in partnership with others, not to delay but to quickly define what those might be. I would welcome his specific suggestions, and I would be anxious to work with him and others on getting those minimum standards right.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, the minister. He has emphasized that we, Canadians, and the community should be patient when citing the Laurentian Channel. However, I will take that back. We will be patient. We have gone from 25 years of only achieving essentially just over 1% protection of our oceans to now wanting to, in less than two years, achieve up to 5% and 10% by 2020.

Therefore, we essentially are making a huge change in a short order so, yes, with due respect, Canadians can be patient. However, they want to see action. They have been waiting for two-and-a-half decades. They want to see action now, not just with respect to the St. Lawrence but all coasts. Therefore, I encourage the minister to take those comments seriously, which I know he does, and to push his department to act quickly.

In terms of specifics with minimum protection standards, the scientific panel is one potential suggestion. That, I believe, can be quickly constructed and brought together.

We also need to remember our local organizations, whether it is the provinces and territories or first nations on the coast. They need to be included in the consultations to define exactly what those minimum standards should be within those marine protected areas.

If we look to organizations like West Coast Environmental Law, it has already produced tables on how to move quickly to establish not only definitions of what should be protected in an MPA but how to move to protect fisheries—

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Maybe the member can finish his thought with the next question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Madam Speaker, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam is a passionate member on the fisheries committee with a number of us here in the House. He always speaks about the science that is needed and basing decisions on science. I know that his party is very much focused on that part of it. Therefore, I would like to ask him to provide his thoughts on proposed section 35.2 of this bill, which states:

The Governor in Council and the Minister shall not use lack of scientific certainty regarding the risks posed by any activity that may be carried out in certain areas...as a reason to postpone or refrain from exercising their powers or performing their duties and functions under subsection 35(3) or 35.1(2).

What are the member's thoughts on being able to go ahead with a lack of science, when he is always quite strong on speaking about the need to follow science?

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, just to finish, one other organization I referenced in my earlier remarks was the IUCN. It has clearly done scientific studies and has a wealth of knowledge the minister could rely on.

I would like to thank my colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap, a member of the fisheries and oceans standing committee. He has often asked excellent questions and has offered very good suggestions to the government and the committee on moving forward. He points out the exact concern I raised in my speech. I share that concern about ministerial discretion when there is a lack of a scientific basis. Ministers, especially fisheries ministers in the past, have gotten into problems when they have made decisions without the basis of science behind them. That is absolutely why I feel that the government should move forward with caution in giving this kind of ministerial power.

I share the member's comments, and I caution the government on moving forward without addressing minimum standards with a scientific basis behind them. That is what is necessary.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions. First, the fisheries and oceans committee heard from jurisdictions that have, on the surface, been very successful in setting up marine protected areas, but then the other shoe drops. I wonder if the hon. member would comment on the experience in other areas when it is not done well.

Second, with respect to his last comment on the lack of scientific evidence, I am wondering if he would consider whether it is the precautionary principle that should really rule how we go forward.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells is also a member of the fisheries and oceans standing committee, and I have often appreciated his comments and questions to his own government and to the committee.

He asked a number of important questions about MPAs that have not done the proper consultation or due diligence in terms of the science to find out the specific areas or the right species to protect. That is incredibly important and can have consequences down the road. If that process is not in place, and the local community or the local area is not on-board, then absolutely, MPAs could unravel.

The precautionary principle is a fundamental principle going forward. That is the science-based kind of legislation we need to recognize. That is the caution about going to ministerial discretion. That is the concern. That would undermine adopting the precautionary approach in setting minimal standards for protection.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Independent

Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

I wholeheartedly agree with his comments that one size does not fit all. I come from a jurisdiction that has suffered, since it was created, from the fact that it is unique and does not fit the normal mould. I would ask him for clarification. He does not believe in one size fits all, but there should be minimum standards for everything. Much like Nunavut is unique, marine protected areas are unique, and what fits in one place may not fit in another. I am wondering if he thinks minimum standards for everything could possibly work.