Debates of Sept. 27th, 2017

Oceans Act

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

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. It gets at the heart of how to apply marine protected areas in such a vast country like Canada, with the unique north and the unique Pacific and Atlantic communities. It will come down to what we are trying to protect and what the aim of the protection is. Within the scientific community, that has been identified. That is clear. We know what we are losing and we know what we need to protect.

Whether it is certain corals, sponges, reefs, fisheries, or whales, we need to identify what it is we are trying to protect and use that marine protection area as a tool to move us in the direction of flourishing oceans and rebounding marine life. We need all ideas and suggestions on how to move forward so that we again have a flourishing ocean. We do not have that, and that is why we need MPAs.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, Canada has the longest coastline of any country in the world. For Canadians who live on the coast, there is a powerful pull and connection to the natural world. It is our identity, it is our livelihood, it is our life. Canadians are passionate about the health of the ocean. We watch and care about everything that happens on our shores, in coastal waters, and in offshore areas. Canadians have been calling for greater protections and the capacity to monitor and enforce those protections.

Bill C-55 is our government's legislation to protect marine ecosystems and to support the health of our oceans, in concert with forthcoming legislation under the Navigation Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, and the environmental assessment review.

Marine protected areas are a way to protect the ocean. These special areas seek to balance conservation and protection with sustainable use of our marine resources. They are living networks, where marine species are born, grow, reproduce, and thrive. It is by protecting these systems that we can protect the oceans and the maritime resources on which many Canadians depend.

Bill C-55 would enable the government to establish marine protected areas expeditiously, protecting critical and unique areas of our Canadian oceans as soon as within the next 24 months. These amendments would ensure that, when needed, an interim-protection marine protected area could be put in place so that new activities that could risk further harm to ocean ecosystems, habitat, or marine life would not be allowed to occur in these protected zones. The interim protection offered by the new provisions in the Oceans Act would be an important part of ensuring that Canadians who depend on fishing, whether for shellfish, finfish, or other marine organisms, could count on their livelihoods being protected over the long term. By establishing protection for critical marine habitats, we would protect the marine resources we rely upon.

A significant aspect of Bill C-55 is to strengthen the law and to lay penalties. We would ensure that enforcement officers would have the power to maintain the protected status of these marine protected areas. Under these proposed changes, the minister would have the authority to designate individuals as enforcement officers. For example, indigenous people currently working as guardian watchmen on the North Pacific coast or as members of provincial or local law enforcement could be designated the authority to enforce the Oceans Act within their waters. This provision would allow for greater collaboration with indigenous organizations and would distribute enforcement responsibilities to our partners. On the ground, this would make a significant difference to citizens, who have been begging for this kind of proper attention and collaboration.

The amendments would enable enforcement officers to make far better use of technology during an investigation. For example, an enforcement officer could require anyone being investigated to produce documents or electronic data, could examine the documents electronically, and could require that access to these devices be granted. It is hard to believe that we are talking about this in 2017, so it is important that we get with the times. These new contemporary powers are similar to those found in the Fisheries Act.

Not only would the powers of enforcement officers be strengthened but the amendments and additions proposed in Bill C-55 would be aligned with the powers of environmental protection officers under other statutes. Similar powers are found in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The proposed changes would better match those proposed under other natural resources laws. For example, the obligation to provide assistance to enforcement officers would be added to the Oceans Act. Under this new power, those involved would be required to provide reasonable assistance to enforcement officers during an inspection. The officer would also be able to examine, take samples of, and seize all objects that she or he had reasonable grounds to believe were obtained through the commission of an offence under the act.

Also, rights of passage would be added to the Oceans Act. When an enforcement officer needed to go through private property to inspect an area that could not otherwise be accessed, the officer would now have the right to walk through private property to gain access to the area of the ocean being inspected, such as a pier, a fishing vessel, or fishing apparatus. Ships that needed to be inspected could now be lawfully directed to or detained in any place in Canadian waters. Officers would have the authority to require this if they had reasonable grounds to believe that the ship or a person on board that ship had committed an offence related to the Oceans Act. Similar powers can be found in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act,1999, and the Antarctic Environmental Protection Act.

A new provision would also be added to the Oceans Act such that the legal owner of objects seized, locked up, abandoned, or confiscated, and persons entitled to possession of them, would be jointly and severally liable for the costs incurred by the government for their inspection, seizure, forfeiture, or disposition.

An offence under the Oceans Act could now also result in charges under other applicable Canadian legislation, such as the Fisheries Act or the Species at Risk Act. For example, fisheries closures could also be imposed in marine protected areas. A violation of such closures could expose a fisher to charges laid under the Fisheries Act, as well as charges for not respecting a prohibition in marine protected areas.

I will move on to the fines and punishments proposed under Bill C-55 to create greater certainty and administrative consistency. Under the current 20-year-old Oceans Act, contravention of the existing prohibitions can carry fines of up to $100,000 for an offence punishable on summary conviction, or $500,000 for an indictable offence. Penalties or punishments can vary, depending on the offence, and can include the imposition of monetary fines, licence suspension, prohibition orders, and creative sentencing, such as community service.

Bill C-55 seeks to align fines with those of other acts. The amount of the fine imposed on an individual would increase to between $200,000 and $300,000 for an offence punishable on summary conviction, and from $500,000 to $1 million for a criminal offence.

The bill also proposes to allow the courts to impose fines on corporations and ships. This is a measure that is consistent with other environmental laws, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

We would add new factors the courts would be able to take into account when they determined the fine that would be imposed on a person, corporation, or ship if they were found guilty. These would be the following: Was the offence a continuation of an offence? Did the offender do this numerous times or over several days, weeks, or months? Was this a second or subsequence offence? Was the offender found guilty of having committed another offence in the past? Were there any aggravating factors, such as having committed the offence despite having been warned by an enforcement officer not to start or continue the activity?

The courts would also be able to take into account such matters as small revenue corporation status and the liability of directors, masters, owners, officers, agents, and mandataries. The bill would also provide the possibility of leniency under the due diligence defence. This means that if one was accused of an offence, one could explain to a court that he or she was prudent and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the offence.

There would also be more court orders in the bill, such as the ability to charge an amount to monitor environmental effects, to promote the conservation and protection of marine protected areas, to conduct research, to assist a group for its work on the marine protected area, or to support an educational institution.

Bill C-55 is an important step toward providing Canada's oceans with the protection Canadians expect and have been asking for, and for me, as a representative of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, this is an important step. It is a step toward protecting the livelihoods of many Canadians as well.

I look forward to continuing to participate in the protection of Canada's marine ecosystems from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if she could elaborate on Bill C-55 and ministerial discretion versus science-based evidence and how the government, through this legislation, would give that power to the minister without establishing a basis, as I spoke about earlier, of minimum protection standards?

The scientific community, around the world, has clearly identified that we need minimum protection standards if we want to see MPAs work. My colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells asked about the consequences of getting this wrong if we do not do this right.

Could my hon. colleague comment on that?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question and for his leadership in this arena. It is noted, and I think Canadians are very grateful for the work he has done.

The most important thing to note is that in the legislation, the precautionary principle is very important. The fact that we are providing interim measures is very important. It signals that we are trying to move as quickly as we can toward greater protections.

Second, there is no question that our government has put science, scientists, and science-based research at the heart of much of the work many departments do. The member opposite can feel quite confident that it is essential.

Third, the fact that the minister has discretion in the context of that is a testament to his leadership with regard to ocean protection.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just answered a question from my hon. colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam with respect to moving as fast as the government could to put those protections in place. At what cost?

We have heard committee testimony from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, stakeholders, indigenous groups, industry, NGOs, environmental groups, and scientists. They have said that the process has to be thorough. We all agree that we need to move in the right direction in the protection of our oceans, but that process has to be thorough and it has to be true.

What does my hon colleague have to say to the hundreds, if not thousands, of stakeholders across Canada that have felt alienated by her government's lack of consultation on this process?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to think that we might all agree. Certainly stakeholders and our government are passionate about this. The minister in his introductory speech recognized the input he had received. He recognized that he must listen to all groups affected by this. However, the act is 20 years out of date. We fell behind in the last decade, and we are making up for that.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague started her speech by talking about Canada being surrounded with water and it being critically important to each and every person in the chamber and across our country. From the perspective of development and sustainable development, how important is this initiative to ensure Canada continues to be a leader in our commitment to the 2030 agenda on sustainable development goals?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, speaking as a member of Parliament from the west coast, nothing is more respected or revered than wild salmon. Protecting the habitat for wild salmon, orcas, herring, or whatever species in the chain, means that the natural abundance can come back and thrive. What sustainability really means is whether we take into account all aspects that allow the environment and the economy to proceed at the same time.

The sustainable development goals are very important to us. We feel this step is in response to that and to the interests of the community, which takes this to heart. That is what gives me such great pride to be addressing this on behalf of the minister.

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

Madam Speaker, I share the parliamentary secretary's passion for wild salmon, for other marine wildlife, and for ecosystems. I appreciate her comments on that.

With respect to the question just asked, unfortunately Canada is not a leader in ocean protection. We are well behind. As we have outlined, many countries are well ahead of us. We are now at 3.5% and other countries are over 30%, so we have a lot of catching up to do.

My question is around co-governance, working with first nations, Inuit, and Métis. How does the government expect to work with those governments in moving forward in establishing MPAs on all three coasts?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, we recognize the road ahead of us with regard to marine protection. That was why I referred to the government's recommendation for interim marine protected areas so we could state our intent, as all of the other pieces unfold, toward much greater marine protected areas of our coast. Co-governance is essential to us. Our relationship with indigenous peoples of Canada is essential to us. Frankly, this is the opportunity to demonstrate that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country comes from a beautiful part of the country. I know her passion for wild salmon on the west coast, and I share that passion.

What are the member's thoughts on the ability of the minister to move forward without the scientific backing on some of these closures? How can that be defendable when the world environmental community is so focused on ensuring we have the science right?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to point to two other very exciting initiatives of our government under the leadership of the minister. We have science enterprise centres in Moncton and in West Vancouver. Through revitalization and reinvestment, we are reigniting science enterprise in these flagship labs on both coasts.

When we bring the community in and bring science partners together, we can be assured that the number one priority is environmental conservation, concern for pollution of the ocean, concern for plastics in the ocean, and concern for the potential threats of open-net fish farms. These questions are being raised by the community, and our government is putting those questions directly to the two new flagship science enterprise centres to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask for a quick elaboration on empowering other partners to do the work she talked about, which is the enforcement of marine protected areas. Could you elaborate as to who those partners are and how they will have the power to go across land, as you mentioned, into the oceans? What would that look like? Are our first nations included in this and how would this roll out in those communities?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will not elaborate on it, but I am sure it was through me that you were asking the question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary, a very brief answer please.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my comments, examples would be the guardian watchmen, indigenous communities on the north Pacific coast, and also both provincial and local law enforcement.

I have seen this on our wonderful waterways, and I am sure many have. When citizens see things happen, there is no one to call. We feel we have such engaged partners on oceans protection that this would be very welcome. Of course, it is extended, fundamentally, to indigenous peoples but also local law enforcement.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap. I will advise him ahead of time that I may need to interrupt him at some point to deal with some other orders of the House.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today, but not knowing when I will be cut off is awkward. Hopefully I can get through my speech today.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-55, an act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. The bill proposes to significantly increase the powers of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard so as to allow the minister to designate marine protected areas, or MPAs, for an interim period of up to five years.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is currently studying MPAs, specifically the criteria and process being used to identify and establish them.

Last December, I presented a motion to committee to undertake this study because it was clear to me that massive efforts and a significant amount of funding was being exerted by the government to increase MPAs, while stakeholders living and working along Canada's coasts were unaware of what was happening. At that time, it was clear that the government was exerting pressure on the established process and protocols for establishing MPAs in an effort to speed up that process. It was also clear that the government was willing to sacrifice processes of consensus-building with Canadians for the sake of expediency.

First nations, fishermen, cargo shippers, tourism operators, conservation groups, academics, and many other stakeholders continue to face consequences of the government's frantic and half-baked approach to speeding up the process of establishing MPAs.

Why is the government in such a hurry? Why is it so desperate that it needs to propose a bill that would nullify long-established processes and protocols used to establish consensus among stakeholders?

The answer is that in 2015, the Liberals set delivery dates for achieving MPA objectives that the previous Conservative government had committed to through the Aichi targets under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, or CBD.

Through the Aichi targets, the Conservative government in 2010 committed to conserving 10% of our coastal and marine areas through networks of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, not necessarily MPAs.

The objectives of conserving coastal and marine areas are worthy objectives, but the problem that thousands of Canadians working and living in coastal areas face today is that they have been cut out of the process for establishing MPAs. Why? Because the Liberal government has failed to deliver so many campaign promises that the pressure is on to deliver these commitments made by the Conservatives. The problem is that the timelines promised by the Liberals in the election were unrealistic in 2015, and they are unrealistic today.

The Liberal government has overwhelmed the established structures and processes for developing MPAs. Rather than stepping back and re-assessing its timeline, the Liberal government, through this legislation, is attempting to discard the systems, structures, and processes that have been used for years to establish MPAs in Canada.

Through the bill, the Liberal government proposes to give the fisheries minister increased powers to completely bypass established structures and processes designed to build consensus, designed to identify the right balance to strike in considering the interests of first nations, fishermen, and other Canadians affected by MPAs.

Bill C-55 would allow for arbitrary interim designation of MPAs prior to formal consultations with first nations or area stakeholders.

It is completely unacceptable in Canada, or anywhere for that matter, for the federal government to undermine structures and processes that allow citizens, including first nations, to engage and defend their interests when the government is considering a decision that could have a major effect on those citizens.

Upon reviewing the mandate letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, it was clear the government was going to do everything it could to reach its political targets come hell or high water, pardon the pun.

Considering that the 2010 Aichi targets were given 10 years to be implemented, it occurred to me that there may be a reason for the long time frame set to reach these targets.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, or FOPO, as it is known here on the Hill, consists of members from across the country and the three main political parties in the House. It is an honour to sit on that committee with members who I believe share a common commitment to fish, fisheries, and their habitat.

The FOPO committee is still in the midst of this study on MPAs, and has so far heard from witnesses from many areas of Canada and abroad. The committee had benefited greatly from testimony by first nations, fishermen, conservationists, and representatives from the shipping and tourism sectors. What has been even more interesting are the common themes borne in the testimony and the evidence the committee has received.

The committee has heard that proper consultation before and during the process of establishing MPAs is paramount to establishing MPAs that are both effective and accepted, especially consultation with and by local communities. Nowhere was this more evident than in the north where MPAs have been established for the protection of our aboriginal fishing and harvesting areas. These areas were established where the local people wanted them, in the manner in which the local people wanted them, and only after appropriate consultation was completed. It was not in an arbitrary manner, absent of scientific certainty, to meet a political target.

I raise the point of scientific certainty here, because in one of the most alarming clauses in Bill C-55, proposed section 35.2 reads:

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 of the sea 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).

Now, not everyone may take the time to understand what this means. However, it means that the minister would not need the backing of science to designate a marine protected area. There would be no science necessary.

It is shameful that the current Liberal government's 2015 policy platform alluded to basing decisions on science, yet now as government, it is proposing to discard the structures and processes of consultation and science by setting the will of the minister above the needs and interests of all Canadians, including first nations.

I support marine protected areas. Canada has some of the most biodiverse regions in the world, and our coasts are truly rich in biodiversity. We need to recognize and identify where those important and sensitive areas are and take measures to protect them while at the same time recognize that we can harvest and develop sustainably, so that our country can prosper, maintain our high standards, and be able to enforce the laws and protect the areas we designate. If we choose to move forward without first knowing what it is we were trying to protect, or what industry we may be prejudicing, we will fail in our duties to the Canadians who have elected us to represent them here in the House.

Getting back to the study by the FOPO committee, I could quote from a number of witnesses who testified that the process of establishing MPAs has been rushed. For example, Mr. Ian MacPherson, executive director of Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, stated:

...the PEIFA understands the requirement to protect marine environments, but we do have concerns surrounding the tight timelines to accomplish these goals. The first step to designating a ministerial order MPA is to gather existing scientific, economic, social, and cultural information on the area. Prince Edward Island is a small province driven by small fishing communities. The displacement of fishers from one community—

It would appear that I am out of time. Hopefully, I will be able to continue my speech tomorrow.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt, but the member will have 10 minutes remaining in his speech the next time this matter is before the House.

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Access to Information Act

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-58.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #350

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Customs Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Customs Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-21.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #351