Debates of March 26th, 2018

Oceans Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the fact that it is a good idea to protect some areas. I talked about the “12, 75, 12” plan. That was a policy that I lobbied for a long time ago. The context of my speech was in making sure we get the right areas protected, that we have halibut spawning areas protected, certain species of groundfish. Most of these fisheries that are on the bottom are not generally migratory. I am speaking in generalizations right now. These are species that stick around in the same general protected areas. I do not have a problem at all with protecting some of those areas. I have great concerns with the pace that the current government is going about doing this, not taking in the scientific or technical aspects.

There are parts of our oceans that we have not even mapped yet, and we are creating marine protected areas without fully understanding if we are putting them in the right place. My fear, given the government's agenda to shut down the energy sector, is that the marine protected areas are going to be put in places to stop shipping lanes and prevent a future government from some day opening them up. I know this to be true, because in the legislation for the cancellation of any energy projects, the Liberals would compensate those interests based on the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act. If that is not an admission that they are going to shut down the energy sector, I do not know what is.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's well-thought out comments, and his education background and practice.

On the environment committee, we heard from Inuit people from the north. I know the member has been to that area. Those witnesses said that what was being proposed to them was another form of colonization. They were opposed to this. They want to have the right to develop their own resources, both fishing and on the land. They are very opposed to this, and they believe this is another form of colonization. It is not reconciliation at all, but much worse. I wonder if you heard similar things being expressed in your trip to the north.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I am not sure if he is referring to your trip to the north, Mr. Speaker, but if he is referring to my trip to the north, this is exactly what we heard. I was there with some of the colleagues from our side of the House on the fisheries committee, and we heard exactly those concerns. The people who live in the north, particularly in the Arctic and High Arctic, live right along the coast. They live along the coast for a very good reason, as that is where almost all of their food comes from. It is where all of their activity is, and where they get their provisions for the upcoming winter season. They need to have access to seals. They need to have access to the pack ice in the winter. They need to have access to beluga whales, and the char fisheries and salmon fisheries and so on that are up there.

While we were up there in Paulatuk, in Tuktoyaktuk, and in Inuvik, we talked to the hunting and trapping associations, to the chiefs and the elders, and to all the stakeholders who were there. Virtually all of them in each of those communities had a vested interest in being able to continue on with their traditional way of life. The previous New Democrat MP asked me a question on wanting to protect these areas 100%. I wish them luck if they are going to slap a marine protected area right in the middle of some place where the Inuit are harvesting their beluga whales as a matter of tradition, because that is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats have concerns about this legislation, certainly around the failure to set minimum protection standards and targets for zoning for marine protected areas. We have concerns about oil and gas exploration being conducted in these marine protected areas. In fact, that is supported by the World Wildlife Federation of Canada, as follows:

The government is planning to create a marine protected area...around the Laurentian Channel, where North Atlantic right whales are known to frequent. But proposed regulations will still allow oil and gas drilling and seismic blasts in 80 per cent of the MPA. These activities threaten whales and other wildlife. An oil spill would be even more devastating.

Does the member agree with the Liberals that oil and gas exploration should be permissible in a marine protected area and that we should be gutting environmental regulations in favour of industrial development?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see how a single New Democrat could stand up in this House and accuse the current government of putting forward legislative changes that are in any way, shape, or form benefiting the oil and gas sector. I have been here and watching this economic disaster in progress for the better part of the last two and a half years, and I simply do not know where the hon. member is sourcing his questions.

What I do know is that the price of gasoline in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia right now is about 30¢ to 40¢ a litre higher than it is everywhere else. It would be a shame to shut off that pipeline from Alberta and watch the price of gasoline go to $2.50 a litre.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the discussion today, thinking there is a classic situation unfolding again. The NDP thinks the government is doing too much and the Conservatives think we are not doing enough.

I will go back to the discussion around the protection of the oceans. Would the hon. member agree that protecting the wildlife in the oceans will protect the upstream wildlife as well and that the entire ecosystem, where he used to fish in the Northwest Territories, will benefit from protecting the oceans that those rivers feed into?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my colleague has asked me a forthright question out of concern. I do not disagree with the premise of his question at all.

The issue I have is with the rapid pace that the legislation is going to be put in place and the massive amount of power the Governor in Council is going to have now to make the regulations. My NDP colleague who asked me a question earlier was right in the fact that the legislation does not clearly define some of the things it should be clearly define. I will give my NDP colleague that.

However, the problem we have is this. The rapid pace at which we are going ahead with the legislation, the agenda of having almost 10% of marine protected areas protected by 2020 without even having a basic understanding of the science we need to ensure we actually protect the right areas, is going lead to political decisions and those political decisions will not be in the best interests of Canada. That is my concern.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide those who are watching, and members, with a number of points about what we do and do not support in the legislation. The bill would provide some new legal tools that would speed up the creation of marine protected areas, but it falls far short of Canada's international commitments to protect our marine biodiversity.

The bill fails to set minimum protection standards, and I will speak a little more about that, and targets for zoning for marine protected areas, which renders the designation inconsistent at best and meaningless at worst. It would give the minister far too much latitude to decide what activities would be permissible in an MPA. If oil and gas exploration can take place in an MPA, what is the point of the designation? Those are some of our concerns.

I want to talk about the NDP's proposed amendments at the Standing Committee for Fisheries and Oceans. We had five major themes. All were supported by witness testimony.

Our first theme was focused on establishing minimum protection standards. It makes sense that if we do not have a minimum basic standard with respect to protection, it gets very hard for either industry or for those concerned about protection, such as governments, nations, and first nations, to know exactly what is the definition criteria and how they meet a minimum basic level of protection. The government could focus a lot more on that.

The second theme was maintaining ecological integrity as the primary objective of an MPA, or marine protected area. That is critical and achieved through networks and other areas of protection, either federal designations, or at provincial or indigenous levels. All can play part in a constructive network of protection and protected areas. Maintaining that ecological integrity is critical for the whole concept behind an MPA.

The third theme was creating co-governance with indigenous peoples and establishing the authority of indigenous guardians. This is a critical element today of managing our resources, our oceans, our lands, and our watersheds. We just saw on the floor of the House of Commons an unprecedented ceremony recognizing those wrongs that were made prior to Confederation, but now being acknowledged by the government, and how our new relationship with first nations must be, which must include co-management. When we talk about marine protected areas, we must recognize a new way of managing and protecting our oceans.

The fourth theme was establishing no-take zones. This is a critical element to which the international community has drawn. I will speak more about that in a minute, about the importance of having some areas within the MPA. It does not have to be the entire area, but scientific evidence shows the more areas that are no-take or that have the highest level of protection flourish the best. There will be protection of sensitive ecosystems when no-take zones are established. Canada falls far behind when looking specifically at no-take zones.

Finally, the fifth theme was to facilitate the implementation of a network of MPAs, not just specifically looking at the protected areas off and on land. We look at parks, but on the water we call them marine protected areas. Like on land, we need to provide connectivity. Establishing networks of MPAs is a critical element.

Other elements touched on similar themes. I will highlight the ones we heard at the standing committee. Ecological integrity, network ability of MPAs, and the recognition of indigenous rights were passed at the committee stage. Our proposed amendments were stronger, and it was regretful that they were defeated.

Many witnesses at committee supported the bill, but they also supported our proposed amendments. On November 23 of last year, Linda Nowlan, staff counsel at West Coast Environmental Law testified:

The law is currently very inconsistent. As you've heard and will probably continue to hear, people are astonished to learn that oil and gas exploration, undersea mining, and damaging fishing activities are all possible in the tiny fraction of the sea that we call marine protected areas. That's why an unprecedented 70,000 Canadians, members of the public, spoke out about one of the proposed new MPAs, Laurentian Channel, and said that we need to keep harmful activities out of these areas.

On November 21, Bill Wareham, the science projects manager of the David Suzuki Foundation, testified about the need to strengthen the bill with respect to indigenous protected areas. He said:

I think the other area of the act that needs strengthening is the area of indigenous protected areas. Many indigenous peoples have a longstanding interest in conserving resources and protecting areas of their traditional territory, and there's an opportunity to enable the government to accommodate indigenous protected areas, which are determined, managed, and governed by indigenous people. This amendment would not only facilitate additional conservation of natural resources, but would take Canada further down the path of reconciliation with indigenous communities.

On November 9, Susanna Fuller, senior marine conservation coordinator at the Ecology Action Centre, testified the following:

It makes no sense not to prohibit open net-pen aquaculture, for example, in a protected area that includes an important river for wild Atlantic salmon. It makes no sense to allow seismic testing and oil and gas drilling in areas that are important for marine mammals, or that are closed to bottom fishing to protect deep-sea coral and sponges. Essentially, our Oceans Act MPAs are lacking in some key ground rules that, perhaps, could not have been foreseen when it was drafted 20 years ago.

Third, the current lack of standards in this Oceans Act, and more broadly the lack of standards across all of the tools used to protect the marine environment—National Marine Conservation Areas, Fisheries Act closures—means that there is confusion at the ground level, which is not necessary. Canadians expect that in our terrestrial protected areas industrial activities will not be permitted. In the marine environment—and I think you've received our brief already that we put together with several other NGOs from across Canada—we're strongly advocating that activities like bottom trawling, oil and gas exploration and development, open net-pen aquaculture, and seabed mining should simply not happen in our marine protected areas. This does not preclude other low-impact human uses, like fishing with low-impact gear, ecotourism, and marine transportation.

The scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that bottom trawling has significant damaging impacts to sea floor ecosystems, and that no-take fishing areas are a key component of effective MPAs. Research shows that MPAs that permit varying levels of fishing and other activities are less effective at achieving biodiversity than fully protected areas.

International best practices suggest MPA core no-take zones should encompass 75% of a given MPA. Canada is nowhere close to reaching that high bar. Remember, this is the international community looking at examples in countries around the world that say they have the most success when there is the establishment of large no-take zones within the MPAs. Again, it is a very small fraction of a country's economic zone in the ocean. We are talking about a small sliver of the ocean.

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, and those areas are tiny when compared to the overall MPAs. Canada should follow international examples and make no-take zones the rule rather than the exception when it comes to MPAs.

We believe that reconciliation should be a part of all legislation. Additional designations are welcome tools, but it does not make sense to exclude explicit recognition of indigenous rights in the Oceans Act. Given the implications of MPAs for indigenous constitutional rights, it is irresponsible. The federal government's commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and working in true nation-to-nation relationships with Canada's indigenous peoples, consistent with the Canadian Constitution, should be reflected in the Oceans Act.

Marine protected areas are an opportunity to forward the cause of reconciliation, but Bill C-55 fails to include specific provisions to accomplish this. There are already successful examples in Canada of co-management that the government could look to for inspiration. There is the co-management agreement between the Haida Nation on the west coast of Canada and the Government of Canada on the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, or Parks Canada's co-operative management model in the Arctic. Those are a couple of examples. Best practices should be the rule and not the exception.

There has been some discussion about going too far or not far enough. Let us remember, if we go back to 1992, when the international community came together, that Canada signed on to a commitment to protect 5%, and then 10% of our oceans. That was over 25 years ago. Therefore, when I hear the Conservatives say that this is going too fast, or that we are protecting too much, we have to look at the context and talk about how we are doing. It is only just recently that we have managed to surpass 5% protection, and many of those MPAs do not enjoy strong protection of things like no-take zones.

If we look from the perspective of where we are, many countries are much further ahead than Canada is. Given that they have done much more since 1992 to look at protection of their oceans, Canada has a long way to go. This is a move in the right direction. Consultation is critical. We need to get it right. I do not argue at all when it comes to taking the time to get it right, in terms of consulting, whether it is with territories, provinces, first nations, industry, or environmental organizations, those who are really concerned about our oceans and marine ecosystems, but at some point, we need to move forward with achieving the protection that is needed in order to provide a healthy, flourishing ocean.

The bottom line is that our oceans are in serious trouble. I remember reading a report back in 2012 from the United Nations top marine scientist, who pointed out that the major predators in our oceans are in steep decline. For instance, we are losing sharks at a phenomenal rate. Back then, I read that we are losing between 38 million and 70 million sharks a year.

The scientific knowledge has increased since 2012. Scientists are finding that up to 100 million sharks a year are being killed for their fins. Those predators play a key role in maintaining ecosystem balance. That is just one example of what is happening in our oceans.

When we look at marine ecosystem issues, we are swimming in oceans full of plastics. In some areas, it is microplastics. They are a huge problem. When we look at the issue of climate change, our oceans are changing rapidly. Ocean acidification is happening at an alarming rate.

These issues have to be dealt with. The world needs to come together. Canada needs to play its part. Protecting portions of the ocean in the exclusive economic zone is a way to do that. This is one tool in the toolbox. We need to do more. We need to move faster.

Again, I appreciate the comments about consultation, because it is critically important that all who have an interest in our oceans and ocean ecosystems are included in important decisions.

I hope the legislation moves forward. I hope the government listens to the amendments and the concerns. It hope it incorporates them to get this bill right, because that is what is needed. I hope that the Liberals listen to the NDP's thoughtful and optimistic comments about what we heard from many witnesses who testified, not just at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans but in general in writing to me over the years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been listening consistently on this issue, virtually since taking office, all the way up to committee stage. My understanding is that there were a number of amendments proposed, particularly from the leader of the Green Party, and incorporated into what we have here today.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the four specific amendments brought in. Does he have anything to add specifically with respect to those amendments, recognizing that there is always room to grow in the future? This is not the last chapter of the book on such an important issue, because we have a very aggressive, progressive Atlantic caucus, in particular, and in the coastal region of British Columbia, on this file. All MPs of all political stripes are concerned about our oceans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question about the amendments. I mentioned in my speech that unfortunately, the amendments we put forward were not accepted at the standing committee. They were defeated, and the government has not incorporated the five I talked about.

I talked about establishing minimum protection standards, maintaining ecological integrity, creating co-governance with indigenous people, establishing no-take zones, and facilitating the implementation of networks and MPAs. Those were areas of concern we put forward. We heard from witnesses who testified that these are important areas. Unfortunately, the government did not listen on those elements.

I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments that they will look at this going forward. I hope they do. I know that the minister has committed to looking at minimum protection standards by establishing an advisory body to get input. I appreciate that and think it is important. However, we need to have that in the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam for his comments and his background on the fisheries file. It is an honour to work with him on the fisheries committee.

I want to use my knowledge and background in conservation and the member for Red Deer—Lacombe's background in conservation in parks. One of the things we have seen from our work on the ground is that there is a difference between conservation and preservation. With conservation, one uses the resource responsibly but receives a benefit from that use so that one has something to put back into the resource afterward. In the case of preservation, as in some of these marine protected areas being proposed, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam is proposing no-take zones. That means one has to provide something from nothing or else take something from somewhere else to support what one is doing. To me that sounds like the difference between conservatism and socialism.

I would like the member to explain what he would be taking from to provide these fully no-take zones. Obviously, that cannot happen. How would it relate to the inability to do anything in overall predator or wildlife management within these no-take zones? We have seen the dangers of that. In Yellowstone National Park, the wolves and major predators were removed from that area but have since been re-established there. Without any controls, they are now wreaking havoc on the beef industry down there. How does the member propose that those types of issues would be dealt with in those no-take areas?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap raises an important point. First, I want to respond with respect to the context.

I hope I made it clear in my speech that we are talking about a small percentage of the ocean in our economic exclusive zone on all three coasts in our country. It is only a small sliver of the economic zone we are referring to when we look at marine protected areas, MPAs, within those areas. When we look at the exclusive zone, we are talking about only 5% to 10%. We are talking about a tiny percentage of the exclusive zone. When I mentioned no-take zones, I was talking about a percentage of the MPA itself, so it is an even smaller part. This is with the idea that MPAs should play a role in helping to protect marine biodiversity and in helping it flourish. Over the last quarter of a century, we have seen the opposite happen. That is why we need to protect our oceans, our oceans economy, and the communities that rely on them.

I know that the member is talking about wise use and stewardship. I appreciate those. I think they are important areas. Conservation is critical. Preservation is also critical. I used the example of sharks. We are at a point where we are beyond wise use and stewardship. It is critical that we continue to do that. However, we have to look at preservation, or we are going to lose these amazing animals we rely on not only for our community and for their cultural importance but for our economy.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam for his excellent speech, and especially for the history of this whole process. Here we are, 25 years after our commitments were made, and we have done essentially nothing to reach those commitments. We are at 5%. Australia and the United States are at over 30%. I wanted to give him a bit more time to talk about the importance of the no-take zones he mentioned briefly and how they encourage biodiversity and the growth of populations. We also have endangered species, such as the North Atlantic right whale, which is heading rapidly toward extinction off our east coast, yet we are doing nothing, really, to stop that tragic consequence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the hard work that my friend from South Okanagan—West Kootenay did before he even became a member of Parliament on, mostly, terrestrial biodiversity and his knowledge of biodiversity in general. I do appreciate his comments. He comes from an important and learned place when he talks about why it is important to have no-take zones within marine protected areas.

Traditional knowledge has shown that where there is human activity, where there is a lot of industrial human activity, it is very detrimental to the ecosystem. There are impacts in areas where we have fished, in areas where we have introduced oil and gas. The importance of having no-take zones to allow the marine ecosystem, those mammals, those fish species, those shellfish, to flourish, come back, and thrive is critical.

I am glad that my colleague asked me about the history I mentioned. I brought that up in my speech because it is so important to provide context. I referenced the last 25 years, a quarter century, but if we look back over the last 200 years all the trends are not good in terms of some of the major impacts from industrial use and the way we conduct ourselves in the marine area.

We obviously have to do things differently if we want these magnificent animals to survive and thrive. If we want our coastal communities and their ocean economies to survive and thrive, we need to do things differently. We need to look at providing protections. We need to look at networks of MPAs in protected areas.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to talk about the important piece of legislation we have before us. It is quite gratifying to see that it is at the third reading stage, making it one step closer to receiving royal assent.

I do not say that lightly. I believe there is a far greater expectation of Canadians, no matter where they live, whether it is along the coast or the in core of the prairie areas. Canadians do have a very caring attitude toward what is taking place in our oceans.

I have found first-hand over the last number of years that more and more constituents of mine are concerned about the environment and the types of things that are taking place on our planet. One of the reasons we had a commitment from the government during the last election to look at ways in which we can improve the marine protected areas was the level of interest, not to mention that it is the right thing to do.

I recall when we first saw the legislation being talked about, to a certain degree, which was back when we had the Harper government. I believe it was in the 2012 or 2013 budget where part of that large bill amended something like 70 pieces of legislation, and tucked away in there was the deletion of navigable waters and the impact of taking many streams outside of government protection in one form or another.

Ever since, I have seen that it has been more and more a political issue, where different members talk about the issue of water conservation and protection. I suspect members will find a keen sense of this from a number of members of Parliament. I look particularly to my Atlantic caucus colleagues who are very passionate about anything related to issues such as the fisheries and issues surrounding the environment and the coastal regions, which is not to take away from the individuals on the Pacific coast where there is a great deal of passion and a high sense of awareness in terms of what we need to do to protect our coastlines.

Of course, we have to go all the way up north. Even in my home province, with the Churchill bay area, I can recall discussions with Speaker George Hickes, prior to becoming an MLA in the Manitoba legislature. He would often talk about the beluga whale stories and the manner in which he and the Inuit community would capture beluga whales. It was an interesting process to say the least, and how he incorporated that into his Speaker pin. Now, he is no longer the Speaker, but I think he left an impression on a number of MLAs, including me, of just how important it is that, when we talk about our oceans, we talk about the heritage, the opportunities, the jobs, the economy, and the environment. There is so much that needs to be taken into consideration when we deal with important legislation such as we have today.

I believe that the minister has done his work. There were extensive negotiations even before the legislation was brought in. I also listened to the second reading debate and saw the many stakeholders, individuals, and members who have an interest in the topic and who came forward and expressed their concerns. Ultimately in the standing committee, some amendments were brought forward to improve the legislation. That is what we have here today.

There is a sense of excitement with respect to the legislation passing. At the very core is the recognition of our coastal marine areas and the importance of having protected areas. This year alone we will achieve up to 5%, or maybe even a little higher, of our total coastal areas.

We have a very ambitious goal of 10% by the year 2020, virtually doubling during the next couple years, a very achievable goal, in good part because of the legislation. This legislation is a fulfillment of a commitment by the Prime Minister during the last election. A lot of the fine work was undertaken. Canadians participated through all sorts of means, sending a very strong message and helping to bring forward the legislation before us.

The legislation is very sensitive to our coastal regions, to the economic means and to the heritage of our coastal regions over the many years prior to Canada even becoming a great nation.

I highly recommend members across the way get behind the legislation. I appreciate many of the words of support coming from my New Democratic friends. They have raised consistently a number of areas of concern and potential amendments. I was not at the committee to hear the debate on those amendments. However, I know they were listened to as was the leader of the Green Party. They may not have gotten everything they wanted, but I would ask the opposition to look at the bigger picture as was presented by many individuals even prior to the legislation being brought forward. I was here during that debate on the navigable water amendments made in the budget motion. Many of the concerns that were expressed back then have been taken into consideration and incorporated in this legislation. That is a very strong positive.

On the other hand, at times it is hard to tell where the Conservative Party stands on issues of this nature. Over the years, the Conservatives have wanted to see less direct government involvement, which is surprising. I would think the Conservatives would listen more closely to the expectations of Canadians. If they did that, they would be a whole lot more sympathetic and would support the legislation.

I will wait and see whether the Conservatives actually vote in favour of the legislation. However, based on what I have heard, I do not anticipate they will. The Conservative Party demonstrates time and again that it really does not understand the mood of Canadians or the types of things Canadians expect government to provide.

This is one of those things that I believe would receive wide support, in all regions of our country. We recognize that there are going to be some concerns. Some might raise the issue of the economic impact of having an area designated. There will be an impact, but the government has demonstrated clearly over the last two years that we understand the importance of working with others, consulting provinces or territories, indigenous people, opposition parties to a certain extent, but Canadians as a whole. By bringing in balanced legislation, we will allow for those areas that need to be protected to be protected faster, but also ensuring that we continue to grow our economy.

A good example of that is in regard to the pipeline issue. We have the Minister of Natural Resources who has demonstrated that we establish a process, put it in place, get behind it, and then move forward. We have seen a government that has been able to accomplish more in the last two and a half years on that file than the Conservatives did in over 10 years.

We have a track record that indicates, as a government, we understand the importance of the economic value of our coastal regions, but that we also have a moral responsibility and legal responsibility to ensure we are protecting our coastlines.

As I indicated, we are all connected to our oceans. I have been very clear on that. No matter where we live in Canada, all these bodies of water play a very important role in our culture, our economy, and are very essential to life on this planet.

The government is committed to increasing the proportion of Canada's marine and coastal areas that are protected. I made reference to five per cent this year, ultimately hitting 10% by 2020. When we say these percentages, it is worthy of noting how long Canada's coastal line is compared to any other country in the world. If we follow it from Vancouver Island going north and around the Arctic, and coming back down to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and into the United States, it is a vast coastal line. Canada has a leadership responsibility that goes beyond our borders. We want to say to the rest of the world that we have targets, and they are reasonable targets. It will not be many years from now. We are virtually doubling them over the next couple of years. That sends a very strong message.

When we talk about our coasts and the importance of our oceans and ecosystem, it goes far beyond Canada, recognizing that Canada has played a very strong leadership role in the world on a wide variety of issues. This is yet another one, but one that is quite significant given the size of our coastal lines. Whether it is the right whale in the Atlantic, the beluga in Churchill, grey whales that go up the Atlantic, or whether it is salmon fishing, there are many issues surrounding our fisheries and protected species.

We heard a lot earlier about the plastics and microplastics. There are so many things that are taking place in our oceans, in our waterways, that we do have that responsibility to get that better understanding and to bring in legislation that will, in fact, make a difference.

This legislation will make a difference because it clarifies the responsibility, for example, of our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to establish that national network of protected areas. It is something for which we have a minister who, in a very real way through the legislation, will ultimately, for the first time I believe, be in a great position to establish that national network. It also empowers the minister to designate marine protected areas by order and prohibits certain activities in those areas.

Again, depending on the activities, it could really have an impact in terms of what is underneath that water. We hear a lot about eco-tourism and the potential in tourism is absolutely phenomenal. We will continue to see, I believe, growth in that area. There is a big difference in providing, encouraging, and seeing that cultivated and developed, with all sorts of job opportunities that are there, versus things that might see the fore of some of our coastal lines being dragged or oil going in all areas of our coastal regions.

It is important that we recognize that there are many different types of activities, both today and going forward, that are taking place. Thus, it is important that we have a minister that has the authority to be able to prohibit certain activities in these protected areas. We look at it in the sense that, within five years of the day of which the order of a minister designating a marine protected area comes into force, the minister is to make recommendations to the Governor in Council to make regulations to replace that order or ultimately have to repeal it.

We are seeing an update in the strengthening of powers of enforcement officers. Far too often, we will see governments bring in legislation, and legislation is great. It helps set the framework, but at the end of the day, we need to look at ways in which we can invest in the resources to protect those resources. That means we need people on the ground. We need to have a better understanding of what is actually taking place. Without that, legislation will not do it alone.

I believe that we have seen the government as a whole invest in this. In particular, the Minister of Finance and the minister responsible for procurement are taking a look at how we can ensure that not only do we have legislation but we also have the resources necessary to be able to make a difference and to give additional strength in terms of powers to the minister to able to ensure that it does in fact take place.

It does create some new offences, which is important to recognize, for a person or ship that engages in prohibited activities within a marine protected area designated by an order or that contravenes certain orders. One would expect that to take place, and in fact, that is what we are seeing.

I am going to go back to the idea of establishing a process. Establishing a process of designating a marine protected area today is lengthy. This legislation is going to cut back on that time. That is a good thing.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the deputy House leader of the government, for doing such yeoman service for the government. He is always on his feet, on good days and bad days. Lately there have been a lot of bad days, but he is there. He is like the postman of Parliament, through rain, shine, scandal, or what have we.

However, I have to highlight the difference between that member now and when he was on this side of the chamber. He knows I have had some fun on this. We have seen many omnibus bills from the government. In opposition, he used to call those assaults on democracy. In opposition, when it came to time allocation motions and speeding up legislation for political means, he said, “never before have I ever experienced a government that is so persistent in using time allocation, a form of closure, using it as frequently as [it] does.”

Well, as a private member, never before have I seen one member stand so many times in this House defending the government for using time allocation and doing all the things it promised never to do when it was in opposition.

We are debating amendments to the Oceans Act, and a number of other bills that the government is pushing forward and bringing to time allocation on debate. Would it not help this member's purposes for us to get back to a normal procedural pace here in the House? All they have to do is provide Mr. Jean to the public safety committee, and then we can get back to the functioning of Parliament. We can then get back to the type of Parliament that member used to dream about in opposition.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words that the member opposite said about me, and I thank him for that. There are many, many more wonderful days on this side of the House to look forward to, and there have been some fantastic days in the past. Today the member wants this civil servant to be called before a committee, and maybe next week it will be a different civil servant because he or she might have said something else. I guess the sky is the limit on it. I must say that it has been an interesting process. Last week we had the member, who used to be the minister for veterans affairs, vote against the veterans benefits as we went line by line through all those votes.

Getting back to the legislation itself, I am sure my friend would agree that contrary to what the Conservatives might believe, Canadians want to see progressive legislation that is going to ensure we have a more protected marine coastal areas.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize a comment made earlier by the parliamentary secretary.

Following the comments of our New Democratic colleague from British Columbia, he said that every piece of legislation could obviously be improved, that he was expecting to see some amendments from the NDP, and that he would look at ways in which we can work together to improve the bill. The Liberal members already voted against the NDP's amendments. They did not accept any of them.

Greater openness is really needed here. Given that the Liberals already voted against the amendments, they should not pretend to be open, saying that they are willing to improve the bill, and believe me, it definitely needs improvement.

The United States is already protecting 30.4% of its oceans. In Canada, we are protecting only 1.5% of our oceans. The goal was to achieve 5% last year and 10% by 2020. I would like to know how the Liberals plan to reach that target of 10% when the bill before us today does not adopt any minimum protection standards, and sets no action plan, no targets, and no percentage.

Not only do we have no idea where we are headed thanks to this hollow shell of a bill, but the absence of minimum protection standards means that, in these marine protected areas, people can engage in commercial fishing and oil and gas development.

How can the government call these protected areas when people can do anything they want in them?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is being a little too hard on the New Democrats. We had the opportunity, while we were both in opposition, to talk about our oceans. Many ideas talked about are incorporated in the legislation. Some of those thoughts might have even trickled in from my New Democratic friend.

We have to recognize that when a piece of legislation goes to committee, just because someone moves an amendment does not necessarily mean it has to be accepted. I would encourage members to work with parliamentary secretaries, ministers, and other committee members, or whatever it might take. If they have an idea for a change in legislation, there are opportunities.

My friend will recognize that when we were both in opposition, and it was not that long ago, it was very frustrating, because under Stephen Harper, there were never amendments accepted. At least on this side, with this more open and transparent government, we are seeing more amendments being accepted, even from opposition members. We like good ideas.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an education when the member is in the House. He was outlining the differences in Canada in terms of our oceans, where we have oceans across the west, the north, and the east. We are working with indigenous people now in a new relationship. The Prime Minister spoke in the House on February 14 about having a new, solid relationship with first nations and indigenous people in how we develop together, legislatively and through our land.

I am thinking of the role we can play in learning from indigenous people how they manage the oceans they live around and how that might become part of our discussion as we look at new oceans protection legislation moving forward. Could the hon. member expand on how we can work on all oceans and work with all indigenous peoples in benefiting our country as well as their territories?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the importance of the environment and our oceans, how can we move forward if we do not do what is responsible? The right thing to do is to work hand in hand with indigenous people. I, along with, I suspect, every member of the Liberal caucus, am so pleased with the general attitude the Prime Minister has when it comes to indigenous issues. It is one of building a new relationship, one of trust and honour, and wanting to move forward.

This is another area where we can learn a lot. That is one of the reasons I made reference to former speaker of the Manitoba legislature George Hickes. We can learn from the Inuit community and how they used to capture the beluga whale. There are quite the stories on how indigenous people have relied on our oceans and waterways for hundreds, going into thousands, of years. We can learn a lot from that. There is a great deal of value in learning from indigenous people. The more we can look to them to enable that leadership to come to the table, the better we will be as a society.

I want to emphasize, in regard to preservation, that today it is somewhere in the range of 5% to 6%. I believe it is getting closer to 6%. By 2020 we should be at 10%. Given Canada's coastal regions, that is an amazing statement for the world.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We are resuming debate, but before we get to that, I will let the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap know that there are only about 10 minutes remaining in the time for Government Orders this afternoon. He will know he has a 20-minute slot coming up. He will, of course, have his remaining time when the House next gets back to debate on the question. I will interrupt him in the usual way before we go into the adjournment debate.

The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

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

Mr. Speaker, this will be the second time that my speech is cut in half because of debate closure for the day and I have to continue the next day.

This will be my first debate without a prepared speech, so I will be taking a bit of time to pause to make sure my thoughts are coherent.

First, I want to talk about the timeline of what has taken place over the last year and a half on the study of marine protected areas and this legislation.

I looked at the mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and I saw a comment there about protecting Canada's coastlines. This was also a Liberal promise. The Liberals did not make any commitments. They only made promises, which they continue to break. There was a promise in that mandate letter to protect Canada's coastlines.

In December 2016, I put forward a motion in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that the committee undertake a study to look at the criteria and the process for establishing marine protected areas in Canada, to determine whether the process that had been taking place was an efficient and effective way of doing things. As members have mentioned, it sometimes took seven to 10 years for a marine protected area to be established.

The committee finally started that study in April 2017. We travelled north to Inuvik, Paulatuk, and Tuktoyaktuk, and talked to people there. They have established MPAs that were put forward by the communities. Those MPAs are supported by the communities, and they have been very effective. We also travelled to Prince Rupert.

In the fall of 2017, we travelled to eastern Canada, and what we saw there was a totally different story. Marine protected areas were being proposed or established by government without any consultation with the local fishermen or the local communities that depended on access to the resources in those areas. There is the odd one that was proposed by the community, and it is working, but we saw opposition to the way this was being put forward. There was no good consultation with the fishermen, who felt that their livelihood, their families, their boats, and their communities were being put at risk by the imposition of government over them. We have seen this process play out over and over, particularly with this government, with its “trust us; government knows best” attitude.

We are getting into a really scary situation. We see it with the values test in the Canada summer jobs program. We see it with Service Canada not being able to refer to individuals as Mr. or Mrs., Sir or Madam. These are values tests being imposed by a government that says Canadians should trust it because it knows best. Canadians are concerned with that. I am concerned with that. My constituents are concerned with that.

Conservatives truly care about the environment. My background is in conservation. That is how I arrived in the House of Commons.

My first interest in politics showed up in the 1990s, when a former Liberal government introduced a long gun registry. I owned one older deer hunting firearm. I went to the local fish and game club and asked what I would have to do to comply with a government that thought it knew best.

An older gentleman in the club said that I should become a member. Not being one to sit back and keep my mouth shut, within a few months someone said I should become a director. A couple of years later, people said that I should become vice-president. I worked my way through that organization, through the regional branch of the BC Wildlife Federation, and eventually became president of the BC Wildlife Federation for two years.

In that time, I found conservationists and Conservatives hand in hand. They were firearms owners, guys working with boots in the streams, doing wild game counts, actual work on the ground for fish, wildlife, and habitat. We did not dream about locking it up. We thought about using it so we were getting something from those resources to put back into them.

What the Liberals are proposing, without consultation, is identifying huge swaths of the ocean and locking them up, doing this only in consideration of one previous year of traditional use or existing use. In our travel to eastern Canada, we heard from fishermen who were now fishing halibut in an area where there had not been halibut in five to seven years. If an MPA had been established there as a no-take area to protect the halibut, people would not be allowed to fish.

The government is proposing to draw lines on a map to protect an area when everything is changing. Fish move, water currents change. The government would protect an area through a space on a map and a line on a map without taking the time that had been taken in previous governments and in previous roles. Sometimes it was seven to 10 years. That is not a very fast process, but when they were done, they were done well and they worked. That should not change. If it takes that long to do something right, then do it. A slap-happy, push it forward, bulldoze it through method is not the right way to do things.

I will get back to the committee and the study it undertook on marine protected areas. That study has now been pushed back and delayed. It may never see the light of day because of the time allocation. The Liberals have called time allocation on Bill C-55, to amend the Oceans Act, which deals with marine protected areas. They are calling time allocation on Bill C-68, to amend the Fisheries Act. Both of those acts will have to come before the committee. The committee has not been able to wrap up its study on marine protected areas, so the Liberals are bulldozing, steamrolling over a committee process that was put in place. Now is it going to be totally ignored by a government that simply tell us to trust it because it know best. The Liberals do not want to hear about the consultation. They do not want to hear the testimony that concerned fishers and communities have put forward. Why?

Are they pushing back because we have asked for half an hour with the public safety adviser? I propose that may be the case, but that should not be the way government operates. Governments should listen to the people. In this case, the Liberals are shutting us down. We are not going to be able to finish our study at committee and make the recommendations to the government. I imagine there would have been a long series of recommendations from that study. We have a number of members on that committee from Atlantic Canada. I do not think they liked what they were hearing about the proposed process either. The previous process may not have been perfect, but the proposed process really concerned them the most. They were going to be shut out. They were going to be disallowed from their current areas of access and from their current process.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap will have 10 minutes remaining for his remarks and 10 minutes for questions and comments when the House next gets back to debate on the motion before the House.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.