Debates of May 13th, 2019

Oceans Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, most still allow extractive fishing activity, and one allows oil and gas exploration currently. We know that the government recently announced that it will now prohibit oil and gas activities, mining, dumping and bottom trawling in MPAs. However, it stopped short of creating no-take areas, which has long been the recommendation of conservation groups.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on that, given that, if we think of a national park, we certainly do not allow extractive hunting to occur in national parks. Why would we allow extractive fishing to take place in marine protected areas? Does he have any thoughts on that?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I live right next to a national park, and the interaction between the national park and the local community sometimes has been very rocky. Having said that, most of us moved there because of the national park.

I happen to be an avid angler, and one thing I am very proud of in the angling community is how the catch-and-release ethos has taken root. Based on studies, the hooking mortality of fish is about 5%. When it comes to “extracting”, recreational fishing is a hugely lucrative activity in this country, supporting many small communities. It is an activity of about $8 billion a year. I see no reason why a “gentle form” of fishing, where the recreational fisherman catches the fish and then gently and properly releases the fish, cannot go on in almost any marine protected area, given the importance of the recreational fishery to many local communities. It is one of the least intrusive extraction activities one could ever think of, and I strongly support it.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I gather there are many big lakes and waterways in his riding. I am sure this issue hits home for him and his constituents.

I would like to know his thoughts on what a number of members have said about how certain marine protected areas would be excluded from the list under this bill.

Am I mistaken, or does he see that as a good thing?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am afraid that is a question I really cannot answer. However, as I said earlier, whether an MPA is excluded or included on some lists, what is important are the terms and conditions under which that MPA has been formed, what the local people are allowed to do in there and what the goal of the protection is.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, as has been mentioned in this debate, when we took office in 2015, less than 1% of our oceans and waterways were protected. We promised to get to 5% by 2017, on which we delivered. We are at 8% now. We have a goal of getting to 10% by 2020. Given the track we are on, we know we will reach that goal.

Why were we only protecting less than 1% of the waterways under the previous government?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I assume my friend across the way is referring to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which we changed to the Navigation Protection Act. One of the reasons we made that change was that a judge ruled that little trickles of water were now navigable and caused greater consternation for local communities.

With respect to this, the word “protection” needs to be defined. There is “protected” and there is “conserved”.

I will use the example of my own farm where 320 acres of it is under a conservation easement, which means that the land will remain wild in perpetuity. However, I still hunt on my land, cut firewood there, enjoy my trails and I trap. Therefore, is that land considered protected? I would certainly say so.

The goal of any kind of conservation program has to be the protection of ecological processes. Drawing artificial lines around a piece of land does not fulfill the goal. Working with people who farm, fish, hunt and trap and know the land and can aid in the conservation of wide areas of land to preserve ecological processes is the way to go.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. We share a great passion for the outdoors and all the treasures it holds.

As the member knows, Newfoundland and Labrador has over 18,000 kilometres of coastline and with that, many coastal communities, of which about 200 are in my riding. He made comments about the food fishery in our province, but trust me, the MPAs that we are speaking about today will not impact the food fishery or any legitimate and sustainable fishery.

However, the question I have for the hon. member is on something I have seen in my riding many times, not only in the last four years that I have been privileged to be here but many years before, which is how climate change is really having an impact on our coastal communities and fisheries. We are seeing water temperatures change and water levels rise, which is having a huge impact.

I would love to have my hon. colleague's comments on how climate change is also having an impact on our fisheries and how, perhaps through MPAs, we can have an impact there as well.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague from Long Range Mountains. We often have quiet chats about the things we care about. We actually think more alike than differ on most things. However, I am very pleased to hear as well that the government is not going to affect the food fishery in Newfoundland. Hopefully that will apply across the country.

As I said, MPAs need to be clearly thought out. Therefore, if a benthic community needs to be protected, of course, those things do not move too much, so that makes sense. A specific spawning area that is critical and rare makes sense. Again, the terms and conditions of how they are set up is important. I know that her communities will participate in the development of any MPA.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant 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 Bow River, International Trade; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Foreign Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise in the chamber and share a few thoughts on what are really important issues, and this is one of them.

I have had the opportunity to listen to the debates as we have been attempting to get the bill through the House of Commons for a good number of months now. In fact, it has been close to two years. Many of the objectives proposed in the legislation will have a positive impact on our oceans and surrounding areas and, in fact, on our entire planet. As such, I look forward to the bill receiving royal assent at some point in the not too distant future.

As I have listened to some of the debate today, I have found it interesting that members from different coastal regions have different interests and so forth.

Manitoba is not a land-locked province. The town of Churchill is in Manitoba. The previous speaker talked about Churchill Bay. I think of beluga whales. I think of Arctic char, which is a fabulous world-class fish. Beluga whales and Arctic char make up parts of that coastal region. I think of individuals from the coastline, such as the member for Long Range Mountains, who is such a strong and powerful advocate and represents over 200 fishing communities.

When we think of our oceans, we have to think about our heritage, our culture and the economy. We need to take into consideration many other things when we have legislation of this nature.

The House benefits when members of Parliament come to the table, whether it is by standing in the chamber or, more important, when they have the opportunity to have informal discussions. The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa made reference to having had discussions with the member for Long Range Mountains. This provides a better sense and appreciation of not only how vast our country is, but how we can share our thoughts and ideas on what solutions might allow us to enhance our environment, to look at ways we can make the system much better.

It is important to recognize that Canadians, no matter where they live in our country, are all connected to our oceans in one way or another. Close to 75% of the planet is covered by ocean.

Canada has a responsibility, and I do not say that lightly. We have the Arctic Ocean in the north, the Pacific Ocean on the west coast and the Atlantic Ocean on the east coast. If we add up all of Canada's coastline following those three ocean bodies, we would find that Canada has the longest shoreline than any other country in the world.

With respect to protected waters, no country in the world has the potential to play a strong leadership role than Canada. We might be a country of close to 37 million people, but we have a great deal of clout when we look at the overall population of the world. There are certain areas in which we can demonstrate just how much clout we have, how much leadership we can bring to the table. This legislation is a part of the puzzle that would assist Canada going forward in demonstrating some of that leadership.

I believe that in 2010, it was determined we should set some goals for 2020, as a world. We asked if we could protect 10% of our areas of responsibility, and Canada has the most. Could we hit the 10% mark with respect to marine protected areas? We are only a year away from 2020.

In the last federal election, the Liberal Party made a commitment to achieve 5% by 2017. The Liberals achieved that goal. My understanding is that we even went beyond it. Today we are almost at the 9% mark. We might even be at the 9% mark as of today. If not, we are really close to it. This government will hit the 10% mark sometime in 2020.

If we were to look at what we have been able to accomplish on that front in the last three years, we would see there are significant gains. Between 2010 to 2015, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, the Conservatives barely achieved 1%. Before the writ is dropped in 2019, the Liberals will have brought the number up from 1% to 9% within four years.

We are providing the assurance that we are not stopping there. We are going to take the number to 10%. Collectively, we can all be fairly proud of that.

I talked about the importance of Canada's demonstrating leadership at the world table, especially given we have the longest coastline in the world.

I am encouraged by many of the comments I have heard recently with respect to the legislation. I am really encouraged by the degree to which the Prime Minister, cabinet and caucus have come together to recognize the importance of our oceans to our country and planet.

This is important to all our constituents. To understand it, a person does not have to be living in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is a beautiful area I must say, or British Columbia or Manitoba, which all have coastlines. A person can be in landlocked Alberta or Saskatchewan and still appreciate the importance of our oceans and recognize that what happens in the oceans impacts all of us.

I enjoy documentaries and watch them whenever I get the opportunity. One of the most fascinating documentaries I have seen is called The Blue Planet. It gives viewers an excellent sense of the many things that take place in our oceans and the impact they have on our environment. If not for shows and documentaries such as that one or sitting down with colleagues and other individuals with that first-hand experience, I would not have the same understanding or appreciation of things such as currents, which flow deep into the oceans, and the importance of them to the world's fish stocks.

Some members of Parliament have said that fish, whales or whatever animal do not know boundaries. It is a fair comment. That is why we not only need to see countries like Canada doing what we can, but we need to meet with other jurisdictions because we have a vested interest. One can take the macro look at it and say it is all about protecting our planet, or we can take a micro look at it and bring it home to areas such as my colleague's in the Long Range Mountains and those 200 communities that are very dependent on the industry within that 200 miles of Canada and maybe even beyond that.

Canada is recognized for some of the best, if not the best, lobster in the world. I myself have had a few pieces of lobster. If we look at Atlantic salmon or Atlantic cod, we see these are very important industries that have a focus in Atlantic Canada. I am aware of it, in good part because of the advocacy done within our government caucus. The Atlantic caucus is a very healthy and vocal group of individuals. We know that the fishing industry as a whole is of the utmost importance because it assists in driving the economy, but more than just the economy, it is a part of our culture and heritage, as I pointed out at the beginning.

If we were to talk to many fishermen, we would find that it is a generational thing. The families have been doing this for generations. It is almost as if it is a part of their DNA. That industry has been very important to indigenous people. It goes far beyond the economics, even though the economics are really important.

The same principles I just finished talking about in Atlantic Canada can also be applied to the Pacific Ocean. We hear about the endangerment of killer whales along the B.C. coastline and concerns related to Pacific salmon. These are all genuine concerns and one of the reasons why the Government of Canada has taken a holistic approach to dealing with the protection of our oceans. It is not just legislation that we are bringing forward.

We have many members of cabinet and in our government caucus who work together to ensure that within the budget documents the money is flowing for causes that will have a positive outcome for our oceans. We have invested, literally, additional hundreds of millions dollars consistently through the last couple of budgets. That is why I was somewhat saddened when one member of the House stood and spoke for 14 or 15 hours on the budget—in essence, denying other members the opportunity to share their thoughts on the budget.

The opposition was very restrictive on that important budget. However, I suspect that if that debate had been allowed to occur, we would have heard members from Atlantic Canada, B.C., Manitoba and other regions talk about some of the financial programs and activities that this government is doing and putting into place to ensure that our fisheries not only survive today but, hopefully, grow into the future, and to look at ways to ensure that our industries continue to prosper. That has been important as a whole for this government from day one.

We talked about Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. One of the ways we protect that thought and advance it forward in that area is to address our fishing industry. This is the type of rationale I would argue. It is why the government is not going to just settle for a piece of legislation but also take that more holistic approach and factor in the importance of a budget that complements legislation and vice versa. I am glad to be a part of a government that looks at it from that perspective.

I believe that, by having marine protected areas and establishing that up front in a timely fashion, we will better protect our fishing stocks and better ensure that we continue with the best lobsters in the world for generations to come. We do that by demonstrating leadership on the file. If members have listened, in particular to the parliamentary secretary for this legislation where he talks about that 1% versus 10%, they should really take note. For far too long, while I and my friend from Charlottetown, who has done an outstanding job, sat in the opposition in the third party, we wanted a government that would listen and take actions that would make a difference. After listening to Stephen Harper, from 2010 to 2015, move it from 0% to 1%, it is really quite gratifying to see how we have been able to take the issues that Canadians have brought forward to us as individual members of Parliament. We have taken the issues through our infrastructure, through our party and through government, and by working with Canadians, we have now achieved 9% in terms of the marine protected areas here in our shorelines.

That is a significant achievement. I emphasize that we are not going to stop there. We are not settling on that. We are committed to getting to that 10% by 2020.

However, it is more than just having those marine protected areas, and that is why I took the time to explain the issue of the importance of the national budget. Those individuals who are prepared to look at the national budget will find that not only are we bringing forward legislation and regulation but we are also supporting it by bringing in the financial resources that will make the difference, so that we will have a healthier industry and appreciate the heritage and the culture in that whole area.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, in view of the parliamentary secretary's long career in public service, at both the provincial and federal levels, I would like to ask a question that is in alignment with what our government is doing with Canadian values right now. We went through a period under Stephen Harper when science was cut; it was not respected and scientists were muzzled. We have reinvested in science; we have reinvested in conservation; we have reinvested in the oceans protection plan. I would like my colleague to first speak to that, its alignment with Canadian values and where they are now.

Tied to that same theme, the fact is that Canada, as an international player in 2010, committed to these targets and in the last five years has made such remarkable progress. I would ask him to tie that in as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if I were to summarize that point, I would say that science really and truly does matter. For the first time in a number of years, we have a government that has actually recognized the importance of science. When we are going to make decisions based on science, we need to allow scientists and others, like Statistics Canada, to become engaged so we can understand the numbers and the science before we make the decisions. If we do that, I suggest we have better public policy, better government policy. That is what cabinet and this government constantly looks at. Show us the science. We need to know why this is happening and how we can make a difference. If we do it right, the decisions we make will reflect what Canadians really and truly want us to be doing as government.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member ended off talking about science, but in his speech, he also talked about the budget and how important it is to put one's money where one's mouth is, that when it comes to policy development, we have to put budgets behind our policy.

In November 2016, we launched the $1.5-billion national oceans protection plan to improve marine safety and responsible shipping, protect our marine environment and offer new possibilities for indigenous and coastal communities. In the remarks of the hon. member across the way, he was talking about inland waterways, and in budget 2018, we invested $1.3 billion over five years, looking at protecting 17% of our inland waters and land by 2020. We are trying to protect water, whether it is inland or coastal, providing budget room for that to happen and investing instead of cutting.

Could the member comment on the importance of investing rather than cutting our way to success?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is one of the reasons I said that, in this legislation, we need to look at how the government, overall, has been addressing our waterways. It is not only our oceans. Lake Winnipeg is a massive body of water that provides all sorts of opportunities. When we talk about the opportunity for commercial or recreational fishing, we are talking about tourism industries and about providing food for the world, and quite often we are talking about the cultural values and who we are. How can we not recognize the true value to Canadian society and the planet by just talking about it and not being prepared to invest in it?

My friend made reference to just over $1 billion. There has been new money, hundreds of millions of dollars, that we have brought to the table in order to protect our oceans, to ensure there is more protection for different species and so forth. These are all important things to be doing, and as a government, we are committed to doing just that.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the bluing of the blue planet, and we are getting a good start here in Canada at the provincial level at this point in time. We are starting to see some changes. However, we are also looking at those changes because of some of the attitudes of the current government. Although Liberal members are discussing some of the changes, they are not actually looking at what is happening on the ground.

In northern Alberta we have the tailing ponds, and we are are looking at how we have been able to manage those. We look at all those environmental aspects. When there was money in the oil and gas business, we were able to invest in all those types of new research programs, which was what we could sell around the planet. We also talked about the planet and what we were doing.

As we bring in oil and gas from other places in the world to replace what we have, and try to shut it down from a Canadian perspective, I wonder if the member perhaps understands why Canada is starting to be blue on its own.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to be sensitive to the question. When we think of our oceans and waterways, we recognize that there are opportunities to develop an industry, even for landlocked provinces. When I talk about industry, I think of the great recreational Atlantic salmon industry in Atlantic Canada, for example. In other areas, it might be more of a commercial type of use.

If we take a look at it from a tourism or commercial aspect, we see there are differences. I like to think that Alberta has the opportunity for diversification. I am very much interested in science and how we might be able to apply science to certain industries. I do not claim to understand the ponding issue, but I do know it is a growing industry, particularly in the province of British Columbia. I have even heard thoughts on how we could do more commercial fishing in the province of Manitoba.

Regarding the link to oil, if we have demonstrated anything as a government in the last three years, it is that it is important to recognize that the economy and the environment need to work hand in hand.

For example, it is not okay for us to ignore environmental concerns in order to build endless pipelines. We have to be very sensitive to our environment. All in all, Canada has done an exceptionally good job in comparison to many countries in the world, but I am sure that we can always improve. We can always look at ways to do better.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to rise today and speak to Bill C-55, a very important bill and one of particular significance to me, coming from Vancouver, British Columbia, where the coastline, the oceans and the marine species are so absolutely critical to our economy, culture, people, indigenous nations and, frankly, to our way of life. This bill really speaks to the need to look at our marine areas in a different way, and to start to treasure them and protect them for future generations.

I am pleased to say that our party will support Bill C-55, albeit with some reservations, which I will outline in my remarks.

I want to start by saying that I am disappointed that the government has once again used time allocation. In other words, the government has cut off and limited debate on this bill. This is the 71st time in this Parliament that the Liberals have used time allocation, which is one of the most undemocratic tools that a government can use. It cuts off debate and hinders parliamentarians who, after all, have been sent here to express our positions on behalf of our constituents. It shows a disrespect for Parliament and all Canadians, who elect us to come here to represent them and to ensure that their voices are heard and reflected in the debates in this House.

I sat in the last Parliament when the Conservatives used closure 100 times, and I am starting to see very little difference between Liberals and Conservatives in terms of their fundamental disrespect for the democratic traditions of this chamber.

Interestingly, I heard the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader refer to the budget and describe how one of the Conservatives, by speaking for 15 hours, denied other members the right to speak, yet he does so himself, having risen in this House to introduce a motion to cut off debate. That denies all sorts of members in this House the right to speak. Canadians should be aware of that fundamental disrespect of their rights and democracy.

In British Columbia, as in other areas of the country in the north and on the Atlantic coast, on our coasts, watersheds and oceans, the sea life, the pre-eminent species that reside on the coasts—the orcas and dolphins and of course the iconic salmon, as well as the sea lions and eagles and all other species—are of absolutely profound importance to our entire ecosystem, and when we say “ecosystem”, we are not just talking about ecology. It is part of our economy as well.

I know the Liberals are fond of saying that we have to balance the environment and the economy. Actually, I think we need to go farther than that: We need to recognize that the environment provides the fundamental capital that makes all economic activity possible. When we do not place protection of the environment and our ecosystem first and foremost, we actually threaten our economy. That is what the government has done, repeatedly, through its policies over the last four years.

We use our oceans and our marine areas for recreation. We use enjoy nature there, and they are fundamentally part of the cultural and historic fabric of our indigenous nations. As I have said, they are part of our fundamental economy.

In Vancouver and in British Columbia, tourism and fishing and these kinds of economic activities depend on having a pristine and well-protected environmental system in our marine areas. It is absolutely critical. That is why we need sustainable policies. We need to balance economic activities to make sure that generations forever can enjoy, in a sustainable way, all the bounty of our marine areas.

I do not need to point out that these marine areas are precious and delicate and require extreme care and balance. In fact, we are simply stewards for all future generations of these areas.

There is an irony in the Liberal government patting itself on the back for protecting marine areas at the same time that it has bought the Trans Mountain Kinder Morgan pipeline, which will carry raw bitumen and triple the number of tankers through the Burrard Inlet, right into the marine areas that the government is trying to protect. This will threaten the southern orca population, and if there is ever any kind of spill, it will create an ecological disaster of unimaginable proportion, because bitumen sinks and there is no way to clean it up. As for the Liberals pretending to care about our marine environment, it is impossible to square that idea with their approval of a pipeline that presents probably the most disastrous threat to our marine environment on the west coast that we have seen in some time.

I want to pause for a moment and mention a recent situation that is of great concern to my constituency and the tens of thousands of Filipinos who live in my riding: the hazardous waste that originated in Canada that has been sent over these marine areas to developing nations, in this case to the Philippines.

In 2013 and 2014, a private Canadian company shipped 103 containers to the Philippines. They were labelled as plastics for recycling, even though they also contained waste, such as soiled diapers. These containers have been rotting in a port in the Philippines for years. The Filipino government has been asking Canada to take back this trash, which has been rotting at the port in Manila. Environmentally concerned people in the Philippines were failed by two governments, the Conservatives and now the Liberals, at least until recently, and the Filipino-Canadian population in my riding desperately wants Canada to take back its garbage, quit using developing countries as a dumping ground for our trash over the marine areas and compensate the Government of the Philippines for all its costs in having to deal with this environmental offence over the last number of years.

I will turn to Bill C-55.

This bill would provide some new legal tools to speed up the creation of marine protected areas, MPAs, but it falls short of Canada's environmental and international commitments to protect our marine biodiversity. The bill fails to set a minimum protection standard and targets for zoning for marine protected areas, and while the government recently announced new standards for marine protected areas, we are concerned that omitting them from Bill C-55, from the legislation itself, and instead relegating them to regulations opens them up to easy reversal under a future government. This process would give the minister far too much latitude to decide what activities are permissible in an MPA. The government's new standards would not be enshrined in law and would therefore be easier to undo under a future minister.

As we have heard, Canada has pledged to the international community to protect 5% of Canada's marine areas by 2017 and 10% by 2020 with the aim to halt the destruction of habitats and ecosystems and to protect against the erosion that has gone on for decades under successive Conservative and Liberal governments. In fact, Liberal and Conservative governments have both failed to take meaningful action since signing the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. That is 25 years of a commitment that has really been ignored by successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

I think Canadians would be somewhat shocked to know that most marine protected areas today still allow extractive fishing activity, and one even allows for oil and gas exploration. Thankfully, the government recently announced that it would prohibit oil and gas activities, mining, dumping and bottom trawling in MPAs, and that is a good thing. However, it stopped short of creating so-called no-take areas, which have long been the recommendation of conservation groups.

I would also point out that Canada has yet to adopt the IUCN international marine protection standard, and 15 university scientists from St. John's to Victoria have written to the former minister of fisheries and oceans and the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change to ask for stiffer conservation measures in Canada's 12 marine conservation areas, as well as those being proposed in the future. Imagine if we allowed hunters into international parks to hunt. I think that would be absolutely shocking to most Canadians, and totally unacceptable. Why then would we allow it in marine protected areas? The very name implies a marine area that we are protecting. Would we not say that in this one area, there is to be no activity that would extract any marine species or life in that area?

Ninety per cent of Canada's marine areas are open to extractive fishing, so we are not talking about creating a huge burden on Canada's fishing industry. However, if we are going to protect an area for future generations, then we should protect it, and that means not allowing any kind of economic activity other than enjoyment and tourism and people coming to visit those areas and leaving a soft footprint when they are there.

The NDP moved a number of amendments to this legislation that we felt would have made the legislation stronger. We had five objectives. We wanted to enshrine minimum protection standards in the act. Unfortunately, that was rejected by the Liberal government. We wanted to maintain ecological integrity as the primary objective of an MPA. We wanted to enshrine co-governance with indigenous peoples as the governing principle of this act and establish the authority of indigenous guardians, who have such a long, millennial, actually, relationship with these areas under their stewardship. We wanted to require the establishment of significant no-take zones, as I just mentioned. Finally, we wanted to facilitate the implementation of networks of MPAs, which, of course, would facilitate the movement of species from one MPA to another.

Unfortunately, the Liberals were not interested in our amendments. They did pass some Green amendments and one from an independent member that touched on themes similar to ours. Unfortunately, those amendments were diluted versions of our own. We would certainly have been happier if we had received a robust adoption of the principles I just highlighted.

I want to point out some quotes from some environmental and marine experts in this country that show how important this legislation is. I want to quote from West Coast Environmental Law. Its representative said:

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 [currently] 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.

That is simply common sense. Again, I will give the government credit for announcing last week that its policy would be to prohibit those activities other than establishing no-take areas. That is a very important development. Again, I am curious as to why the government did not see fit to enshrine those standards in the legislation itself, where they would have been far more entrenched and more difficult for any future government to unwind.

We did see, in the previous government, that the Conservatives did massive damage to our navigable waters act and to ecological principles, not only on water but on land and in air as well.

I want to comment for a moment on how important it is that we are going to prohibit bottom trawling. I quote:

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....

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 when compared to the overall MPAs. Canada should follow international examples and make no-take zones the rule rather than the exception...[in] MPAs.

That was from our very excellent former fisheries critic, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, who has spent a lifetime in watershed development, river health and marine ecosystems.

I want to also take a moment to contrast this bill with the Canada National Parks Act. The Canada National Parks Act sets a high bar for maintaining ecological integrity in all national parks. However, marine protected areas lack the clear minimum protection standards that terrestrial parks benefit from.

The federal government recently announced that a national advisory panel would be established to provide the Ministry of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard with advice on minimum standards for future Oceans Act MPAs. This would still leave protection standards to the subjective judgment of the minister. Since fisheries ministers in the past have permitted seabed mining, oil and gas exploration and other industrial activities in MPAs, we do not have confidence in that discretion. Of course, that is based on empirical experience, not theoretical concerns. Therefore, the solution is to enshrine minimum protection standards in the legislation. The NDP would continue to urge the current government and future governments to take that very important step.

Our oceans are a critical part of our country. They are critical to our economy, our culture and our social relations. They are enjoyed by millions of Canadians from coast to coast. Therefore, in the same way we want to ensure that we continue to expand our protection for natural terrestrial parks, we need to do the same in marine areas. To do that, there can be no half measures. We should not be quibbling. We should be having world-class, cutting-edge, state-of-the-art, complete protection of marine biodiversity in all marine protected areas. Frankly, given that it is still such a small percentage of the vast oceans that many members in this House have already commented on, with Canada, I believe, having the largest coastline in the world, I think the case can strongly be made that in those few small areas we are protecting, we should protect them completely.

The New Democrats will be voting in support of this legislation, because it makes the designation of marine protected areas easier and faster, which is a good thing. We support the government's policy announcement last week that it will strengthen and tighten the kinds of damaging industrial and commercial activities that frankly gut the purpose of marine protected areas. However, we will be pushing the government in every positive way we can to make sure that this legislation responds in a more positive way to the concerns that have been raised, because it is not quite there yet.

I want to conclude my remarks by talking about the indigenous nations in Canada. In the New Democrats' view, reconciliation should be part of all legislation. Additional designations are welcome tools, but it does not make sense, in our view, to exclude the explicit recognition of indigenous rights in the Oceans Act. Given the implications of MPAs on indigenous constitutional rights, we believe this omission is irresponsible, and frankly, inconsistent with the current government's stated objective of pursuing reconciliation. The federal government's commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to working in a true nation-to-nation relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples is something we need to make a reality. Every time the government introduces legislation that does not make an explicit and strong reference to those indigenous rights, we see it as a missed opportunity and evidence that the government's commitment to reconciliation is more one of words than of action.

I will conclude with this. British Columbians are very proud of our west coast. New Democrats are very proud to be strong defenders of those coasts and all the species that live within them. That is why we are going to continue to fight hard against irresponsible pipeline decisions that threaten our coast. We are going to fight for strong environmental protections for all marine areas, for the expansion of those areas and for 100% protection of those marine protected areas so that all species, from the orca to the salmon to the human, who enjoy those areas can continue to enjoy them for millennia to come.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway can always be relied upon to provide a thoughtful and thorough presentation, and this one was certainly no exception.

I appreciate that he challenged the government to be bolder to ensure that some of the measures we seek to put in place cannot be reversed by a future government and to consider some of the specific matters he raised.

I want to raise two specific points and ask him whether he agrees with them.

Without this legislation, there is no protection until there is full protection. This legislation would allow for an interim protection order that would effectively freeze the footprint. Would the member agree that this is an important tool, given all the considerations he outlined in his speech?

Second, he talked about what our standards should be and said that they should be more rigorous. Would he agree that in the approach taken by the government, the prohibited activities in any marine protected area should always be aligned with the conservation objectives?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for those kind comments. I too also appreciate his thoughtful and responsible contributions to debate in the House.

I will take his second question first. The New Democratic caucus believes that ecological integrity should be the foremost priority in marine protected area management. I know that there are competing interests in this area, but we believe that the highest and most profoundly important value should be ecological integrity. That is why we take quite an uncompromising position when it comes to that. That is why, while I give the government a lot of credit for taking this step in this legislation, I think this one gap of not having no-take areas is a significant omission.

With respect to my colleague's first question, I would answer yes, I agree that the interim measure he talked about is important, and I am glad to see it in this legislation. It gives us some breathing time to freeze the status quo before we can designate more marine protected areas and achieve the objectives of this legislation.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member spoke about ecological integrity and how that is one of the mainstays as far as his party is concerned.

I have always had this question, which comes from two parts.

British Columbia and Alberta produce a lot of coal, and it goes through the same ports that we could perhaps be moving our oil through. There is coal that comes up from the U.S. that is then transported out of those same ports, because the eco-warriors that are on the west coast of the U.S. are a bit more determined to keep that product out. That is one concern. I am sure the member would like to maintain the great industry that coal producers have in both British Columbia and Alberta.

Second, it has always been confusing to me that we speak about the integrity of our waterways, when there are municipalities that dump their sewage straight into either rivers or oceans. We can speak a lot about how it is dealt with, but everyone is looking at this great integrity until it affects them and their communities.

Can the member see why there are a lot of people in landlocked provinces, such as Alberta, who look at this with a bit of a jaundiced eye when those are the two positions that are put to us.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in that question. I do not know if I could do justice to it in the minute or minute and a half that I have to answer it.

In my thinking, and the thinking of many people in my riding, climate change, the emergency we are facing, is the defining issue of our time. This means we have been simply burning far too many fossil fuels too quickly and that has resulted in us altering our natural environment, to the point where we risk catastrophic and permanent climate change. In fact, worse than that, we risk triggering a loop that we cannot control. For instance, as the polar ice caps melt and methane is released, it creates more global warming, which leads to more melting and so on and so forth.

I point to The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's findings that by 2050, if we do not keep global warming to 2°C or less, we risk losing 99% of our coral reefs, melting polar caps and losing a million species. I am absolutely opposed to burning coal for energy. It is probably the dirtiest fossil fuel there is and our world right now simply should not be burning it.

Normally, economic activity is important and I respect the transition that is needed for workers in that industry. However, we have a larger, more profound responsibility, which is to ensure our planet is healthy for all future generations. That is what guides our policy-making on this side of the House.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Independent, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my hon. colleague supports the legislation and has some reservations. In the case of the Philippines, I agree 100% that we can and should do more. The government should take heed of that situation.

When we look at the international perspective and the legislation with respect to Canada's leadership on oceans and ocean protection and when we look at the sustainable development goals and our agenda 2030, does the member not think this is a good first step? The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard stated earlier that the government wanted to look at what could be done in the future to ensure the legislation would go forward and have a more robust effect. Does he not think this is a good first step in Canada's leadership on the international stage and the work we do to protect our oceans from coast to coast to coast to ensure we meet our sustainable development goals and our objectives in agenda 2030?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is positive legislation, and I congratulate the government for moving forward on this. It is a first step, but I would like to see a quicker step.

Canada did sign onto the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992 and here we are talking about this 27 years later. I would like to have seen this go quicker. Of course the previous Conservative government was at 1% of protecting our marine areas. That was a terrible time in Canada's history with respect to advancing our international commitments, as the hon. member just commented.

We cannot just take one piece of this. I would like to see a comprehensive policy from the government in this area. For instance, my hon. colleague brought up the Philippines. Right now, Canada is refusing to support a ban on the dumping of hazardous waste in developing countries. A proposed amendment would strengthen an international treaty called the Basel Convention, which governs the global movement of hazardous waste. Canada, which has been a signatory since 1989, has been under fire recently for allegedly violating that treaty and, in fact, is currently refusing to support an amendment that would strengthen it.

To go back to the Philippines, Canadian businesses cannot be allowed to dump our trash in developing countries that are even less able to deal with recycling and toxicity. Those tankers are coming back here. Canada should take them back right away and we should compensate the Philippines for all of the costs in having to deal with our garbage. We should apologize to the Philippines for having allowed that to happen and ensure it does not happen again.

We all have an obligation as citizens of Canada, in fact all citizens of the world, to ensure we take care of our environment in a way that is sustainable and meets our Paris accord commitments so all future generations can inherit the same planet we all inherited when we were growing up.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be here today to speak to Bill C-55, an act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, and the amendments sent to us by the other place.

Our government is in fact committed to increasing the proportion of marine and coastal areas that are protected to 10% by the year 2020. Over the past four years, we have worked with a great deal of people to increase our protected areas from just 1% under the former Conservative government to over 8% under the Liberal government.

Indeed, it is under the government and the Prime Minister that this great nation is showing leadership on the issue of marine protection. We are well on our way to achieving our target with sound science and transparent decision-making, once again, working with those within these communities.

We are actively engaging with our partners in both provinces and territories and with indigenous groups, marine industries and all Canadians to increase protections and meet our targets while supporting a health oceans economy. An important part of meeting those targets is Bill C-55.

As many members already know, the bill seeks to provide a new authority for the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to designate an area for interim protection. A decision to either permanently designate the interim area or to repeal the interim order must be made within five years. This mechanism allows for interim protection to areas that are currently under consideration for permanent designation, as the current process takes an average of between seven and 10 years and, currently, in the lead-up to a final designation, there is no mechanism to allow us to protect this area.

While we support the reasons behind the amendments made by the other place, we cannot support the message received as the amendment would add changes that are already required under the existing legislation and would make the interim process longer and more complex than the process for permanent designation.

That is why we have proposed an alternate amendment that captures the intent of the Senate's concerns, while also ensuring that the objective of Bill C-55, which is to provide faster protection, is in fact upheld.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Senate for its work, especially the sponsor, Senator Bovey. While she represents the beautiful province of Manitoba, I know she spent some years on the west coast and has continued to be a strong advocate for the protection and conservation of all of our oceans.

I also want to thank the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard for his leadership on this file. I know he was in Montreal just last month to announce new standards for marine protected areas that would prohibit oil and gas exploration. This announcement was indeed supported not just by Canadians across Canada but around the world.

Canada is taking real action when it comes to protecting our marine environment, but more must and will be done by those not only within government, but our partners throughout our great nation.

That is why we are here today, debating the merits of Bill C-55, a bill that has been received and has been given countless hours of robust debate. Five amendments to the bill, proposed by Conservative, Green and independent members, were adopted by the House on April 25, 2018. The bill has received support in one form or another by all parties in this chamber.

An important principle that acts as the basis of the bill that I would like to speak to and about is the precautionary principle.

Bill C-55 would require the ministries of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Governor in Council to apply the precautionary principle when deciding whether to designate new marine protected areas. This would facilitate the decisions to designate a marine protected area. The principle recognizes that the absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing decisions where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm.

Indeed, if information such as the recent report by the United Nations on the collapse of biodiversity has told us anything, it is that we cannot wait to take action to protect our environment. While many of the members opposite want to sit in their seats and wait for more species to go extinct and for weather conditions to worsen because they have no plan for the environment or our marine areas, Canadians can be absolutely certain that the members sitting on this side are listening and responding accordingly.

We are listening and we are taking action because we know we cannot simply wait for our fish stocks to collapse before that is enough evidence to do something about it. We know there are options now, right at this moment, options that we can move forward with and therefore do the right thing to support a healthy marine environment and the communities that depend on those environments.

A good example of this, which has already been raised a few times but cannot be repeated enough, is the good work this government is doing with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and the Government of Nunavut to explore the designation of a high Arctic basin for marine protection.

Last month, we announced the memorandum of understanding that outlines the commitment to co-operation that all three parties have signed onto in moving forward with this protection. Furthermore, budget 2019 outlines funds that will be available to support the development of a conservation economy in the High Arctic Basin, with support for critical marine infrastructure.

We know that Bill C-55 will facilitate this process by providing a mechanism that can be used to apply interim protection to the area until a final designation is in fact made. This is not only a good example of how government is taking action now, but is doing so the right way by engaging with the territorial government and respecting the Nunavut land claim agreement and working with rights holders, the QIA.

The members opposite want to say that this government is trying to take shortcuts with the bill, but I put the question for Canadians: Is a process that still takes an average of seven years, with the passage of this bill, to designate a permanent MPA taking a shortcut? Is debating the bill for almost two years in both chambers taking a shortcut? Is listening to the message received by the Senate and proposing an amendment that seeks to capture the intent of this change, while still respecting the objective of the bill, taking a shortcut?

I think that Canadians believe that the answer is no, no and no. I do not expect members opposite to agree with the government on this issue or with Canadians, because we know that those members have no plan for the environment. However, I want all Canadians to know that this Liberal government has taken leadership on this issue, and overall on the issue of the environment, and we will do whatever we can to get this bill passed and our marine areas protected.

As Canadians, we are all connected to our oceans, which are significant to our heritage, culture and economy, and are essential to all life on this great planet. In 2015, our government promised that 5% of Canada's marine and coastal areas would be protected by 2017, and we delivered. Over 8% of our oceans are now protected, which is up from less than 1% when we took office in 2015. Now our government is committed to reaching our international target of 10% by 2020, as I mentioned earlier. We will do this with sound science and transparent decision-making, working with our provinces and territories and communities that have a direct interest in the decision-making process.

One of the forms of protection is a marine protected area, MPA, under the Oceans Act, where unique species and their habitats are conserved and protected. We have examined how the Oceans Act could be updated to facilitate the designation process for MPAs without sacrificing science or the public's ability to provide their input, their thoughts and, most importantly, their interests in a process that considers the consequences of the decisions being made. The current process for a designated marine protected area is lengthy. These proposed amendments to the Oceans Act would shorten the time required to put protection in place, while ensuring that shortcuts are not taken when it comes to these consultations.

This legislation would, among other things, ensure that marine protection can in fact be done and completed in a timely manner by allowing the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to designate provisional protections to an interim MPA while the steps for a permanent MPA are in fact followed. The interim MPA would freeze the footprint of current activities in sensitive areas that are being considered for Oceans Act MPA designation. It would also allow for ongoing activities, those that have taken place in the last year, to continue.

We will continue engaging with our partners in the provinces and territories and with indigenous groups, marine industries and all Canadians. I cannot emphasize enough how inclusive this process is and will continue to be, to ensure the protection and meet the targets we proposed back in 2015, which we are now continuing to work toward.

Our government made a commitment to increase the proportion of Canada's marine and coastal areas to 10% by 2020, and we are going to meet that commitment, which we started in 2015. This proposed legislation is part of our plan to reach these targets. The proposed amendments would shorten the time required to put protection in place and allow interim protection for sensitive marine areas. Currently, there is no protection until there is full protection.

The Senate amendment is duplicative and requires an additional consultation period beyond what is already required in legislation. If accepted, the Senate amendment would make the order process for interim protection more complex and lengthy than the process for designating an amendment or permanent MPA. This would go against the objective of this bill, which is underpinned by the precautionary approach and seeks to create a mechanism that will allow for faster interim protection to marine and coastal areas.

However, we understand the concerns. We understand the concerns made by some members of the Senate, and that is why we have proposed an amendment that captures the intent of the message received by the Senate. Our proposal will ensure that the geographical location and all other relevant information, as well as information on all consultations undertaken, are published when an order for interim protection is made.

I come from a Great Lakes region, Niagara, and of course, with that we have just recently announced plans to look at protection of the Great Lakes, and there are reasons for that. I look at it under a triple-bottom-line lens. That triple bottom line lens consists of, in order of priority, economy, environment and social issues—the effects and consequences of decisions made on our waterways, whether they be the Great Lakes or our oceans.

Some of the things I have learned throughout the past years in my former life as a mayor and now as an MP are the critical responsibilities that we have, how critical it is to work with our communities, how critical it is to work with our businesses and our residents in those areas, ensuring that economic, social and environmental considerations are taken before those decisions are made, and how important it is that their interests are placed at the forefront of those decisions.

This bill, Bill C-55, is no different with respect to the oceans and, of course, the areas that we have to preserve to ensure that future generations—not just five, 10 or 15 years down the road but 20, 30, 40 or 50 years down the road—are looked after when it comes to our environment and what is attached to our environment.

In closing, I would like to say this. Although we here in Parliament sit in four-year terms, it is important that the vision goes beyond those four years and looks at 20- to 50-year thoughts, priorities, responsibilities and, therefore, strategies. Bill C-55 does that. I look forward to Bill C-55 passing in this House. Therefore, the thoughts and, of course, responsibilities that we have for future generations will be taken as forthright, in front of mind, and the strategies attached to same will include the involvement and priorities of the people whom we are going to actually affect by this legislation, the communities and those along our waterfronts.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concerns me is the nature of this place. We deal with one bill at a time. When we are dealing with something like the oceans and potential environmental impacts or conflicts between different resource sectors—the fisheries, offshore oil development, the transport of oil or the hazardous waste through the oceans—we are not taking everything into consideration. I have heard over and over from the Liberals here that it is a first step. We hear that about every bill that they bring forward.

My question to the member is this. Right now off the coast of Newfoundland, there is consideration for experimental deepwater drilling that other countries have not been willing to pursue. Is the member confident that this legislation that we are bringing forward will also ensure that whatever other activity the government is reviewing is not going to impact on these marine protected areas that we set aside?

There was a lot of consternation, in the review of Bill C-69, that the offshore boards had a conflict of interest. One interest is to extract and gain revenue from the offshore resources, and the other is to consider the impacts. Can the member speak to that issue of whether he thinks it is important for us also to look at all of these pieces of legislation together, to make sure that one is not impacting the other?