Sean Casey

[Oceans Act, May 10th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-55, an act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. The bill would help protect our marine and coastal areas, and it would bring us closer to our 10% marine conservation target by the end of 2020.

Before I get into the substance of the amendment and the bill, I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill in the other place. I know that it is because of her passion for protecting our marine and coastal areas that we are here today debating the bill before we can see it pass and in action providing interim protection for our oceans.

While we commend the work of members of the other place and the important discussions that took place when the bill was under consideration in the other chamber, we are unable to support the amendments that were made at committee and subsequently passed.

However, in debating the motion today, we are proposing an amendment that we believe would capture the intent of the amendment from the other place. The proposed amendment would, first, in line with the amendment on geographical location, require that the geographical location of a proposed area for interim protection be published when an order was made, along with other information relevant and necessary to the order.

Second, as we have maintained, the amendment on consultations by the member of the other place representing Nunavut is indeed already covered by existing legislation and regulations. That is why our amendment proposes to require that consultations undertaken to establish the interim protection MPA be published upon an order being made. We have said repeatedly that consultations are required, so now the government would ensure that we showed that consultations had taken place for the interim protection MPA to be established in the first place.

Discussions in the other place looked at the importance of consultation and engagement, which will continue to be the foundation for establishing all marine protected areas, or MPAs, now and in the future.

Bill C-55 does not weaken our commitment to develop MPAs in collaboration with governments, partners, stakeholders and the public. This bill does not take shortcuts in establishing MPAs. It does not eliminate any steps. In fact, it provides new tools to make sure we are protecting more of our marine environment.

As members know, the purpose of the bill is to allow the optional use of a new mechanism to provide interim protection for an ecologically sensitive marine area and to freeze the footprint of activities in the area following initial science and consultations with our many partners and stakeholders. This freeze on ongoing activities would be in place for five years, during which additional science and consultations would continue as part of the process to establish a permanent marine protected area.

The proposed ability to provide interim protection is a common-sense approach that would respond to the reality that during the seven to 10 years it takes to establish an MPA, nothing is protected. With the new interim protection provision, some measure of protection would be provided, in the spirit of the precautionary approach.

The bill would also modernize enforcement powers, which would bring the act in line with other environmental legislation. These new powers would be important for ensuring the effectiveness of our 13 current marine protected areas and for meeting each of their conservation objectives.

The discussion in the other place on amendments focused predominantly on, one, ensuring that communities most affected were part of the consultation process, and two, fulfilling our duty to consult with indigenous peoples, as required under section 35 of the Constitution.

I would like to assure members of this chamber that our government takes both of these requirements very seriously. Engagement, consultations and consideration of socio-economic information and traditional knowledge are fundamental cornerstones to establishing marine protected areas and, indeed, for interim protection under this bill.

I commend the members of the other place for their commitment to these issues and for ensuring that their regions are well represented in the debate on Bill C-55.

We consult and collaborate with a wide range of governments and marine resource users as well as other stakeholders, experts and the public at various stages, including the following: at the outset, to select an area of interest; when gathering information needed about the ecological importance of a sensitive marine area, the socio-economic conditions related to the area and any current or planned activities that may be of concern; when identifying initial boundaries and conservation objectives for an area based on the best available science, including traditional and local knowledge and a risk analysis; and when developing a proposed regulatory approach and studying the benefits and costs of such an approach. There is also a 30-day public comment period when the regulations are pre-published in the Canada Gazette. We consult on an ongoing basis to provide input to the development of the management plan for an area, and of course, MPAs are collaboratively managed with local partners once designated. Furthermore, sections 29 to 33 of the current Oceans Act explicitly outline required consultations.

As pointed out by the sponsor of the bill in the other place, based on an analysis by Professor Nigel Bankes, from the University of Calgary, the change proposed by the member of the other place representing Nunavut is a piecemeal amendment that is counter to the spirit and intent of the proposed interim protection provision. It would only serve to slow down a process where the objective is to do quite the opposite, which is to provide early protection to areas on an interim basis and following the precautionary approach.

Senator Patterson’s amendment and, indeed, his explanation are based on the need to ensure that consultations take place. As I previously stated, sections 29 to 33 in the Oceans Act already provide for this, and all legislation must respect section 35 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, an amendment put forth by the member for Nunavut, which is based on a request from Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and supported by the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, was passed by the House committee and would ensure that all interim protection orders would be consistent with existing land claim agreements. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the amendment from the member of the other place is unnecessary. As Professor Bankes stated, it would add requirements to establishing interim protections that are greater than what is required when establishing a permanent MPA and would curtail the application of the precautionary approach.

Professor Bankes writes:

since the amendment is only proposed to apply to the creation of MPAs by ministerial order and not to the process of creating an MPA by Order in Council and regulation, it will arguably be more difficult to use the ministerial order process than the MPA by regulation process.

I hope members will agree that this is neither logical nor consistent with the purpose of the bill. As the parliamentary secretary on this file, it is my view that we cannot continue to allow areas of ecological significance to go unprotected. This bill helps to achieve that without shortchanging consultations with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, coastal communities and stakeholders.

Many members will recall that in 2012, the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development commented on the slow pace of establishing marine protected areas in Canadian waters. The report stated:

During the 20 years since Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, 10 federal MPAs have been established by Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Parks Canada as part of their marine protected area programs. Federal, provincial and territorial governments and non-governmental organizations are collectively protecting about 1 percent of Canada's oceans and Great Lakes through MPAs. At the current rate of progress, it will take many decades for Canada to establish a fully functioning MPA network and achieve the target established in 2010 under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve 10 percent of marine areas.

It is worth noting that we have come a long way over the past four years since our government took office in that we have increased our marine protected and coastal areas from less than 1% to over 8%.

However, the process continues to remain long and comprehensive. It still takes years to establish an MPA, but under Bill C-55, we have an opportunity to provide early protection for sensitive and ecologically significant areas that support the health of our oceans and the coastal communities that depend on them.

The report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development also identified the following factors that affected the rate of progress in creating MPAs: prolonged jurisdictional negotiations, including unresolved land claims; a poor understanding by Canadians of the environmental and socio-economic benefits of MPAs; delays in the approval process; lengthy legislative and regulatory processes; and the competing interests of stakeholders.

In terms of the latter point, I will refer to a letter submitted by the QIA, which represents over 15,000 Inuit, regarding the need to ensure that the interim designation process respects the rights of the Inuit. The letter expresses QIA's opposition to Senator Patterson's amendment.

President Akeeagok writes:

The further proposed amendment under consideration...would require the Minister to hold an additional public comment and consultation period before issuing an interim MPA order. We are concerned that this proposed amendment risks undermining the actualization of Inuit rights by conflating the requirement to uphold the rights of Inuit with a broader engagement with the interests of stakeholders. The current version of Bill C-55, sets out the appropriate hierarchy.

West Coast Environmental Law also spoke out against the amendment in its letter dated March 20, 2019. It states:

The proposed amendment would require the Minister to hold a public comment and consultation period before issuing an interim MPA order. We are concerned that this proposed amendment is redundant and, at worst, risks defeating the purpose of the interim MPA order.

Their letter also emphasizes that aboriginal rights and indigenous interests are, indeed, protected by the government’s constitutional obligations and the Oceans Act.

As mentioned earlier, I believe this amendment represents a piecemeal effort to improving consultations and, rather than adding value to the process, is redundant and only serves one single section of the bill.

As Professor Bankes put it:

The result of this amendment, if adopted, will be to create a stand-alone set of consultation provisions with respect to a single section and a single power within the statute. This is not a logical approach to address and improve the standard of consultation, nor an approach that will provide certainty with respect to consultation. It will simply beg more questions than it answers with respect to issues such as what the rules are (or should be) with respect to other powers within this same statute.

I would also like to speak to the redundancy of the amendment regarding the requirement to post the approximate geographical location of a proposed protected area on the DFO website and to make a preliminary assessment of any habitat or species in that area before making an order for interim protection. Let me explain some of the reasons this is redundant.

We already meet the requirement to clearly identify and provide public information on the proposed boundaries for an area to be protected as well as details on the area’s important ecological features, such as its habitat and species.

Developing and making this information available to the public is already required under the federal regulatory process, as outlined in the Statutory Instruments Act and the cabinet directive on regulations.

Marine protected areas are a globally and scientifically proven way to protect marine biodiversity and preserve special marine features. They also help restore our natural capital for the benefit of future generations, supporting the long-term sustainable use of our marine resources and the economic benefits this protection provides. This in turn has a direct and positive impact on coastal communities which rely on healthy oceans.

In short, marine conservation is an essential and integral part of long-term economic planning and helps us better prepare for the impacts of climate change. However, all of this is a moot point if we do not have the right mechanisms in place to establish marine protected areas in a more timely fashion both when and where it is needed. It is simply not acceptable to wait seven to 10 years to protect ecologically sensitive areas in our ocean.

Climate change, global warming and ocean acidification mean that time is no longer on our side, which is why our government has gone to great lengths and held extensive consultations to amend the Oceans Act. I submit that the two amendments put forward by the other place, while right in their intent, will actually hinder the work that needs to be done to protect our marine and coastal areas.

As such, we respectfully reject the amendment by the Senate and propose that an amendment that we believe fulfills the intent of the Senate amendment is accepted. This will help us protect our oceans in a more timely manner while we continue to consult with Canadians, apply the precautionary approach and make scientifically informed decisions.

I trust we can move forward with these important measures that are designed to protect our oceans and coasts for the benefit of all Canadians.

[The Environment, April 30th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, budget 2019 proposed additional funding to support Canada's climate plan. This includes strategic investments that will make it easier and more affordable for Canadians to choose zero-emission vehicles. It also includes over $1 billion to support energy efficiency for residential, commercial and multi-unit buildings and funds to accelerate the development and adoption of innovative technologies and processes that seek to lower the oil and gas industry's environmental impacts.

[The Environment, April 30th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, Canadians see the very real impacts of climate change in our country, floods, droughts, forest fires and a melting Arctic, and understand the need to take action to ensure a sustainable planet for future generations.

Canadians understand the importance of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5°C. That is why Canada supported this goal in 2015 in Paris. This was further emphasized last year when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, released its special report on a 1.5°C temperature increase. The IPCC's report makes it clear that we are the last generation to be able to act to prevent the worst climate change impacts.

The Paris agreement is key to global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. That is why the Government of Canada worked with provinces and territories, with input from indigenous peoples, to develop Canada's climate plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. This landmark achievement is the first climate change plan in Canada's history to include joint and individual commitments by federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Our plan outlines over 50 concrete measures to reduce carbon pollution, help us adapt and become more resilient to the impacts of a changing climate, foster clean technology solutions and create good jobs that contribute to a stronger economy.

I am pleased to say that we have covered a lot of ground since launching Canada's climate plan and are starting to see results. To date, we have developed a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, as well as new policies, programs and regulations to reduce emissions in every sector of the economy. These include regulations for coal and natural gas-fired electricity, regulations to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, measures to increase the use of low-carbon fuels and funding for clean technology, renewable energy and energy efficiency.

We have also established robust mechanisms to track and drive implementation of Canada's climate plan, including annual reports to first ministers and Canadians.

As reported in Canada's most recent greenhouse gas emissions projections in December of last year, Canada's GHG emissions in 2030 are expected to be 223 million tonnes lower than projected prior to the adoption and implementation of Canada's climate plan. This improvement in Canada's emissions outlook reflects the breadth and depth of our climate plan.

Canadians are asking that we do more. That is why we have created an advisory council on climate action to provide advice on how Canada can further reduce emissions from transportation and buildings, two of Canada's highest-emitting sectors.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we know that the closure of any commercial or recreational fishery has a direct impact on communities.

The member was quite right when he talked about the cuts to science under the Harper Conservatives. We have hired 29 new scientists in the Pacific region, and starting this year we will invest over $100 million over five years, and $17 million per year in ongoing support for fisheries stock assessments and rebuilding provisions. Substantial investments are being made.

This is a challenge. It is one on which we are getting the best science advice, and one on which we are doing our level best to consult with all of those who are impacted, including the fishers, indigenous communities, and provincial and territorial governments.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent work on the fisheries committee.

The challenge around chinook salmon is certainly a vexing one for this government. We are constantly trying to ensure the protection of our oceans and our biodiversity and the protection of aquatic species at risk while trying to minimize the economic impacts on marine industries.

Protecting the species is a responsibility that is shared by all Canadians. Protection of the stocks in British Columbia is a priority for our government. We recognize the declining status of these populations and their importance. That is why these measures are necessary. They are responsible and science-based, and they are done in consultation with all of the stakeholders involved.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, April 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. I had hoped to have an opportunity to speak to the budget itself, but that of course was denied as a result of the filibuster by the member for Carleton.

It is a very good budget for Prince Edward Island, and it is a long time coming.

During the Harper years, we were particularly hard done by in our province and in our region. Throughout the Harper years, we saw disproportionate cuts to the civil service. We saw cuts to the employment insurance program, which is so very important in seasonal economies such as the one in Prince Edward Island.

We saw the closure of Veterans Affairs district offices, and this is something near and dear to my heart as the member of Parliament for Charlottetown. Charlottetown is the only place outside the national capital region that has a national headquarters of a federal government department. We are immensely proud that the national headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs is in Charlottetown, so it was particularly troubling to see that district office close. However, we fixed that.

Also during the Harper years, we saw the closure of the citizenship office. Prince Edward Island was left as the only province in Canada without a citizenship and immigration office at a very time when immigration levels in our province were increasing to the point where we now have the highest per capita immigration in the country. However, we fixed that closure of the immigration office.

We went through a period in the Harper years of the slowest economic growth since R. B. Bennett. We fixed that. We saw an accumulation of $160 billion in new debt during the Harper years, and high unemployment.

In Prince Edward Island, there is an old adage that our economy is somewhat different. We are not subject to the swings we see in the rest of Canada. Therefore, when the economy goes in the tank, it does not dip as far in Prince Edward Island, and when the economy is on fire, it does not excel as much as it does in the rest of the country. Part of that could be because of the seasonal economy. Part of that could be because, until recently, there has not been a lot of industry outside of the seasonal economy. The government sector is quite important. The university sector has been quite important. We have seen that change.

This economic boom, this period of unprecedented growth that we have not seen since the pre-Harper years and that we are experiencing right now, is different. Prince Edward Island is not only sharing in that growth; in many categories we are leading the country. We are leading the country with respect to increases in retail sales. We are leading the country with respect to economic growth. We are leading the country with respect to immigration growth. It has been said that the Prince Edward Island economy is on a tear. That is due in no small part to the economic policies of this government.

Immediately upon being elected, this government brought in the Canada child benefit. I mentioned earlier the pride we have over the fact that there is a national headquarters for a federal government department in Prince Edward Island. The payroll at the national headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs is $100 million a year, and $100 million a year is very important to the economy of Prince Edward Island.

Just to get a sense of the importance of the Canada child benefit, which was introduced immediately after our election, the amount of money that is brought into Prince Edward Island through the Canada child benefit is $100 million a year, the same as the payroll at the national headquarters. The difference between the Canada child benefit and the payroll at Veterans Affairs is that the Canada child benefit is tax free. That is one factor. There are multiple factors in the success of the P.E.I. economy in recent years, but one of them is the economic policies of this government.

In a certain sense, we have also become victims of our own success. We share in the national housing crunch. The vacancy rate in the riding I am proud to represent is 0.3%. That is in part because of our growing population and the proliferation of Airbnbs. It is in part because there is so much construction happening around Prince Edward Island that it is very difficult to get tradespeople, in part because of our sky-high tourism numbers and in part because of the seasonal economy, which makes Airbnb particularly attractive.

I indicated that we have in a sense become a victim of our own success. That is also the case with respect to labour shortages, which is why programs like the Atlantic growth strategy and the Atlantic immigration pilot have been so very important. It is also why programs like the Canada training benefit, included in this budget, will be very important to us.

That success has also exerted a strain on our health care system, where it has become harder to get a family doctor. Fortunately, this budget also includes increases to the Canada health and social transfer, which will go some way to alleviating that pressure.

This budget will allow Prince Edward Island to continue its impressive record. As I indicated, with respect to housing there is a 0.3% vacancy rate. There are substantial initiatives in the budget to address the housing crunch in this country, including measures to make housing more affordable for first-time homebuyers, including the retail finance initiative. These are all measures that are welcome and necessary, and for once they are measures that are important for a province that is sharing in the economic success we have seen.

Under the reaching home strategy, a $3-million award, administered through the John Howard Society, was recently announced to tackle homelessness in Prince Edward Island. As I indicated with the rock-bottom vacancy rate in our fair province, this is desperately needed. The good people at the John Howard Society and the board that examines the proposals to attack homelessness are to be commended and supported. This investment will no doubt lift them up.

The other thing I want to mention with respect to housing is something that was specifically mentioned in the budget. It is not very often that Prince Edward Island gets a specific mention in the budget, but there were at least a couple. One was with respect to new ferries for the passage from P.E.I. to Îles de la Madeleine and for the passage from Caribou Island in Nova Scotia to Wood Islands in Prince Edward Island. This is something that really has been the life's work of the hon. member for Cardigan.

On the housing front, there was specific mention of a $50.8-million public housing project in Prince Edward Island. This public housing project is designed for people with complex multiple needs: social, medical and psychological needs. In part, this investment will replace the aging Hillsborough Hospital, but it will be much broader than that. It is an indication of where the government's heart and head are in supporting those who are most vulnerable and providing for those battling mental health, addictions and complicated problems.

I want to close by mentioning two other specific things in the budget. There was specific mention of the Confederation Centre of the Arts. The Confederation Centre of the Arts was built as a monument to the Fathers of Confederation back in 1967. This budget included a $500,000 annual increase to the operating budget of the Confederation Centre of the Arts.

The cultural industries are so important to my province, so important to my riding and so important to this country. I am proud, as a Prince Edward Islander, to be able to support this budget.

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that environmental sustainability and economic growth must go hand in hand. In partnership with the provincial government, we created the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund, to which our government will contribute $100 million over five years, with provincial funding of over $42 million. We are also proposing $5 million in funding for the Pacific salmon endowment fund.

Our government will continue to ensure that resources are managed sustainably and protected wisely so our children and grandchildren can benefit for years to come.

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we have made no such refusal. Right now we are following the direction of the court, which found issues with the policy and the decision. However, what the court did not do was grant the request of the plaintiffs to require PRV testing in the transfer of all fish. It did not order that. It did find problems with the policy and problems with the decision, which we are currently revisiting.

To be crystal clear, our DFO scientists, along with provincial and international colleagues, are conducting investigations to better understand the biology of PRV as well as other known potential pathogens in wild and farmed salmon in the Pacific Ocean. This work will further improve our understanding of disease transfer risk.

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I will do my best.

Our government is committed to protecting the health of Canada's wild and farmed fish from aquatic animal diseases. A stringent process exists to ensure the health of cultured finfish populations prior to their transfer into the marine environment.

The applications for transfer licences are reviewed by a committee of experts from the department and the Province of British Columbia. All transfers of aquaculture fish must also comply with requirements of the national aquatic animal health program, which aims to prevent the introduction and spread of disease in Canada. It is co-delivered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Our government is re-evaluating its decision not to test for PRV prior to transferring smolts to aquaculture marine grow-out facilities under section 56 of the fishery general regulations. We will complete this review by June 4, 2019. This work is currently under way and considers the latest scientific assessments of this virus.

Our government understands that a strong, science-based approach to regulating the aquaculture industry is essential. That is why we have conducted and will continue to conduct extensive research to inform our policies and regulations. Specifically, we are actively investigating the potential impacts that PRV and other aquatic pathogens may have on various Pacific salmon species. This work will help us further improve our understanding of disease transfer risks between wild and farmed fish.

In the near future, we will also clearly outline and explain how decisions on aquaculture are made, including how the precautionary approach is applied specifically for aquaculture decision-making when there is scientific uncertainty. This directly responds to recommendations from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, from the panel on aquaculture led by the chief science adviser, from stakeholders and from Canadians who have asked for more transparency on how aquaculture decisions are made, on the information that was used in making decisions and on how the precautionary approach was used.

The framework for aquaculture risk management will outline a stepwise process to be followed, and it includes a commitment to publishing decisions, policies and the scientific advice that was received in support of aquaculture decisions. Our government is advancing this initiative in partnership with indigenous peoples, provincial governments, the public, industry, and environmental groups.

In December 2018, the minister announced a new area-based aquaculture management pilot project. As part of that new approach, we will be working with the Province of British Columbia, first nations and industry to develop an indigenous monitoring and inspection program in the Broughton Archipelago. This program will provide opportunities for first nations to take an active role in monitoring activities for fish health, and it will support implementation of the government-to-government recommendations for the Broughton Archipelago.

The restoration of our wild Pacific salmon stocks on the west coast of Canada is an extremely important priority. Our government is committed to supporting stocks that are in decline. Canada's wild salmon policy 2018 to 2022 implementation plan is a guide to addressing a range of issues, including science, habitat, assessments and the impacts of aquaculture and predation on wild salmon. We have made and continue to make unprecedented investments to support these issues.

Our government will continue working with partners on aquaculture management and on supporting wild salmon populations—

[Josh and Oliver Underhay, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the tragic passing of Josh Underhay and his six-year-old son Oliver, on Good Friday, in a canoeing accident.

Josh had an enthusiastic, almost effervescent personality.

He represented Prince Edward Island a few years ago here in Ottawa at the Teachers Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy. He was passionate and keenly interested in everything. He invited me to speak to his French immersion class, and it was easy to see that his energy was infectious. He spoke several languages and was an incredible trumpet player.

He came by my office to lobby for a cycling lane on the Hillsborough Bridge and was conspicuously present when it was announced just a few days later. In his final days, Josh campaigned as a candidate in the P.E.I. election for the only reason one should: to make his community better.

Josh and Oliver have left a gaping hole in the hearts of so many. Our hearts go out to Karri Shea and young Linden.