Fisheries Committee on April 4th, 2017

[Philippe Morel]

They are also coordinated through CCFAM, Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers subcommittee. It's called the ocean task group. Jeff is co-chairing that committee for DFO. All provinces are there, also ocean directors from DFO, and someone from Parks Canada, someone from ECCC, and I think we needed someone from NRCan for the oil and gas claims.

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

A third point of Canada's plan involves the protection of areas under pressure from human activity. Can you provide the committee with a list of these areas under pressure?

[Jeff MacDonald]

The areas under pressure refer to the marine protected area network planning, which is a process that's been ongoing in our five priority bioregions since 2011. Under the national conservation plan, additional funding was put into the development of MPA networks in 2014. Each network in those bioregions is expected to report their plan over the next year or two and the sites that would be emerging from those networks could be identified as MPAs to meet the 2020 target. They could also be protected under other tools such as those of Parks Canada, Environment Canada, or the provinces and territories.

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

What kind of pressures are these areas under?

[Jeff MacDonald]

The priority bioregions are the ones where there is significant human activity: fishing, oil and gas exploration, aquaculture development, shipping, etc., so when we talk about those five priority bioregions—and we can provide a map to the committee—we're talking about the Pacific north coast, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Beaufort Sea.

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

What factors affect the rate of progress in designating MPAs in Canada?

[Philippe Morel]

I'm not sure I get what exactly you want to ask.

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

Why do they take so long?

[Philippe Morel]

Well, it's due to consultations, very diverse interests, of course, that up front may be perceived as conflicting interests between the conservation and use and the economic impact, or the sustainability of fisheries and the economic activities.

It takes time to engage and to make sure we get it right. When we designate, we look at the conservation objectives, and sometimes we have to adapt the zone or the measures that we use to protect the area.

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

If we compare marine protection to terrestrial planning and protection, do we have a very similar timeline in terms of how long it takes and what activities are allowed and not allowed? For instance, I think of a national park. Do we allow commercial activities that are the equivalent of what we would allow in marine protected areas?

[Jeff MacDonald]

I'm not well versed enough in terrestrial park planning to really be able to provide a comparison. What I can say is that, in terms of planning for marine protected areas, we do need to be thorough in terms of our consultations, because what is being proposed is something that is fairly permanent in nature. It's intended, obviously, to increase biodiversity, and so we don't want to allow any activities that would affect that objective.

At the same time, the purpose of the Oceans Act MPAs is to support the sustainable use of oceans. Therefore, any activity that is compatible with the conservation objective is supported.

I'm not sure if the tools that are used to create parks or other terrestrial protection measures are similar. I'm just not familiar with that particular methodology.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Hardie, you have seven minutes, please.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the guests for being here.

Throughout the conversations we've seen so far on marine protected areas, the words that keep coming are “integration of area ecosystems” and “network”.

I would really like somebody to put the term “network” into a little bit more context. Obviously, the marine protected areas that we have or that have been designated are quite distant from each other. Could somebody just give me some background on the term “network” and what it really means in this context?

[Jeff MacDonald]

“MPA networks” is a term that we use. It's a more current term. I think you'll find in the Oceans Act that the actual term that was used 20 years ago was a “system”.

The idea of a network is that you're identifying areas of an ecosystem. In our world those would be bioregions. These are areas that have been scientifically identified as contained areas within which there are a number of activities that complement each other. What we're attempting to do with a network is identify those areas that are linked in an ecological sense. Think about that.

For example, with a species at risk you may identify the area where the species spawns, then another area where it feeds, and then another area of the ecosystem where it seeks shelter. By following the life cycle of that species, you're able to identify the different areas in that bioregion that are worthy of protection for that species. That's what we call a “network”.

It may mean that when we identify an area it could be a marine protected area because we know that it's important for the ecology, but there may be multiple human activities taking place there, in which case you would want to use an instrument that can regulate them all.

In other circumstances, there may be only one human activity, such as fishing, in which case you might use the Fisheries Act to create an area closure to protect a particular part of that ecosystem. Therefore, you're only using that statutory instrument instead of a full-blown Oceans Act MPA. The idea is that by putting all these sites together, and looking at the entire map of the bioregion, you're able to identify the network of MPAs and together that is what we call a “network”. It's a system or areas that are linked ecologically.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you for that.

I wanted to refer to a study on protected areas that was just released by the environment committee. I'll just read recommendation 6 and ask for comment.

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada develop a “corridors of connectivity” and “buffer zone” strategy to protect and enhance ecologically valuable networks of protected areas and regions on the periphery of protected areas.

I take from this that you could have a marine protected area, but then there would be perhaps a surrounding area of interest. Would that be essentially managed in the same way as a marine protected area?

[Jeff MacDonald]

The concept of corridors of connectivity is one that you also find on land, when we talk about protecting a wilderness for a species that has a large range.

We have approached MPA network development along the lines that Annette outlined in terms of establishing an MPA. We are partners with the provinces, the territories, and indigenous organizations. We have representatives from non-governmental organizations and from the industry that conducts human activities in that area. When we are talking about the development of the network, we can say that we have done that with those groups, those levels of government, and those organizations so that the connectivity of the areas is well understood.

It is not only because of its permanent nature that we need to have a very thorough understanding; it's also very educative, because, as we go through the process, we are learning more about the oceans. As Philippe said, we've made an investment over the past 20 years and we have a better understanding, but by no means does that mean we understand everything about what's taking place. The idea of identifying and establishing networks is fairly new, but how we would manage them, to answer your question, is really along the lines of establishing an advisory system that looks at the entire bioregion and allows for exploring the concepts of corridors of connectivity and buffer zones along the lines of what we were calling “network planning”.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I wanted to talk about the consultation. Ms. Daley, you seem to have been quite involved in some of the east coast activities. Can you give me a sense of what kind of conflicting visions, if you like, came up? Where were the rubs, and what did you do, through the process of consultation, to hopefully resolve those conflicts among the various interests around a marine protected area?

[Annette Daley]

There certainly are a lot of diverse views, and I will give the example of St. Anns Bank. When those regulations were published in Canada Gazette, part I, we had a lot of feedback. The highest number of responses we had were from the ENGO community. They were highly supportive of marine protected areas and of the high-protection zone we have in the centre, which minimizes the level of activity that occurs in that zone.

There were other interests. On the east coast, for example, we have a lot of oil and gas interests, and obviously very active fisheries, so we do get comments around considering the types of use that could potentially be within the marine protected area. Some of those users have different requests of us and in a way they are competing requests, so we try to balance that as best we can. We meet with them, and we try to accommodate their requests to the extent possible, balancing the interests of others. In effect, that is why we have these multi-stakeholder advisory committees, so they can hear each other's views and we can help balance those views as we design the MPA.

As Jeff indicated, the design of the MPA allows for some zones to have some level of activity, so again, we try to balance the users' needs by using those other zones to accommodate some of the activities they request.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

On a scale of one to 10, what is the level of satisfaction with the results among the whole range of groups?

[Annette Daley]

We aim for the highest level of satisfaction that we can. Certainly, there are going to be people who are impacted by having areas that are protected, and we try to minimize the impacts. Obviously, we aim for 100%, but maybe we get in the range of 90%. That is likely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sopuck, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

One point I'd like to make is that I'm getting tired, quite frankly, of the rural communities being marginalized in these presentations here. When I see the list of people who will be consulted, the word “community” shows up from time to time. There's the usual group that's always consulted. I made the same request in the environment committee when I sat in on the issue about parks. Again, rural communities are rarely specifically mentioned in the list of groups to be consulted. I am strongly requesting that from now on, in all presentation materials, rural communities are mentioned as stakeholder groups.

My second point is that I was very pleased to hear that the national conservation plan budget is still in place. Again, that was started under our government. The marine protected area program was started under the national conservation plan.

Just quickly, is the funding under the national conservation plan still in place?

[Jeff MacDonald]

Yes, it is. It's a five-year program—

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

Excellent. Great. Thanks.

Another issue coming from Manitoba, the issue of jurisdiction, is extremely important. I was quite shocked to see in the recent federal budget under the environment component—again, we're not talking about national parks here, but I think the point is germane—that “Manitoba Lowlands”, mentioned as a new national park, is wholly owned by the Province of Manitoba as provincial crown land, where the federal government has no jurisdiction.

As well, under the national marine conservation areas, there was a mention of the Churchill and Nelson rivers as potential national marine conservation areas. I guess nobody in Ottawa knows that those rivers are extensively developed for hydroelectric, with a number of dams and diversions on both. They have been very significantly modified by human activity—all for the right reasons, I might add.

When I checked with my colleagues in the Manitoba government, where I have an extensive network, nobody had been consulted on either of those items by the federal government. They showed up in the budget and surprised the Manitoba government completely.

How could it ever occur, given that these two regions are clearly solely under provincial jurisdiction, that there was no consultation before they appeared in the budget?

[Philippe Morel]

I will have to give you a short answer, sorry. This is Parks Canada's jurisdiction. I'm not aware of any consultations—