Evidence of meeting #66 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you very much, Dr. Carr.
Thank you very much, Mr. Doherty.
Ms. Jordan for five minutes, please.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today. It's been extremely interesting testimony.
Dr. Carr, I want to start with you because you cited the IUCN as a possible standard. One of the things, of course, we've heard from people who support that is that an MPA is more significant and better—sustainable in the long term—if it's a no-take zone. We have some struggles with that here in Canada, obviously, because of our first nations' indigenous fishing rights. You did not run into those challenges, though, when you were designating your MPAs.
9:40 a.m.
Prof. Mark Carr
You bet we did. In northern California, as I just mentioned, that's where first nations played a greater role and had a concern about creating no-take reserves. The no-take reserves in those areas tried to accommodate those first nation activities based on their spatial location.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
The other thing we heard from a number of witnesses is that we're not moving quickly enough and that our targets of 10% are going to be hard to meet by 2020, whereas England has met its target and has become the standard. Yet when we had a professor speak from England, he said that while they've reached the target, they're not enforcing it.
Meeting the target isn't enough. You have to be able to enforce the MPA. How are you doing that on the California coastline? Is it well enforced? How is it being managed?
9:40 a.m.
Prof. Mark Carr
It's enforced by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Remember, it was produced in state waters, so that department is responsible for enforcement. They have wardens who enforce the protected areas, but they're also complemented by federal enforcers, as well, including the federal coast guard.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
It's both state and federal enforcement.
My other question is about your comment that when you were developing the MPAs, you avoided areas where there were existing activities. Were those industrial activities, because I would consider commercial as an activity.
9:40 a.m.
Prof. Mark Carr
Thanks for that clarification. Specifically, it was activities that affected the habitat, whether it was a water quality change, like a discharge, or a physical structure, like an offshore oil platform or a pier of some kind. Those are considered non-natural habitats, so those were avoided. But, no, the other kinds of human activities, including fishing and other recreational activities, were not avoided; they were just considered in the design.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
One of the things we heard from indigenous groups was that it's great to protect the water, but you have to protect the land that is attached to it, basically with regard to the cooling, and those kinds of things. What do you say to that kind of statement?
9:40 a.m.
Prof. Mark Carr
Absolutely. Actually, in the California process, you'll see that some of the marine protected areas are adjacent to land protected areas so that you maintain the quality of the environment and the connection.
The poster child for that is the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, where there's an awful lot of sediment discharge and eutrophication from terrestrial influx that's having an impact on coral reef systems within protected areas. That's an example where by not protecting the quality of the land environment, and its influence on the marine environment, you jeopardize the conservation value of the protected area.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Perfect.
Mr. Giraud, you mentioned 40 vessels a year from Woodfibre LNG going through Howe Sound. Is that correct?
9:45 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Country Manager - Canada, Woodfibre LNG Ltd
Yes.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Country Manager - Canada, Woodfibre LNG Ltd
Yes, there are designated shipping lanes. In Squamish right now, there's actually a small port where they are bringing pulp out and steel in, so there are already ships. We allow about 6% in the amount of traffic.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
At your peak, then, you're expecting more vessels.
9:45 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Country Manager - Canada, Woodfibre LNG Ltd
No. We have a limitation by the amount of gas that comes to the site.
9:45 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Country Manager - Canada, Woodfibre LNG Ltd
Yes, or we'd have to go through an entirely new process and build a whole new plant.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Okay.
I've heard from Dr. Carr that it can take up to 11 years. I'm hearing from you that we need a quicker process. How do we balance that?
9:45 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Country Manager - Canada, Woodfibre LNG Ltd
I think that's why we have politicians.
9:45 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:45 a.m.
Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Country Manager - Canada, Woodfibre LNG Ltd
There have been a few questions that have danced around this idea of duelling scientists, and whose certainty.... Fundamentally, business wants to know where it can and can't go. Business would like to go everywhere it can, but business recognizes that it can't, so if there are certain places that need to be designated, we would like to know that sooner rather than later.
Obviously, science has to be involved in this and there has to be a public process, but at the end of the day, no matter what you do—we all know this—you can blame this business, and 15% of people will say you didn't do enough and 15% will say you did too much. The rest of the people will muddle through, and you will have to make a decision.
It's nice to say it's science-based, but let's be honest. It has already been said by the members here that we have been doing the sciences and that, fundamentally, decisions need to be made by you. From an industry perspective, dragging it out forever is not good for us. It's going on for a long time is maybe the worst thing. Yes and no is better.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Ms. Jordan.
Folks, I noticed in the past few meetings that we keep throwing out the the moniker of the IUCN. Simply as another point of clarification and for the record, as I do from time to time, it's the International Union for Conservation of Nature started in 1948, with 1,300 member organizations. As its website states:
[The IUCN is] composed of both government and civil society organisations. It provides public, private and non-governmental organisations with the knowledge and tools that enable human progress, economic development and nature conservation to take place together.
There you go. I thought I'd throw that in because we are throwing those acronyms around quite a bit lately.
Mr. Arnold, for five minutes.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank both witnesses for being here today.
I'll start with a couple of questions about size, because apparently size matters.
9:45 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
June 13th, 2017 / 9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Pardon me, Mr. Chair, with all due respect.
Mr. Carr, you spoke about a few things regarding size. The ecosystems were one that really raised a question with me. You talked about individual ecosystems, and yet we talk about entire ecosystems when we're creating MPAs. How big or small does a system need to be, to be considered an ecosystem, or are there ecosystems within ecosystems?