Fisheries Committee on Oct. 24th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everyone. We are now in public and, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're continuing our study of the Oceans Act's marine protected areas.

Let me say for the sake of our witnesses that we have just returned from the Maritimes. We have travelled to British Columbia and the Northwest Territories as well and have heard from numerous witnesses.

We are certainly interested in hearing from our next guests. They were also in the former study from the environment committee. They spoke quite a bit, I understand, and now they are here to talk about marine protected areas.

From Parks Canada, we first have Rob Prosper, vice-president, protected areas establishment and conservation, and Kevin McNamee, director of the protected areas establishment branch. These two individuals are no strangers to this sort of committee business.

As you know, but I guess it bears repeating, you have up to 10 minutes each, if you wish, and then we go to questions.

Mr. Prosper, I'm going to start with you. Are you both doing 10 minutes each? No? Just one of you, and that will be you, Mr. Prosper. Very well, then, please proceed, sir, for up to 10 minutes.

[Rob Prosper, Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans regarding your study on marine protected areas.

Parks Canada is the federal agency charged by Parliament with managing an impressive network of 46 national parks, four national marine conservation areas, or NMCAs, 168 national historic sites, and the Rouge National Urban Park. All told, this network protects almost 350,000 square kilometres of Canada's lands and waters, equivalent to an area of one third of Ontario. There is a commitment to add an additional 109,000 square kilometres of protected marine waters in Lancaster Sound.

Established in 1911, Parks Canada is the world's oldest national parks service. In 1998, Parks Canada became a separate agency to ensure that Canada's national parks, national marine conservation areas, and related heritage sites are protected and presented by Parks Canada for this and future generations.

In passing the Parks Canada Agency Act, Parliament declared it “in the national interest” for Parks Canada “to protect...nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage”, and “to present that heritage...for public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment...thereby enhancing pride, encouraging stewardship and giving expression to our identity as Canadians”.

Through the Parks Canada Agency Act, Parliament directed Parks Canada to maintain long-term plans for establishing a system of national marine conservation areas, and the act confirms that Parks Canada is responsible for negotiating and recommending to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change the establishment of new national marine conservation areas, or NMCAs.

It is through the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act of 2002 that Parks Canada establishes, administers, and manages national marine conservation areas.

In the preamble to this act, Parliament outlined its vision for NMCAs, affirming the need to

establish a system of marine conservation areas that are representative of the Atlantic, Arctic, and Pacific Oceans and the Great Lakes and are of sufficient extent and such configuration as to maintain healthy marine ecosystems,

ensure that Canada contributes to international efforts for the establishment of a worldwide network of representative marine protected areas,

...provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to appreciate and enjoy Canada’s natural and cultural marine heritage,

recognize that the marine environment is fundamental to the social, cultural and economic well-being of people living in coastal communities,

provide opportunities, through the zoning of marine conservation areas, for the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal communities,

promote an understanding of the marine environment and provide opportunities for research and monitoring,

and,

consider traditional ecological knowledge in the planning and management of national marine conservation areas....

The act further directs that NMCAs are established

for the purpose of protecting and conserving representative marine areas for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the world

and that they

shall be managed and used in a sustainable manner that meets the needs of present and future generations without compromising the structure and function of the ecosystems, including the submerged lands and water column, with which they are associated.

To that end, non-renewable resource exploration, extraction, and ocean dumping are prohibited by law.

Parliament also directed that each NMCA

shall be divided into zones, which must include at least one zone that fosters and encourages ecologically sustainable use of marine resources and at least one zone that fully protects special features or sensitive elements of ecosystems, and may include other types of zones.

In short, Parks Canada does not just establish new NMCAs and then throw away the key. Our parliamentary mandate is to both protect and ensure that visitors use, benefit, and enjoy these special places, leaving them unimpaired for future generations.

To date, five of the 29 marine regions that constitute the NMCA system are represented by four NMCAs that protect 15,740 square kilometres of marine and freshwater ecosystems.

In setting priorities for new NMCAs, Parks Canada's focus is on candidate sites located in unrepresented natural regions. To summarize, we have identified potential NMCAs in the 24 remaining regions, except for one on the west coast.

We have confirmed candidate sites in 11 of the 24 unrepresented marine regions. Of these 11 sites, feasibility assessments are under way in two marine regions and pending in three additional regions, and we are beginning negotiations on an IIBA for an NMCA in Lancaster Sound.

Creating new NMCAs is about developing relationships and trust with other governments, indigenous peoples, local communities, and stakeholders. The work involved in establishing new sites includes undertaking socio-economic and ecological traditional knowledge studies; consulting stakeholders, communities, and the public; engaging and consulting indigenous peoples; and, defining boundaries and negotiating agreements with provincial and territorial governments as well as indigenous governments.

A critical part of our establishment process is the level of engagement with indigenous peoples. The use of co-operative management boards with indigenous organizations to manage NMCAs is a meaningful way for indigenous peoples to continue stewardship, in partnership with Parks Canada, over their traditionally used areas on their own terms, including directing how we use traditional knowledge to inform decisions.

There are several common elements to the co-operative management boards: they seek to establish a collaborative relationship; land claim agreements make the establishment of such boards mandatory; indigenous organizations nominate their own representatives; the government provides financial and secretariat support; the boards increasingly work on a consensus basis, in that disputes are worked out by the board; and, each plays an important role in the development of a management plan.

All told, Parks Canada works with more than 300 indigenous communities. These strong local relationships are essential to delivering our mandate, and they contribute to the process of reconciliation between Canada and indigenous people. These relationships are founded on a shared vision that protecting land and waters is the foundation for indigenous peoples to maintain cultural continuity with their traditional lands and waters and is essential to the well-being of us all.

This past August, the Governments of Canada and Nunavut and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association signed an MOU—a memorandum of understanding—committing the three parties to the protection of Tallurutiup Imanga/Lancaster Sound, as a national marine conservation area. It confirmed: a boundary of 109,000 square kilometres, making this the largest protected area in Canada; interim protection from any future hydrocarbon exploration or development, including seismic, for the area; negotiation of an Inuit impact and benefit agreement as required under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, which would commence with a goal of completing negotiation by March 2019; and, development of an interim management plan with public consultation.

Reaching an agreement on a boundary for an NMCA in Lancaster Sound was made possible for several reasons: the government and Inuit collaborated through a feasibility assessment process, including consultation, arriving at a consensus decision on the boundary; the boundary was determined through the use of western science and traditional knowledge as provided by residents of five communities; participants viewed Lancaster Sound not just as one of the planet's most important ecosystems, but as a cultural seascape that has sustained Inuit for thousands of years; Shell Canada Limited voluntarily donated its 30 hydrocarbon permits covering 8,600 square kilometres, in the hope that this would result in the establishment of the NMCA; and, Canada and Inuit have agreed to develop a partnership through an NMCA that will ensure environmental, social, and economic benefits flow to Inuit.

In conclusion, from Parks Canada's perspective, the key attributes to success in establishing and managing protected areas are political leadership and commitment; public and stakeholder support; funding; engagement, collaboration, and ongoing consultation with indigenous peoples while respecting modern and historic treaties; utilizing science and traditional knowledge to inform decisions; and finally, recognizing that the work we undertake is to contribute to the overall conservation and health of our planet.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Prosper. We appreciate that, of course, and we're now going to go to questions in our first round.

Mr. Hardie, please, for seven minutes.

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

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

We were interested in having Parks Canada here, because in a tour we did up north we heard simply all sorts of good things about the way you have worked in those communities.

I want to give you another moment to give us an idea of the strategy, the approach, and the selection of staff who work with the local communities in order to get a better understanding of why they speak so highly of your people and your process.

[Rob Prosper]

Thank you for the question. I'll start, perhaps, and Kevin may want to dive in.

I think there are a couple of things.

One is that in the NMCAs and the national parks that we create across the country, there's not a square inch of land or water that is not in some way the traditionally used lands and waters of indigenous people. When we endeavour to create these places, it provides opportunities for indigenous people to continue to exercise their traditional activities in these places, so in a way what they do is that they help to protect traditional territories for their future generations and their future use and, as I said in my opening remarks, for cultural continuity.

I think the second thing is just a matter of geography. There's a lot of government departments and so on that have decentralized organizations, as Parks Canada does, but very few are as decentralized as we are. When we're in the north, we're not just in Yellowknife, Whitehorse, and Iqaluit; we're in Sachs Harbour, Paulatuk, and Old Crow. We live and work in communities. We build personal relationships with communities. I think what we do is that we turn those personal relationships into institutional relationships. I think that's why the community would likely speak highly of our work there.

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

In terms of the national marine conservation areas, we have them and we're establishing them, but the average person looking at this from high above would ask whether we are getting all tangled up with each other. Are we duplicating efforts here? In what way do your process and your network differ from MPAs?

[Rob Prosper]

Thank you for the question.

You likely have had this raised earlier—I'm not sure—but there is a federal marine protected areas strategy that helps to define the unique roles that the different types of marine conserved areas play as a collective.

A couple of things, I'd say, are unique to national marine conservation areas. One is in establishment. As I said in my earlier remarks, oil and gas and those types of activities are prohibited.

The other unique feature is that, not unlike national parks, visitation and giving Canadians opportunities to visit and experience these places is a key part of the mandate. They aren't simply there to draw a line on a map and, for protection, prevent activities; they are there as well to actively encourage Canadians to experience their natural heritage.

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

One of the major differences we noticed in looking at what was a marine protected area up in the north and at similar areas in other parts of the country is that up in the north there doesn't appear to be a lot of competition for use, whereas if you look off the west coast or the east coast, there are competing interests that will be putting pressure on a given area to permit certain activities.

In your network, do you face similar competing pressures, such as commercial fisheries, for instance? You mentioned resource extraction, which isn't allowed, but do you find yourself having to thread the needle in terms of coming up with something that represents a good consensus across a band of interests?

[Rob Prosper]

The authorities for the management of fisheries and the management of shipping remain with the ministers responsible, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Coast Guard, and the Minister of Transport, so those activities can continue.

That said, any time there's conversation on a protected area, there's a lot of interest from industry and other stakeholders about what exactly that means for them. When we're in the feasibility assessment process, we do a significant amount of consultation with industry to help clarify what it does or doesn't mean for industry.

Perhaps, Kevin, you could add to that.

[Kevin McNamee, Director, Protected Areas Establishment Branch, Parks Canada Agency]

To continue, I think an example would be the Saguenay—Saint-Laurent Marine Park, which we jointly administer with the Government of Quebec. It's a very critical area for beluga whales, but at the same time it's a very critical marine transportation corridor. There's a lot of effort and time that both governments have put into working with industry to come up with a sort of voluntary code as to how they use that: avoiding certain areas, slowing down speeds, and things like that. These are the kinds of things that we're going to be looking at in Lancaster Sound, because the Inuit have identified some important traditional corridors.

Also, in our proposal on the southern Strait of Georgia between Vancouver and Victoria, which is very heavily used, part of the issue there is that we have some organizations that want us to almost solve every pollution/environmental issue that exists through our national marine conservation area proposal. We have 19 first nations, and each one has different views and aspects. Also, then we have some important and critical international transportation corridors; fishing is not really an issue there.

Through consultation and meeting with stakeholders—for example, in Gwaii Haanas we must have had about 64 interactions with the fishing industry there—it's about trying to work through those processes, which of course creates a tension between trying to work with people to build the trust and identify and resolve issues, while trying to hit the 5% and 10% targets by 2017 and 2020. That's part of the tension we have to manage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie, I appreciate it. Thank you to our witnesses.

Mr. Doherty, please, for seven minutes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our guests today.

Mr. McNamee, you mentioned something in your final comments. How much feedback have you had in terms of your own department, internal and external, on the government's speeding up of the process in terms of reaching the 5% by the end of 2017? How tough has that been? We've heard before that it presents a bit of a problem but “we'll work through it”. How hard has it been to be able to complete your consultations effectively and appropriately?

[Kevin McNamee]

It's a great question. In part, we've benefited from the fact that we had a number of processes already in play: Lancaster Sound, the southern Strait of Georgia, and the îles de la Madeleine. As we've seen in Lancaster, that's going to contribute to the target.

This point may have been made to the committee before, but I think we have benefited immensely from the fact that the targets were publicly placed into the mandate letters of both our minister, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, as well as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Just by doing that, every federal department and the external stakeholders knew that this was the mandate that ministers had to deliver. In our experience on Lancaster Sound, we had tremendous collaboration with, for example, the Department of Natural Resources Canada in developing the mineral and energy resource assessment.

We will take the necessary time to build the collaborative relationships with indigenous people. That's fundamental to our process. What we have done is look at whether there are some ways to accelerate certain things. Also, is there a way to count at a particular point in our process? In Lancaster Sound, what we did was to negotiate a memorandum of understanding so that the three critical parties arrived at a consensus that they put into a memorandum of understanding, which said that this is the boundary, these are the next steps, interim protection will apply to the area, so in essence it's protected, and the boundary is agreed to, and now let's work out the arrangements with Inuit.

Those are some of the ways.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

That's a great answer.

There are questions have arisen from our on-the-ground site visits and from testimony here. It is one thing to announce the target of 5% by 2017 and 10% by 2020. The trouble or the difficulty has been in communicating what the goals and objectives are of our MPAs, our national marine protected areas. Has that presented a problem to you in terms of what is the goal of this MPA?

You've said that you've identified some on the west coast already. What is it that we're protecting? What are the goals and objectives that we're protecting there? Has that been communicated to the stakeholders as well?

[Kevin McNamee]

That's another great question. We have 46 national parks. We've been creating national parks since 1885, so when we meet with people, with stakeholders, whatever, people have a sense of what a national park is about. Now we have everything from Banff to Qausuittuq. We have very different types of parks. They're managed differently and have different types of uses.

Both for Fisheries and Oceans Canada and ourselves, I think that while our programs have been around for several decades, our ability to realize new areas on the water and to have people see how they're run and how they operate.... They're all fairly new, so it has been a challenge to communicate that. But by having accelerated the process and getting more on the water, we can now point to different types of marine protected areas and how they're managed.

We have many people that like to go out to Gwaii Haanas to see how that area is managed and to work together with the Haida.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

You mentioned in your testimony the federal marine protection strategy. Is that a document?

[Kevin McNamee]

We'll table that. We'll get copies of that to the committee.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you.

Who determines how much and what is being protected?

[Kevin McNamee]

Again, I think, in terms of how much per site, it depends on what it is we are trying to protect. In Lancaster Sound, there's a very important migratory area.

It depends on the physical features that drive that ecosystem. We look at the physiography, the subsurface, and things like that, but ultimately the boundary is determined by working with other levels of government and working with indigenous people.

Traditional knowledge was a really important factor in Lancaster Sound, in that western science showed us an area of about 44,000 square kilometres, and when you brought in traditional knowledge, we were up to 109,000 square kilometres.

On top of that, it's about looking at potential oil and gas, important fisheries areas, and use and things like that. The approach is done on a site-by-site basis.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

You mentioned that consultation with our indigenous peoples is paramount. What are your comments around indigenous politicians who have come forward and have said that there has been no consultation—or not enough in terms of what they've seen—and that the economic opportunities have not been considered in terms of those indigenous populations?

[Rob Prosper]

Perhaps you could clarify the question in which areas—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Well, both in Nunavut and on the Pacific coast.

[Kevin McNamee]

I think that rather than comment on a statement that may have been applied generally, our sense in Lancaster Sound, for example, which is our one national marine conservation area project within Nunavut, is that we had the support of the designated Inuit organization, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association. I don't mean to speak for them, but in signing the memorandum of understanding and agreeing to move forward, on that particular project we have support.

I think it depends on the context in which those statements may have been made.

It's the same thing with the Haida in Gwaii Haanas. I can only comment that with respect to our particular sites we appear to have their support and trust. .

If there are issues, we have a management board in place to work out those issues. The management boards work in such a way that neither party will go directly to the minister and say that they have an issue. The two have to agree to bring something to the minister. In that way, they have to work out those issues.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

That's great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Doherty. We appreciate it.

Mr. Johns, please, for seven minutes.