Fisheries Committee on Oct. 24th, 2017

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

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

The Canada National Parks Act sets a high bar for maintaining ecological integrity in all national parks. Marine protected areas, however, lack clear minimum protection standards that terrestrial parks benefit from, so here's my question. Would the following minimum protection standards be suitable for marine protected areas, such as, for example, prohibitions on oil, gas, and mineral exploration and development, wind farms and tidal power development, open net aquaculture, bottom trawling, and ocean waste dumping?

Mr. Prosper, would you speak to that?

[Rob Prosper]

Perhaps where I start is that marine conservation is managed differently than national parks are, and that's reflected in the legislation. It's clear in the legislation that the goal is to have sustainable ecosystems. That doesn't mean that protection is taking a back seat. I think what it means is that the goal is still to maintain functioning ecosystems but to recognize that these areas are also important for other activities. The preamble is quite clear in terms of the degree to which they contribute to the sustainability of coastal communities.

They are what they are. They're a slightly different beast that contributes to biodiversity and maintains a level of protection that we feel is appropriate, but it does contemplate other types of use.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Of particular interest, mining, oil, and gas exploration are banned from terrestrial parks to preserve ecological integrity.

[Rob Prosper]

Right.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Are these activities compatible with the goal to protect marine biodiversity in marine protected areas?

[Rob Prosper]

The act is clear as well on that. Oil, gas, and mineral exploration are prohibited in marine conservation areas.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

In terms of establishing the marine protected areas, what role does the precautionary principle play in Parks Canada's decision-making process as it pertains to establishing national marine conservation areas and terrestrial national parks?

[Rob Prosper]

That's an excellent question.

It's a fairly common approach that one has to take, particularly when you're establishing.... Marine conservation areas are developed through a representativity, so what we've done is identify the 29 marine ecological regions. Our goal is to have a marine conservation area represent each one of those areas.

When you take that approach, as much as we do a significant amount of research in terms of understanding what locations are best from an ecosystem perspective, the bottom line is that there are a lot of unknowns. The precautionary principle is a fairly common way to manage areas, knowing that you are not going to understand all of the functioning of the ecosystems and that, even in the absence of clear scientific certainty, at times it's important to make decisions in those areas that favour conservation on a precautionary basis.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. McNamee cited how local and traditional indigenous knowledge can contribute to accumulating knowledge about local environments. He cited Lancaster Sound. Can you cite some other models as examples?

[Kevin McNamee]

I think that if I were to take a broader-stroke approach in both our national parks and our national marine conservation areas, some of the areas that either have been established or are proposed have actually originated from indigenous governments and organizations. Tuktut Nogait National Park in the Inuvialuit settlement region was first proposed by the community of Paulatuk. There, you had a happy marriage between their needs to protect the calving grounds of the caribou herd and our need to represent an area and protect the wildlife population, so we now have a national park there.

Similarly, in James Bay, the Cree Nation Government approached us a number of years ago in asking if we would be interested in looking at a national marine conservation area in eastern James Bay. We are in discussions with the Cree to figure out how we could launch a feasibility assessment. Under the marine land claim agreement for the Eeyou marine region, there are provisions for a national marine conservation area and a requirement for an impact and benefit agreement should we realize that.

When you look at our process, you will see that we identify areas in collaboration with indigenous governments, organizations, and communities. We do the feasibility assessments. We reach a joint decision on the boundary, and we negotiate the necessary agreements.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

You talked about the impact agreement. How much weight is currently given to local and traditional indigenous knowledge within the MPA process? Does it vary depending on where the MPA is located? You've talked about the agreements that you're moving forward with.

[Kevin McNamee]

Again, I think our experience is relatively new, but it's very clear that in Gwaii Haanas, the traditional knowledge of the Haida, and, in Lancaster Sound, the traditional knowledge of the Inuit—in particular, the five Inuit communities that use this area—are very important.

Part of what we try to do, I think, is that we don't try to squeeze western science and traditional knowledge together. What we try to do is treat them.... Each one of them is based on different information and different backgrounds, so they provide you with a different picture. What we found exciting in Lancaster Sound was when we overlaid them. Don't try to cram them together, because a lot of times you'll hear scientists say they don't understand how traditional knowledge fits into the science. It doesn't necessarily fit in; it's a different way of looking at the land.

You have to look at it and say that it's not just a natural landscape. This is a cultural landscape that's been a homeland to people for thousands of years, so recognize their knowledge systems—how they develop that knowledge and how they apply that knowledge—to see what kind of picture that creates of the area you're trying to protect and where that ultimately does lead to a boundary. Of course, in dealing with indigenous people, they really hate the idea of boundaries and drawing lines on the map, because it's what's been done to them with treaties and everything else, but we work that out together.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Can you expand on how—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Johns, I'm sorry. I have to move along. Thank you.

[Kevin McNamee]

I'm sorry. I guess my answer was too long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Ms. Jordan, please.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for appearing today.

I want to go right back to the start. You said that you have four national marine conservation areas, of which I believe the Haddock Box off Nova Scotia is one.

[Kevin McNamee]

Is that a region?

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'm trying to think of what the real name is. It's a conservation area, but is it under Parks Canada?

[Kevin McNamee]

Off the west coast?

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

No, no. It's off Nova Scotia.

[Kevin McNamee]

Off the east...? No. The only thing we have off—

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Western/Emerald Banks?

[Kevin McNamee]

No.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I thought it was. I'm sorry.

My question is, then, how does Parks Canada, in co-operation with DFO, I guess, determine what is going to fall under Parks Canada and what's going to fall under an MPA? It's obviously a marine area that you're looking at, which is now under Parks Canada, so how come you have water too? I guess that's my question.