Fisheries Committee on Oct. 26th, 2017

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I wondered why that wasn't part of Bill C-55. It would seem like a very logical procedure to start with some minimum standards and then work out from there.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I totally get that objective. I'm not sure that to legislate them is necessarily the best way to do it—it could be done by regulation—but I really wanted to have scientific experts and others offer an opinion on what those standards would look like. I would welcome, obviously, the work of this committee or others. I clearly want to get to that point very quickly. I've said so publicly and I'm happy to repeat it today.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Sure.

I want to follow up on some of the points that Mr. Doherty was making.

I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago with an Inuvialuit leader. He was talking to me about MPAs, and he was saying that his group was very much in favour of protected areas. They had proposed a couple even before this process started, but then they were blindsided, he felt, or whatever word he used. The consultation process just wasn't there, or if it was there, it was entirely inadequate, so I'd like to back up some of the comments that Mr. Doherty made about groups in the north especially, or at least his group, being very concerned about the lack of consultation in the Beaufort Sea.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I've read those comments. I take them to heart. This is a critical part of the conversation. How do we ensure that we've discussed, with the greatest possible number of people, their constructive views on how to achieve these targets? I think there's a consensus that we can get to these targets. It's how to get there now, and what's the right way. That's why the consultations are so critical.

Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to share with the committee, and to send as quickly as I can, a detailed list of the dates and all the different groups that were consulted. These include industry and provinces. I'd be happy to share that with respect to these MPA targets but also in the discussion heading to Bill C-55.

This doesn't mean that those consultations are over. I don't want people to misunderstand that—i.e., that should Parliament adopt Bill C-55, it means that somehow we will stop consulting, that we will do less consultation, that we will be less open to ideas. In fact, we see it as a way to bring attention to this issue and to ensure that we have a very open and transparent dialogue with Canadians. In my view, it's very much part of the process to get to these targets.

I would remind colleagues that we were not on track in any way to get to the 2020 targets. That's one of the reasons we thought setting a 5% target by the end of this year, to get to half of a 10-year commitment in seven years, didn't seem unreasonable. It really focuses the collective efforts of Canadians. We were in no way on track a couple of years ago to hit that target in 2020. I'm proud to say that this is no longer the case.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Can I quickly ask you about the possibility of co-management of these areas with first nations and Inuit groups? Parks Canada has some very good models for co-management in Haida Gwaii and the north. Have you thought of that possibility?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Cannings, absolutely. You mentioned some of the best examples of these self-governing nations that absolutely want to and rightfully expect that our government can co-manage these areas. We're open to all of those conversations. I've had them with some of the groups you mentioned. By no means should people think that our government, when we say we want a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with these communities....

One of the best examples is in your province. Unfortunately, one of the frequent areas of concern is around the management of fisheries and fish stocks and marine areas. We, along with our colleagues at Environment and Climate Change Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, are making every effort possible to put us exactly on the road to that relationship you described.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Cannings.

Ms. Jordan, you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

As you know, this committee has been studying MPAs for a number of months now. We've been hearing different testimonies from all sides of the argument, for lack of a better word, but one thing we haven't heard about that the legislation talks about is “interim protection” MPAs. I'm wondering if you can elaborate on that a little bit. I'm concerned about what that looks like in terms of the process, the consultation, and making sure that if we do have an interim MPA, we will still meet those standards that a regular MPA has in terms of making sure that people are consulted on that process.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

One of the key elements of this legislation is to provide a degree of protection for a particular area that would otherwise not be protected for the many years it takes—on average seven—to work through the scientific, regulatory, and consultative process. The idea is that the interim protection we're asking Parliament to enable in this legislation would protect areas deemed to be of very significant biological or ecological importance, while the final process of Governor in Council approvals and consultations under the regulatory process would continue. Obviously the final decision would reflect those consultations and views, and might therefore differ from the interim order.

It's sort of like freezing the footprint, Ms. Jordan. The idea is we'd look back for a year and say that certain practices currently taking place in that particular area that we're seeking to protect in an interim way would be permitted, but we would freeze other practices—additional practices or uses of that particular marine area—because of its ecological and biological significance, and then we would go through the regulatory process.

We're not unscrambling the omelet; we're basically turning the stove off—freezing the footprint. In our view it's the best way to offer the appropriate protection while we go through the full regulatory process, and ultimately the final regulatory decisions would be open to reflecting that consultation.

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

Just to be clear, because I want to make sure this is on record: an interim protection does not stop what is already existing in a possible MPA, correct?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That is correct.

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

Good. Thank you.

The other question I have is with regard to enforcement. One of the things we've heard time and again in this study is, why bother doing this if there isn't going to be adequate enforcement? I know Mr. Morrissey brought that forward, but.... People hold up the U.K. as a standard in MPAs, but when we had witnesses from the U.K., they actually said, “Yes, it's great that we've got these, but nobody monitors them and nobody watches them.” In order to make sure we're going ahead with this in the right way, you mentioned that there will be adequate resources. What does that look like?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That is a critical question, something I'm sure we hear about all the time in your constituency, mine, and many others. By way of example, in 2006 my department had 700 fishery officers. By 2017 it had dropped to 600 fishery officers. The whole habitat protection branch had gone from 60-some offices down to fewer than 20, I believe. We can get those precise figures if it's of interest, but there had been a very significant reduction; we see and hear it all the time.

One of the things we needed to do—and we have done, but can continue to do more, particularly if Parliament looks at some Fisheries Act changes in the coming months—is reinvest, not only in the scientific capacity but also in exactly that enforcement capacity. I was in northern New Brunswick this summer, and fishery officers there told me they used to have eight people in a detachment but are now down to three. There have to be two when they're on patrol, so three doesn't makes sense; four would be better. All over the place, that's been the case.

We also need to use modern tools. If we're talking about marine protected areas, some of them far offshore, it's not only fishery officers and rigid-hull Zodiacs that can do it. The Coast Guard needs to be equipped. We need to increase aerial surveillance, which is something that we want to do and that we believe can be improved as well. There are some great technologies coming from your province, and there are Newfoundland and Labrador companies that have done terrific work for successive governments. That can be increased.

The more deterrents we have and the more charges we can lay.... If somebody is thinking about committing a particular crime, seeing a police officer sitting in a car at the corner tends to be the best deterrent. We need to do that with respect to protecting these MPAs, and we're working on a plan to do exactly that.

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

I'm not sure how much time I have left, but I would like to turn it over to Mr. Tootoo.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Colleagues, before I start, if you wish, you can request to split the time, which would probably be advisable in this case.

Mr. Tootoo, you have one minute.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Jordan.

Minister, as you know, the Inuit are a coastal people, and we rely on the waters and the life in them to survive. On this piece of legislation, I know there have been some suggestions made in the House and in our legislative assembly about the lack of consultation and the importance of indigenous consultation in general.

Although I'm confident that appropriate consultations will take place, the Government of Nunavut is concerned with the interim protection provision of the act. From their perspective, any decision made without consulting the Government of Nunavut could potentially have a drastic impact on future devolution talks and economic benefits from which Nunavummiut will benefit. I just want to know what assurances the Government of Nunavut can have that they will be consulted prior to any interim protected MPA.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Tootoo.

I can assure you and, through you, the government of your territory that we intend to continue those conversations in a robust way.

As you know, our government recognizes the rights of Inuit to access wildlife and knows it's essential for food security and to maintain the traditions of Inuit people. We have been in regular dialogue—and you are a constructive part of a lot of this discussion—with Inuit leaders, with the government of the territory, and with the NTI, obviously, to ensure that the planning and establishment of future marine protected areas under the Oceans Act is consistent with the treaty obligations, including negotiations of Inuit impact benefit agreements.

The draft land use plan, with which you are obviously very familiar, calls for many parts of the ocean in the Nunavut settlement area to be protected. Our commitment is to work—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Minister, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

—with the territorial government and all others to ensure we're applying the right tools in the right areas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Arnold, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and deputy minister and staff, for being here today. It's good to see you. We haven't seen you as much as we would like at this committee, so it's good to have you here.

I put forward the motion for this committee to study MPAs back in December of 2016. We began this study early in the year. In June of 2016 Bill C-55 was introduced. I'm thinking we both saw red flags or warning signs, but for different reasons.

I was concerned, when I saw the mandate letters of two ministries, that we would try to reach the target of 5% by 2017 or that you were committing to reaching the targets of 5% and 10% by 2020. My concern was that the consideration of the coastal communities and what was being protected and for what reason might possibly not have been looked at carefully enough before those mandate letters went out.

It was interesting to see Bill C-55 come out in June, possibly to hit those somewhat.... Where is the push coming from to reach those 5% and 10% targets? Those were targets; they weren't must-do issues. It certainly wasn't from coastal communities. You say from 98% of Canadians, but what about the 2% of Canadians who may fish or rely on the coast for their economic survival? Where was the push coming from?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Arnold.

In your preamble to your question, you correctly recognize the importance that coastal communities attach to the sustainable use of the oceans, its fisheries, its other industries, and its marine tourism. All kinds of jobs and economic opportunity properly depend on the sustainable and safe use of our oceans. We don't disagree with that; we hear it all the time. We try to work with these groups over and over again, as often as we can, to ensure that we get it right. I think that if we properly protect our oceans, reaching 5% by the end of this year or even 10% by the end of 2020 is, in our view, a reasonable target to ensure the long-term sustainability of those very resources that these coastal communities depend on.

You asked where the push came from for the 2020 or 2017 targets. The push for 2020 came from a global consensus that Mr. Harper's government signed on to in 2010 that countries would get to the 2020 target within 10 years. There's a broad consensus on that. As I said, we believe that showing Canadians that we can achieve the significant progress of 5% this year was reasonable and attainable.

I don't want to pre-judge Parliament's work, but it's unlikely that Bill C-55 will make it through the House of Commons and the Senate in the next couple of months, so it won't be available as a tool to reach the 2017 targets. We think that if this legislation is passed, it'll be critical to getting the country to the 2020 10% target, and that's why we're asking Parliament to consider this bill.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you very much.

That leads me to my next question. Right now we're sitting somewhere around the 3% mark, or just over 3%. We have to increase that amount by 40% in the next two months. Do you still expect to be able to achieve that 5%? That's going to take some rather significant announcements.

We've heard continuously from coastal communities that we visited and had in as witnesses that they haven't been consulted. The so-called consultation sessions have been information sessions where they were not able to ask questions or get answers.

How are you going to reach that 5% in the next two months, and where, and have those communities been consulted?