Evidence of meeting #74 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 going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
So it's both: first nation consultation and also science. Have any of the requirements not been met by the CAST organization?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Our view is that peer review assessment of the project needs to be done, and how much of the project can be done before the full peer review assessment is something about which we're in active discussions with them. It is an important initiative and one that we're taking seriously and working closely with them on.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
What would be the danger in having them spawn in the river? What is the worst that could happen?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The issue is crowding out of the wild species, effectively changing the genetic nature, over time, of that species. It's not quite the same.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
You'd think we could capture those smolts in that river, and we would probably—
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It's the impact of not knowing what they're actually going to do at the time and ensuring that the wild stock we have is protected. That said, this is one conservation tool that has been identified as a potential way forward.
We have approved a piece of this initiative, as I understand it, or at least we're looking at that, but it is an important thing. You more than anybody know the importance of that river and the Atlantic salmon fishery in that river, in other rivers as well, but in the Miramichi. We take it very seriously.
Liberal
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the three of you for being here this morning.
My first question would be for Mr. MacDonald.
How is the MPA establishment process going? How would you classify it?
Director General, Oceans and Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The MPA establishment process is one that has been ongoing for quite some time. The program initially, after the Oceans Act's passage, invested a tremendous amount in ecosystem science, and the most important output of that research was the identification of ecologically and biologically significant areas, which Kevin spoke about earlier. That's the basis upon which we start to identify areas of—
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
How's it going? Would you say it's going well now as compared with previously?
Director General, Oceans and Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I would say that we're starting to see the fruits of our labour over the past 10 or 15 years of investment in science and in consultation. There's been a lot of work done at the federal, provincial, territorial, and community levels on the development of networks of MPAs. The idea is that the networks identify sites linked ecologically on an ecosystem basis that provides overall protection to an area.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Is it going better over the last few years, or is it a little more rocky?
Director General, Oceans and Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I don't know that I could characterize it that way, Mr. Chair. I would just say that—
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
One of the department's people on the west coast referred to it as a scramble. They're scrambling to meet the requirements.
Director General, Oceans and Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We certainly received a lot of investment in the program over the past couple of years, and in terms of turning that investment into results there has been a lot of effort by people across the department, not just in the oceans program but in our fisheries management sector, as well as our policy sector, to help the government achieve its mandate commitment of 5% protection.
Some people have been scrambling, that is true, including the three of us here, but we've been committed to—
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Let me move on to the next question, because we're short on time.
You mentioned—and Mr. Stringer, I believe, backed it up—that with the Bill C-55 process, areas are closed unless there are exceptions made. This has fishermen in Atlantic Canada terrified. We heard this in testimony over the past few weeks while we were out there. They are concerned that once an area is closed, it's never reopened.
What are you telling their families? What are you telling fishermen on the Atlantic coast?
November 2nd, 2017 / 9:15 a.m.
Director General, Oceans and Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The risk-based approach is one that involves a lot of communication and a lot of consultation. It's not a one-off transaction. When we go forward and say that these are the areas we know are sensitive, we are not only sharing what we know, but we're also receiving a lot of useful information from people who are on the water all the time concerning what they've observed as important areas. That is all important information that goes into it.
The second point, and the one we have heard a lot of concern about and are very conscious of, is there's a feeling that we don't understand the social and economic impacts of a marine protected area. That is a necessary step in the process. It just comes after we've started to identify what our conservation objectives are, so that when we provide advice to the government as to a protected area we're not just saying that this is an area of ecological significance, but that we have also taken into account the anticipated impacts on people's livelihoods as well as the cultural importance of those areas. It's not just what the negative impact is, but what positive attributes the area could also bring as a protected area.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Why are we hearing from witness after witness, fisherman after fisherman, family, and organization, that they're not being heard in the consultation process? They're telling us about meetings that are held that are basically informational meetings, not consultation meetings. They've put that term on it repeatedly, that they are told what's happening, but they're not able to provide input.
Why is there a difference between what they're saying and what the department is saying?
Director General, Oceans and Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I would say that the way we go about establishing marine protected areas is an ongoing dialogue, in terms of going from an ecologically and biologically significant area all the way through the process to establishing an MPA through regulations. There are many points of intervention, but it's often the case, when we're first introducing the subject in areas in which there haven't been efforts to do marine protection, that there's a lot of concern that we will not take into account the social and economic impacts on their livelihoods.
I can understand that there's a degree of suspicion and fear at the outset, because people are used to using the ocean as a way of gaining their livelihoods. I think the dialogue is important, however, in ensuring not only that it is achieving a protected area but that there's a greater degree of information sharing and better knowledge about the health of the oceans on the part not only of the government, but also on the part of the community sharing the information with us.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
One thing that Bill C-55 should help with is to ensure that we have the time. You're identifying that we have enough information to say that an area is going to be protected; then we freeze the footprint, which basically means fishing that was going on before and other activities that were going on before can continue, but no new activities.
We take the time. We give ourselves five years to engage to do the socio-economic analysis—there has to be some done ahead of time as well—and to engage communities, etc.
We need to take the time. We understand how important this is to communities and are as concerned as you are as fishermen express concerns.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Stringer.
Mrs. Jordan is next, for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our officials for being here this morning.
Going back to the bill, Bill C-55 says specifically:
This enactment also makes amendments to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to, among other things,
—and (c) is what I'm interested in—
provide for compensation to the interest owner for the cancellation or surrender of such an interest.
Can you explain that to me, please?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Do you want to answer that, Jeff?
Director General, Oceans and Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Sure.
The Canada Petroleum Resources Act is administered by the Minister of Natural Resources south of 60, more or less, and north of 60 it's by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. In that context, the proposed amendments to the legislation outline a process to deal with legacy permits that are in place on the west coast and in the north, for which there has been, for example, on the west coast, a moratorium on oil and gas activities for 45 years.
Those permits still have a legal status. The amendments allow for the competent minister to propose, in the establishment of an Oceans Act MPA, a process with the permit holder to either surrender them or, as the case may be, to end up extinguishing those permits and then offer a path for compensation for what their value may be.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
If we're willing to do that for oil and gas, why aren't we willing to do it for fishermen?