Fisheries Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2017

[Jeff MacDonald]

It's a permit that has been issued by the government, so it has a legal status. The fisheries are considered a common property resource, and therefore the ownership of the fish is once it's landed on the vessel, rather than when it's swimming in the water.

[Kevin Stringer]

I would add to this that unlike the case with oil and gas where, if you can't get your oil and gas where you have the lease, that's it, you can get your fish elsewhere. We're saying that this area is a no-go area for this type of fishery. That doesn't mean you can't go elsewhere and catch fish elsewhere.

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

I was fortunate enough to be on the trips to the north and west and also to the east. One of the things I found quite interesting is that in the north and the west there seems to be less concern about the process. They felt engaged. They felt part of it. They felt they weren't as negatively impacted. On the east coast it was different. Why do you think that was?

[Kevin Stringer]

I don't know. We heard it last week from this committee. We've heard it this week from this committee. We need to reflect on that. We need to make sure we're fully engaged. You'll see when we table, that we've done a lot of engagement, but we need to reflect on that and make sure we are. Again, Bill C-55 gives us some tools to be able to do that effectively, and some comfort that we're going to engage before things get locked down. The fishery groups and community groups are our partners in stewardship, and we need them on board for these things to be as effective as they can. We need to make sure we are doing that.

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

I'm going to go back to Mr. Morrissey's point because it's an important one. To the best of your knowledge, has there not been a community negatively impacted by an MPA?

[Kevin Stringer]

We have said, “You can't fish in this area. You can't do certain types of fisheries in this area.” We haven't said, “You can't do that anywhere.” In other words, that fishery can take place elsewhere.

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

I'm going quite quickly because I have a list here.

One of the things we heard was that you don't need an MPA if you have a well-managed fishery. Do you want to comment on that?

[Kevin Stringer]

We have many tools on conservation. It goes back to the original question from MP McDonald. What do we do to ensure that we're effectively managing oceans? We apply the precautionary approach. We have harvest control rules and limit reference points. We have a number of tools. We have dock-side monitoring. We have many initiatives. MPAs are one key tool that we can apply, and we think it is an important part of a broad set of tools around conservation and effective management.

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

Finally, I have a question with regard to the minimum protection standards, because we've heard a lot about that from environmental groups and other organizations. How do you start that process? I know you talked about a board, but where is the baseline and how do you find the baseline at this point where we're looking at areas that already have depleted resources?

[Kevin Stringer]

There's a lot of information out there. Other jurisdictions have looked at it. There are different pieces of legislation that do different things. There's a lot of material. Over the past two years, as we have moved very quickly in terms of protection standards, we've heard repeatedly from stakeholders that we need to look at this. It has come together, and that's where the minister has landed in terms of saying we need someone to look at this set of things to see what people have said about it, engage them further, and look at the body of materials and evidence around those standards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mrs. Jordan. I appreciate it.

Now to Mr. Miller for five minutes, please.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thanks very much for being here.

I love to hunt and fish, so in the concept of protecting resources and what have you, I have no problem with that, and I don't think anyone would. I have some real concerns with the process, though. Mr. Doherty and Mr. Arnold—and I think even Mrs. Jordan has skirted around the issue in mentioning the process without actually saying there was a problem. It appears the government has made a unilateral decision to protect x amount of.... That's all well and good if they have a plan in mind, but it's almost like a game of pin the tail on the whale, and we'll just point to an area and say we're going to protect that without any real justification, science, or what have you.

I note that Mr. Morrissey got on the record, of course, to satisfy the fishermen in his area, but the one thing he failed to mention—or Mr. Stringer failed to tell you, Mr. Morrissey—is that section 2.1.1 says the fishing allowed is not going to affect that, but it's what happened in the last year. It doesn't go beyond that. I have it right here in black and white. Mr. Stringer, you talk about another tool in the tool box to be able to deal with this thing, but you already have 13 federal statutes that you can work under.

Again, it's about the process. It doesn't seem to be science-based, and I don't think we're being up front with our stakeholders. Mr. Morrissey, I don't have any stakeholders in my riding who are affected like this, but a lot of you do over there, and we're not being up front and honest with them. How do you respond to that?

[Kevin Stringer]

Thank you for the question.

There absolutely has been a plan, and we have talked to stakeholders about it. It's a five-point plan for meeting our 5% and 10% targets. Many stakeholders are getting tired of hearing it, but they have heard it often.

One is to finish what we started. We had a number of MPAs that we had been working on, so let's get those over the finish line.

Two is to use large, pristine areas—some people don't like the term “pristine”, but large areas—as MPAs.

Three is to form MPA networks. Develop MPA networks in five priority areas, and now we're looking at increasing that number.

Four is to take other effective area-based measures. Those are fisheries closures and other measures, and we've developed guidance to see what can count toward that 5% and 10%.

Five is to amend the Oceans Act to give us the time to provide the interim protection. We've talked about that to many people.

The second thing I'd say is that it is all science-based. We have made a big point, as we've gone through this, of saying that we will not simply draw lines in the water and say, “There's our 5%.” It's about protecting corals and sponges, seamounts, sea pens, and species that we've identified as important species that need protection, and applying the measures that are appropriate for conservation.

The third thing is we have made sure that we've had full engagement.

We're hearing some concerns here. We need to reflect on them. That's really important, because at the end of the day, we will do it. It is, though, science-based. There is a plan, and we need the partnership of communities and fisher groups for this to be effective.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I think it's obvious from the testimony that was heard, especially during the most recent consultations on the east coast—and consultations by the committee, not by the government or the ministry—that the transparency in this whole thing, Mr. Stringer, is what has always....

The minister was here one week ago today exactly—right about now a week ago—and said that in the future they're going to make some announcements. He went right out the next day and did this—not transparent at all, and nobody can question that.

I have one last thing here, or maybe it's not the last. You talked about no-take zones. In one breath you tell us that everything is going to stay the same under an MPA, that fishing is going to happen. Being the devil's advocate, I would say that if fishing is going to stay the same, and every other thing, what's the idea? What's the advantage of the MPA? I'm not saying that I want to see fishing reduced, but it contradicts itself. Can you speak to that?

[Kevin Stringer]

The types of minimum standards that people have talked about and that have been raised at this table already—the sorts of things we've heard about that the panel could turn their mind to—are that there be no bottom trawling in any MPA, no oil and gas, or no mineral extraction, or that those are the types of things that could take place.

The idea of the marine protected areas under the Oceans Act is that we have identified something that needs protection. Then you identify the measures that would protect that thing, but you allow other activities to take place.

Yes, some fishing will take place, but it may be that there's no bottom contact fishing, or no longlining, or no oil and gas. It really is surgical, but it's meant to be surgical but comprehensive protection for what you're trying to protect.

The minimum standards effort is to say that we should look at whether there should be no-take zones in all of them, or no oil and gas in any of them, or no bottom trawling. These are the types of things that have been raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Stringer. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Hardie, you have five minutes, please.

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

At the freeze moment, the moment that the announcement comes down, we could have a variety of agencies and ministries, etc., involved in granting an approval for something. If people aren't talking to each other, you could have oil and gas approved one week, and then three weeks later, all of a sudden we have this minister using these new powers, and the people who had their approval may be looking for compensation.

That's a potential scenario, isn't it?

[Kevin Stringer]

A big part of the purpose of Bill C-55 is to ensure that we're actually applying a legal protection, so that it wouldn't be possible to move forward with other regulatory measures, regardless of which department, whether it's Transport or whatever department—

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

The point is that it's a moving target. If somebody who feels that they've now had approval to do something all of a sudden sees somebody coming from someplace else, coordination here is going to be—

[Kevin Stringer]

—very important.

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

How, then, would you go about it in advance of declaring an area off limits for certain activities? How much in advance would you signal that this is probably going to happen, in order to prevent the other agencies from getting tangled up?

[Kevin Stringer]

That's a really good question. First of all, it's incumbent upon us to ensure that we are working with the other agencies. Particularly in the last two years, as we've launched the process to get to 5% by this year, we have had close coordination between DFO, Parks Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. Also, CIRNA—the department formerly known as INAC—NRCan, and Transport Canada are all involved, working closely together on these things.

One of the purposes in Bill C-55 is to provide clear direction: this is an area that we are going to protect, and the Government of Canada will not look at any other new developments that aren't currently taking place during the period in which we're reviewing it over the next five years.

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

From this side of the table, I want to reflect what we have heard, either implied or stated directly: that the state and quality of the consultation is something that you really do need to be concerned about.

It's fairly common for people who get an adverse outcome to say that the process wasn't good, but at the same time, there's a whole school of thought around fair process. I really have to impress upon you the need to go back, right down to the field level, and ensure that the people who are exchanging with the local community really have their act together on this one.

We heard from Parks Canada, which has, to be honest with you, a much better reputation in this regard than DFO. For the purpose of public confidence and fair process, it has to be something that really needs attention, and I dare say, from what I've heard, more on the east coast than the west coast.

You said that this bill will give you authority to partner more effectively. Can you expand on that a little bit?

[Kevin Stringer]

One of the elements—maybe I'll ask Jeff to speak to this—is around partnering with guardians locally. We mentioned that enforcement, monitoring, and effectiveness are all really important to getting the results we need out of MPAs. It gives us the ability—and we have other areas in which we have this ability—to partner with local communities and with Indigenous groups in monitoring.

Jeff, do you want to add to that?

[Jeff MacDonald]

Yes. This is exactly one of the points envisioned in the amendments to the administration and enforcement section of the Oceans Act, section 39. The bill proposes that the minister be able to “designate persons or classes of persons” for the administration and enforcement of the act. It's not just going to be federal or provincial; we could work with communities as well in monitoring and enforcement of marine protected areas.