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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kevin Stringer  Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Jeff MacDonald  Director General, Oceans and Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

November 2nd, 2017 / 8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Good morning, everyone.

It's nice to know we're all in a good mood this morning despite the terrible weather.

I understand you're not making an opening statement.

8:45 a.m.

Kevin Stringer Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

That's correct.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

You're just going to face the firing line and that's it. That's brave, noble, and all the rest.

We are continuing our analysis of Bill C-55. Following this, in an hour from now, we'll do some committee business. We'll discuss Bill C-55 in detail and any other committee business that members would like to bring up. That part will be in camera.

Joining us this morning from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are Kevin Stringer, the associate deputy minister; Philippe Morel, the assistant deputy minister, aquatic ecosystems sector; and Jeff MacDonald, the director general of oceans and fisheries policy.

My goodness, Mr. Morel, it seems your title gets longer every time you appear here.

We're going to start right away with our questions. Who will begin for the Liberals?

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

I'm going first.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

You most certainly are. Mr. McDonald, you have seven minutes, please.

8:45 a.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our guests, and thank you for coming back again on such a short turnaround visit.

For decades, and maybe since the beginning of time, we've used the ocean to some regard improperly. With successive governments, not this one or the last one, but governments going back to when Canada was formed, probably, it seems that for all that time we haven't paid close attention to what we're doing with regard to what we're taking out of the water and what we're allowing to go into the water and the activities associated with that.

I refer back to the cod moratorium in Newfoundland some 25 or 26 years ago. A year or so before the moratorium came into place, we were still issuing large quotas. We knew that everybody was saying the stock was in desperate shape, yet we were still issuing huge quotas to be taken from the water. How does this act address all that neglect and mismanagement? Mismanagement is probably the wrong word, but it's a word that fits for now.

8:45 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Kevin Stringer

It's a big question. Bill C-55 and the amendments proposed to the Oceans Act in particular are part of a set of initiatives. The cod issue, back in the early 1990s, was a siren call for many. We have adjusted how we manage effectively. The Oceans Act actually came five years after the closure of the cod fishery in the early 1990s. It was passed in 1997. It was part of a response. The other piece that was part of a response is a precautionary approach. We're late to the game on that, but we have an enormous set of tools.

One of the tools that we have now to address managing the oceans is the Oceans Act, and specifically marine protected areas. It is one of the tools. There have been assessments done. The objective is to protect biodiversity. The objective is to say we know what the sensitive species are, the key species, the key habitats, and we need a tool to protect those key habitats and species. Marine protected areas are one of those tools, and Bill C-55 speaks directly to improving how we use them.

I'll go a little further. Ecologically and biologically significant areas have been identified. Usually we say what the key species are that we need to protect, the key habitats, corals, sponges, seamounts, and so on, that we need to protect. That work is being done. Bill C-55 gives us the tools to provide the protection where we've identified what needs protection. It is part of a set of tools, a really important part. The objective is to protect biodiversity, and frankly, to get more out of the ocean over time, to help recover oceans and to ensure that fisheries and other important ocean products can do well into the future.

8:50 a.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

In your opinion, is this a strong enough move in the right direction to attain what you're trying to attain?

8:50 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Kevin Stringer

The main objective of this is to enable us to move faster. We think the MPA, the marine protected area established under the Oceans Act is an important tool, but what we were finding is that it took too long. It took five to seven years to establish an MPA. A number of groups said, “This is important; you've identified there's a coral and sponge that need to be protected, and then seven years later you protect them.”

We think it's an important tool to be able to move quicker, to provide at least interim protection or a measure of protection, to identify it and let all stakeholders know that we're serious about it and are going to provide the protection. It's thus an important addition. It's a surgical change, but it is an important addition to the tools we have.

8:50 a.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

On that note, you spoke about identifying a species and protecting it. I'll go back again to the northern cod and the massive seal population. We haven't addressed this. Whether it's the government's choice not to really do what needs to be done....

I know people have appeared before and have said there's no concrete evidence that the seals are the problem, that they're eating the cod or eating what the cod eat, the capelin or whatever. They're not eating the salmon, but they're eating something. They're such a huge population. They're feeding. They haven't gotten to the point that they're starving to death. We don't see many skinny seals around the coast of Newfoundland.

Will that be addressed under this? Is this a tool that will allow that issue to be addressed?

8:50 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Kevin Stringer

I don't think it's addressed under this particular initiative. We have other initiatives through which we address it. You're correct that it is a very complex ecosystem, but there are millions of harp seals, and there are hundreds of thousands of grey seals. There is science that indicated back in 2010 that it's a significant factor in cod recovery in the southern gulf. We don't have that same kind of formal statement concerning northern cod or in the northern gulf, but we have a number of measures that we're taking to address seals.

This committee will be very familiar with the ban that existed and the work we've done under WTO to address seals and also to try to develop the market for seals. It has been hit and miss, but when we're talking about whether MPAs are the whole solution, the answer is absolutely not. There is a set of other initiatives that we need to take to ensure that we have an effective, robust fishery, and seals form part of that.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

Thank you.

8:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Mr. Doherty is next, for seven minutes, please.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Thank you to our guests for being here again today. I'll get right into the questions.

Northwest Territories Premier Robert McLeod is in Ottawa this week. He has criticized the government's one-sided and ill-informed decision-making, which has basically put everything they have built in the Northwest Territories in jeopardy. He's on record as saying:

The rest of Canada needs to realize we have people that live in the North as well, with dreams and aspirations and hope for a better future and we shouldn't be penalized because of where we live.... We shouldn't have to stop our own development so the rest of Canada can feel better.

The minister appeared before the committee earlier in this study. Time and again we have heard the same testimony from witnesses, that the consultation process has been inadequate. We have first nations in British Columbia who are coming out against this government's consultation process.

My question for you, Mr. Stringer and the department, is why is it that you're refusing to listen to our stakeholders?

8:55 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Kevin Stringer

When we were here last, the minister answered this. I think I spoke to it as well.

Consultation is hugely important in this regard. These are important issues for local communities. The minister spoke to some of our engagement in the north—he spoke with respect to Nunavut—but I can speak to a couple of points and say a couple of things.

One is, we have had extensive engagement. We were asked by the committee to table the record of engagement on Bill C-55 in particular, and so we're about to do that. We've pulled it together. It is an extensive engagement.

These are important issues to local communities and to people who live in the north and elsewhere. You mentioned B.C. first nations. We work closely with them.

I would also point, in the north, to the NWT, which you mentioned. One of the MPAs that we established last year was the Darnley Bay one. There's a better way to pronounce it, but I can only say Darnley Bay. That MPA was established with the community, with its engagement and support. They actually spoke to the boundary, they spoke to the objectives of it. They spoke to how we're going to move forward on it, and that's how we've done it and how we will continue to seek to do it.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

That had the community's input and blessing. Isn't that correct?

8:55 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

On this one you're getting backlash, because arbitrarily the Government of Canada or the departments are making decisions and rushing the process without true consultation. We are hearing time and again from witness after witness that the process is flawed.

I'll read another one:

The process DFO used to approach harvester associations and consult on the areas of interest for designation was unorganized and totally not transparent.

That's from the managing director of the Gulf of Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board, Leonard LeBlanc. I know you're familiar with him.

The reason we have the concern we have is that Bill C-55 gives more ministerial powers to the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

As you can hear, there are some very real concerns, and regardless of whether you feel, or the minister feels, that the consultation process has been adequate, we're getting testimony after testimony from witnesses saying that they are not being truly consulted on a piece of legislation as fundamental as Bill C-55, which will have major issues.

For our colleagues across the way who are on the coast and who are in those provinces that are going to be impacted, and for us on the Pacific coast, these are areas—you mention it in your own testimony.... For those communities that truly depend on the waters for their livelihoods and their economy, we should be getting this piece of legislation right and not rushing it.

8:55 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Kevin Stringer

Thank you for the question. I'd make a couple of comments.

Probably the main objective of the key piece in Bill C-55 is around interim protection. We were finding with the MPA process that it was taking too long, but we do need to take the time to engage local stakeholders. We need to take the time to ensure that fisheries groups, local community groups, and so on, are involved.

Rather than rush to establish something, let's say that we've identified the science and we've done enough work to say that we are going to provide the protection. If we freeze the footprint and then take the time—because it is so important that we get it right.... That's the idea of the five years after you've established the initial protection: to work with stakeholders, to do further science, to work with communities, to work with fisheries groups, to work with ENGOs, indigenous groups, and so on to make sure that we are getting it right. The process really is important.

9 a.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Would you say that marine protected areas are going to be very difficult to enforce?

9 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Kevin Stringer

I don't think they're difficult to enforce. It depends where they are, and it will be different in different areas. I know that's a facile answer, but it's actually the case. There are overflights. There's satellite. There's VMS, the vessel monitoring system. There are also partnerships. There are partnerships with indigenous groups. Bill C-55 gives us the authority to partner more effectively with them to do some of the monitoring, and so we think enforcement.....

As I said last time, at the international level, people are paying more attention to enforcement and effectiveness. We can't just be drawing lines in the water and saying, “There, it's protected.” We actually have to make sure it's being effectively monitored. We've paid significant attention to that. It's challenging, but it has to be part of it.

9 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Mr. Doherty.

Mr. Donnelly is next, for seven minutes, please.

9 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Welcome to our departmental officials. Thank you for being here on Bill C-55.

I'd like to turn to minimum protection standards. The Canada National Parks Act sets a high bar of maintaining ecological integrity in all national parks. Marine protected areas, however, lack the clear minimum protection standards that terrestrial parks benefit from. The federal government recently announced that a national advisory panel would be established to provide the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard with advice on minimum standards for future Oceans Act MPAs.

This year, a coalition of environmental non-government organizations and 59 scientists requested that the government include strong minimum protection standards in legislation to protect marine biodiversity. Without minimum protection standards, MPAs may be highly ineffective.

How will the new national advisory panel help establish minimum protection standards? Will their recommendations be binding on ministerial discretion in any way? Will their recommendations require additional legislation to ensure minimum protection standards are adhered to?

9 a.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Kevin Stringer

Minimum protection standards have been discussed for 20 years. When we were here last time we talked about the various tools. We have the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, which establishes national marine conservation areas. It's done by Parks Canada.

There is a piece in it which says there can be no oil and gas extraction. It says there must be a certain area that's a no-take zone. That is not in the Oceans Act for MPAs. Some people have said that you should be looking at that.

With MPAs the idea has been, for marine protected areas under the Oceans Act, to identify what needs protection for biodiversity purposes and provide the appropriate protection for it without specific standards.

As we've gone through the past couple of years—and we have moved quickly—that issue has come up. The minister has said and announced a few weeks ago that we actually need to look at this. Should we have no-take zones? Should we have some basic minimum rules that this sort of activity or that sort of activity can't take place?

More than that, should there be a standard around monitoring and enforcement, around timelines for establishing them, around reviewing for effectiveness and every five years deciding whether you're going to review the act, or change it, or whatever? There are a number of things that could be in those standards. The thought was, rather than saying this, this, and this, let's have a panel of experts give some thought to it, engage with Canadians, and provide some advice to the minister.

Now, what happens afterwards in terms of whether legislation is required and whether it is binding depends on what we get. It could be done by policy, could be done by regulation, could be done by other means, but we don't want to take years to do this, so probably months, and it hasn't been decided. In any case, we think it's a really important issue and so a panel will consider it and provide advice.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Great. Thank you.

Just to follow up on the activity, establishing marine protected areas involves extensive consultation and research, as we know. Can we agree that the following activities should be prohibited from marine protected areas: oil and gas—you mentioned oil and gas and mineral exploration and development—wind farms and tidal power development; open-net pen aquacultures; bottom trawling; and ocean waste dumping?