Fisheries Committee on Nov. 21st, 2017

[Nikki Macdonald, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Victoria, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, honourable members. I really appreciate being here today to speak about Bill C-55. Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I have just a quick, few personal notes. Some of you I've met in the past, through my work with the University of Victoria and with Ocean Networks Canada, but today I'm here as an individual and as a Ph.D. student at the University of Victoria's school of public administration. I have focused my research on ocean policy, and specifically on Canada's Oceans Act.

I really compliment the government on the initiative to amend the Oceans Act. As has been mentioned here in committee and in the House, it's been 20 years since the act was written and it's due time to ensure that we're meeting our international obligations, as well as the challenges of oceans management, and take another look at the act. I also applaud the government for seeking to meet the target of 5%, in 2017, of designated marine areas, as well as 10% in 2020. Designated marine parks or marine areas are important ocean management tools, but my objective here is actually to talk about the other 90% of the water. That's where I have focused my research.

Canada's Oceans Act was created as a foundation to ensure the wise development of Canada's oceans' waters. When I began my research three years ago, I was addressing the question of how we go about, as a country, making decisions about ocean use. I began my research by looking at that through the public consultation process that was under way for the northern gateway project. I'm a west-coaster, so that's part of the reason behind that. I was puzzled as to why there did not appear to be a framework through which the government was making decisions around ocean use. That puzzlement led to research, which led me back to Canada's Oceans Act.

I've also been investigating the public narrative that was exposed through that public consultation process that the joint review undertook as part of the northern gateway project. The intent of my research is to compare that public narrative around ocean use with the normative frame that is underpinning the Oceans Act.

There are three key observations that I want to share with you today. The first is that the Oceans Act contains, in its preamble, a set of principles that are intended to guide Canada in managing its ocean resources, and these principles remain relevant to today's challenges.

The second observation is that the act was a promise of a solid foundation upon which Canada would build its ocean management strategy, as the minister of the day described it, to address the “piecemeal, fragmented and scattered” character of Canada's ocean policy prior to 1996. From the evaluations conducted by this committee in 2000, by the Auditor General's office in 2005, and further government evaluation in 2006, the act has largely failed to meet this objective.

The third observation arising out of my review of the public consultation around the northern gateway project is that the public expectation around decision-making on ocean use has changed in 20 years. While the expectations are mostly in alignment with the founding principles of the act, there is a broader definition of what is “ocean”. It is no longer simply, to quote, the “gravel pit for fish”, as described in the Senate hearings in 1996, nor the transportation route for shipping. Instead there is a clear public awareness of the interconnectedness of the ocean within its own systems to the relationship with climate and human activity.

When Canada's Oceans Act was first passed 20 years ago, it was the first of its kind to put in statutory form the key principles of ocean management that had been developing through international law and agreement. During the same period, Australia had proposed an ocean policy that included many of the same elements as Canada's Oceans Act, but it was not given legislative form.

A key aspect, as I mentioned, of the act was the preamble that sets out the core principles to guide Canada's ocean management strategy. The two founding principles were sustainable development and integrated management.

The definition of “sustainable development” was drawn from the Brundtland commission that had in its 1992 report brought the concept to international stage. The concept of integrated management, according to the testimony provided to this committee at that time, was intended to be implemented at a federal level through better co-ordination and collaboration under the leadership of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and at a regional level through the creation of integrated regional plans. Other principles that were added to the preamble following the committee hearings included the recognition of the common heritage of the oceans, the importance of the ecosystem-based approach to maintain biological diversity, and the application of the precautionary principle.

These principles remain the guides of the ocean policy according to the broader literature. There's little evidence to suggest they cannot continue to guide Canada's decision-making around ocean use. They have, however, been evolving. One example of the evolution in the concept of sustainable development is that Canada's Federal Sustainable Development Act was amended recently by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. It's important, in the interpretation of the Oceans Act, that it mirror the definition of principles outlined in the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

The real challenge with the principles, however, has been with the implementation. As noted, the act and the subsequent oceans strategy and oceans plan called for the creation of integrated regional marine plans that would incorporate aspects of coastal zone management. Five plans were initiated, and it took almost 20 years for them to be completed. It is worthwhile to note that Australia initiated a similar process, and after a decade, they vacated it.

Similarly, within the federal government there has been little success in moving away from sectoral-based decision-making towards a holistic and integrated approach. Explanations that have been given as to why that was not achieved include the lack of resources to enable implementation, the lack of political will to champion an integrated approach, and that the act lacked the prescriptive detail to direct the bureaucracy in its implementation. The good news is that today, the current government, through its mandate letters and the oceans protection plan, has demonstrated a commitment to a collaborative approach to oceans management.

The question for the committee is whether there's any need to amend or improve upon the act to ensure that future governments continue to promote this approach.

As I noted earlier, the public expectation around ocean use has been evolving over the past 20 years. As one official from Transport Canada noted to me several years ago, marine safety used to mean getting a vessel from point A to point B without collision or accident. Today marine safety includes evaluating the impact of freighter traffic on marine mammals in their habitat through such programs as the eco-project under way in Port Metro Vancouver.

It is a combination of science and technology that has fuelled this change in public expectation. Science, defined here to include natural and social science as well as the humanities, has exposed the important linkage between the ocean, climate change, and the impact of human behaviour. Technologies such as improved hydrophones allow us to pick up not only the different dialects among the orca, but also the distress that they exhibit around marine traffic.

Infrastructure such as Ocean Networks Canada and the Ocean Tracking Network are opening up the ocean in ways we were not able to see 20 years ago. The consequence in policy terms is that we can no longer make decisions about ocean use on a sectoral basis. We need to explore new mechanisms to support more holistic approaches to decision-making at a federal level, a regional level, and a local level.

Therefore, my question to the committee is whether the act should be amended to include a commitment to capacity building to meet this need—a suggestion made by the Brundtland commission 20 years ago.

I would like to thank the committee for providing me with this opportunity to share my observations regarding the Oceans Act and the impact on decision-making around ocean use, and I look forward to your questions and comments.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Macdonald.

Now, for 10 minutes, we have Mr. Wareham from the David Suzuki Foundation.

[Bill Wareham, Science Projects Manager, Western Region, David Suzuki Foundation]

Good morning, honourable members, and thanks again for inviting me. I've spoken to many of you before, and I always appreciate this opportunity. This particular issue is one that is dear to me and one I've worked on for many years.

I've been with the David Suzuki Foundation for 15 years and was previously with the Sierra Club of British Columbia for five years. I've lived the life of the Oceans Act, I guess, in my work on the west coast, as well as working nationally with different governments and people in the agencies to try to realize the terms of the Oceans Act and apply them as they were intended. I've worked in this field for 30 years in total, with the last 10 years of my career focusing specifically on marine conservation.

I was involved in many advance planning processes, consultations, discussions, and dialogues with government over the implementation of the Oceans Act. That goes back to the development of Canada's ocean strategy and the oceans action plan. As many of you know, the description in the act that required the establishment of these large ocean management areas—one of which was the PNCIMA area off the central north coast of British Columbia—was one of the most robust examples of where the act was applied in the context of integrated management.

There are a lot of examples that I could give on how that was developed, the consultation process that occurred, and the engagement of a variety of federal agencies, stakeholders, and first nations. To me it was moving towards a very prominent model of how integrated management could and should be done. Unfortunately, that process failed in the end. I'm happy to answer questions about that, and I think it's worth revisiting because, as our previous speaker said, there's an expectation now about integration. There's so much information, more science, more participation by people, and more use in our ocean. There are people wanting to participate at another level.

To speak to the earlier question about consultation, it's moved to a range of consultation processes that need to be engaged. That's something that could be articulated in more detail in the act. The Oceans Act overall was a very bold document with good moral intentions, and it's provided a real focal point in Canada to look at marine conservation. Prior to its enactment, we really didn't have as much opportunity. Much of the conservation effort, much of the non-profit organization effort was on terrestrial conservation. I was part of that. I worked for many years on land use plans and planning throughout western Canada, but moved to the marine because it was always the poor cousin that wasn't getting the attention and wasn't getting resolution.

In the wake of much of the land use planning in British Columbia, where many of the stakeholders and government people learned a lot about process and about opportunity to get some positive outcomes, we start working on the marine area. When the federal Oceans Act integrated management plan was taken down, we moved to a process with the provincial government and first nations called the marine planning partnership. This embodied many of the objectives and principles of the Oceans Act, and carried on to try to identify planning opportunities and outcomes for the B.C. coast. That took us part of the way, but as you know, the federal jurisdiction over much of the ocean really requires the federal agencies to be involved.

Again, that's where the Oceans Act is the driver. There are some things I'd like to see changed there, and I'll speak to two main elements of the act. One is the integrated management provision, and the other is protected areas.

First, on the integrated management piece, there's a clause that is very specific about directing the minister, saying that he or she shall lead the development and implementation of integrated management plans. That was done, and large ocean management areas were defined—there are five of them—but they only cover a portion of Canada's oceanscape, and I believe we should amend the act in some way to require that.... It implies that we do this in all of Canada's ocean, but there are no timelines and no targets, so we could be another 20 years down the road without having defined action.

One of my concerns is that in some of the most developed areas of our coast, some of the ones that have been most heavily impacted, we don't have a planning process. We don't have a large ocean management area established. The Strait of Georgia, on the west coast, is an area that needs planning. It's the area that gets so much of the activity and would benefit from an integrated management plan. Somehow, I would like to see us mandate this work in a broader scale across Canada's landscape.

For the other component in the act to be effective, I propose the insertion of targets and timelines around protection as well. I think these timelines should ideally line up with those reflected in the international commitments that Canada signs, including biodiversity targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity, known as the Aichi targets, or the United Nations sustainable development goals. These are provisions that Canada has signed on to, and they continue to be a forum for conversation and developing the thinking and anticipated outcomes for biodiversity conservation.

I'm sure many of you have seen the international report by the World Wildlife Fund that defines the ongoing decline of wildlife on the planet, both marine and terrestrial. Granted, some species are doing well—some fish stocks are doing very well, including some Canadian fish stocks—but many are not.

On some, we're losing both the number of species and, also, the overall abundance of species. As long as that trend is moving in a negative way, my proposal is that we need to find ways to implement the Oceans Act provisions in a more timely manner and stem the loss of species diversity and abundance.

We know that other climate impacts and things like that affecting the oceans are having previously unseen consequences to ocean biodiversity, so a higher level of intensity of management is needed, both to track and maintain what we hope will be productive ecosystems that serve our communities, serve the fishing industry, and serve our opportunity to maintain a food supply from our oceans.

I also think the act would be improved by enabling a legal requirement for the implementation of the plans so that they can guide decision-making across all agencies that share the regulatory management space in our oceans.

We know that DFO has a lot of power under this act, but it doesn't have all the power necessary, given what the other agencies have in their statutory powers as well. Having Indigenous and Northern Affairs, Transport Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada actively involved, and mandated through the act to be part of realizing the outcomes driven by the act, is an important piece. We've had some effort in the past through ministerial committees, deputy ministerial committees, and management groups across the agencies, but I think it needs to be embedded more solidly so that it isn't an option for an agency to participate or not.

The requirement for integrated management planning does not stand alone, rather, it helps to accommodate the second part of the act, which is the protected areas piece. Through the establishment of comprehensive marine plans, we have the opportunity not only to identify specific areas for conservation, but to achieve efficiencies in time, cost, and conservation by establishing networks of MPAs. I'll refer back to the Pacific north coast integrated management area.

We had many good objectives developed for that region, including a network of MPAs, and we were getting into the analysis where we were looking at the entire seascape there. We were looking at the high biodiversity values, looking at the economic values, looking for ways to maximize conservation and maintain the productivity of fisheries, while at the same time maintaining those opportunities for economic activity.

I think the act should be amended in a couple of ways to more specifically provide direction and authority to designate a collection of protected areas through one designation process. This would identify a suite of protected areas, and instead of having to go through a very rigorous timely process around each one, you could have a network of areas that become one package of protection, similar to what we've done in the national parks system, where we have things like the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, which is a consolidation of many pieces.

I think the other area of the act that needs strengthening is the area of indigenous protected areas. Many indigenous peoples have a long-standing interest in conserving resources and protecting areas of their traditional territory, and there's an opportunity to enable the government to accommodate indigenous protected areas, which are determined, managed, and governed by indigenous people. This amendment would not only facilitate additional conservation of natural resources, but would take Canada further down the path of reconciliation with indigenous communities.

There is a lot of discussion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You have a few seconds left so please clew up your remarks.

[Bill Wareham]

Yes.

Given that Canada has a wide range of statutory tools for protecting the ocean, it's my view that the Oceans Act marine protected areas should be designated in ways that have a high level of conservation. I think we need minimum standards established in the act, and you've heard about those from many other people. I won't repeat those, but we really need to find a way to have a designation that truly protects the biodiversity and reduces the risk to loss of marine species.

I thank you for that, and I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Wareham, thank you so much.

Now we move to the second phase of this.

Just for the sake of our colleagues, time allocation was moved in the House. They are currently debating that. At 10:40 the bells are likely to ring, so we'll go to the conclusion of the meeting at 10:45.

That being said, Mr. McDonald, you have seven minutes, please.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A special thank you to our guests, Ms. Macdonald and Mr. Wareham, for being here in person or by video conference this morning.

My first question would be to both of you, so Ms. Macdonald, you can probably answer first and then Mr. Wareham can follow up.

I've said it in this committee before while doing this study, “Do we have the ability this time to get it right?”

For anyone familiar with the geography of Newfoundland and Labrador, my riding takes in about 90% of the land mass of the Avalon Peninsula. All but one community in that riding has a direct connection to the ocean and what takes place there. Whether it be fishing, oil and gas, you name it, they're connected to it. I've said before that I don't believe successive governments of all stripes have paid enough attention to what's going on in the ocean, what's coming out of it, what's happening to the habitat, as well as what is going into the ocean.

My fear is that we'll go through this process again now and we won't get it right. So much depends on it, whether it's the individual fisherman who has a very small quota, or whether it's like the people at Ocean Choice International who export 100 million pounds of product to 35 countries around the world. They have just as much in the game here as anybody does, regardless of size. I think everybody would like to see the fish stay for quite a long time, for generations to come, and for the habitat to be protected to enable that to happen.

Do we have the ability to get it right?

Ms. Macdonald.

[Nikki Macdonald]

If anyone says there is a single answer to that question, then I can tell you they're wrong. The simple response I have is, yes, we have the ability to get it right. This is enabling legislation. This is very broad legislation. It's not prescriptive and for some they may see that as a barrier. For me, I see that as an opportunity because it means that what you really want to focus on is the implementation, how this act is going to be implemented.

In that regard I'd say there are a couple of elements. One of them is that we've put a significant investment in understanding our ocean, and that's absolutely important, the focus on ocean sciences and on marine sciences. We've put a certain amount of effort on the legal side of it, which is understanding the definition of Canada's ocean territory.

Where in Canada we have been less active is on the broader policy side, which is really focusing on making the investments and the research to understand how to engage with community, how to engage on a regional level, and how we get federal departments talking to each other in a way.... I wouldn't use the term “integrated” anymore. I'd use the term “holistic”, and I can clarify why that's the case. But we need to invest more in that.

One of the things I found surprising in my research was that Canada really does lag behind the U.S. in terms of building capacity around ocean policy, whether that's more broadly on the government side, or whether that's on the third party side. There is a need for investment there, so decision-makers like yourselves, as you're going through these kinds of deliberations, have the capacity to understand what the different models of consultation are that could work, and what the distinction is between consultation and decision-making, because I do hear those two being overlaid on top of each other. Then there's what decision-making is, and how that's made transparent back to the community and back to stakeholders so that they are more comfortable with how those decisions are being made.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Wareham.

[Bill Wareham]

Thank you.

I absolutely believe that we can get it right. I think there are a lot of examples. We have good science on planning. We have some good social science on decision-making with communities. There have been examples.

In British Columbia 20 years ago, when we were at 3.5% of our terrestrial landscape protected, people said there was no way we could get to 10%, 12%, or 15%, but over a period of 12 years we did that. We now have over 14.5% of the province protected on the terrestrial landscape. The forest industry didn't collapse. The mining industry didn't collapse. The agriculture industry didn't collapse.

We put reductions of risk to species, and we have some areas that will be legacies for hundred of years for our communities, so I think we know how to do this. It does take resources. It takes that commitment, but I also think we have ways now with technology to create a lot of efficiencies in the process. We have ways of bringing information to the table that we didn't have before. I strongly believe we can do that.

We set an example on the west coast as well in the fishing sector with the groundfish fleet. The fleet was closed for three years because of problems with overfished stocks. This was many years ago. Through the groundfish integration program, we managed to come up with a closure system and a planning system to reduce impacts on corals and sponges. After that closure was set in place, the fishing industry has managed to maintain its quota on that fishery, yet we have protected large areas of the ocean.

There are ways to do this. It just needs the investment and a commitment from government. As I saw with the PNCIMA process, when we were in that effort, the stakeholders came with great energy to that table, and I think we can repeat that.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

The 5% by supposedly 2017 is coming to an end. The previous government had committed to 10% by 2017. We came to power two years ago and said we'll get to 5% by 2017 and 10% by 2020. Some argue that we're moving too fast. Which side of this equation would you fall under, too fast or too slow?

[Nikki Macdonald]

I think you have to set targets and push hard for them. It's been 20 years that we've had these targets almost in play, and they haven't been achieved. To some of the testimony that took place earlier, consultation.... Again, this is why I think having a better definition of some of these terms is important. Some of the communities have been thinking and talking about it.

I'm from a coastal community. I live off Saanich Inlet. Certainly, in the south islands, the Gulf Islands, there has been a strong conversation for a long time about how to protect that unique environment.

I don't think 5% is unrealistic. I think it's important to be ambitious with your targets. At the same time, make sure that you're not abbreviating the process or contorting the process in such a manner that you're really not serving the broader need.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. McDonald.

Mr. Doherty, you have seven minutes, please.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our guests who are here. We really appreciate the time that you take, the effort that you put into not only being here today but also your efforts in your industry working with stakeholders and government to protect our oceans.

I'll ask both of you straightforward questions. Is Bill C-55 an important piece of legislation?

[Nikki Macdonald]

Absolutely. One of Canada's ambitions is to be a world leader in ocean management, and without the act, I don't think you could make that claim.

On a domestic level, we need some structure, a founding framework upon which we're making decisions around the ocean.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Wareham.

[Bill Wareham]

Yes, I agree. It's a very important piece of legislation, and with the amendments that have been proposed by many people, I think we can take it to that place where the escalating use and management of our oceans will be served by a better process.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

You know, it's interesting. Time and again we have witnesses coming before the committee saying that this is an important piece of legislation. There's no doubt about that. It's interesting to hear our colleague across the way ask if there's a concern that we won't get this right, yet it's this side of the committee that has been pushing for a longer period of time, one where we can actually get out to the communities and consult and meet with those who are feeling that they haven't been consulted.

I'll use this as an example. We had the Fisheries Council of Canada yesterday. We had Mr. Helin here from Lax Kw'alaams. Time and again they're saying about the consultations that really they're just being told what's going to happen, or they're not being engaged at all in the case of some of those from the Fisheries Council of Canada—not engaged in the oceans plan, in the Fisheries Act review, in the MPA process. Now with Bill C-55, we're hoping we can see some of those witnesses come forward.

In your testimony today, Mr. Wareham, you said that you've been engaged for a very long time on these processes. Is that correct?

[Bill Wareham]

Yes, I have, for well over 20 years.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay.

Ms. Macdonald, is it the same—in your previous career as well as now with your Ph.D.?

[Nikki Macdonald]

Correct.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Would you say that there seems to be a little bit of an imbalance in terms of the stakeholders—those who actually live in the communities, or who make their living off the communities or off our waterways, versus those who are perhaps not in the communities or those who are in other groups? Would you say that perhaps there's a bit of an imbalance in terms of who's at the table?

[Nikki Macdonald]

Again, I live in the community. I live in a coastal community, which is what brought me to the ocean.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I can appreciate that, but given the testimony we've heard—

[Nikki Macdonald]

I can't speak to the testimony of other stakeholders, but I'd say two things in response. First, keep in mind that it's enabling legislation. It's legislation. A lot of good work needs to be done on the implementation side. I encourage this committee to stay active on that aspect of it.

Second, the broader oceans stakeholder community, particularly at least on the west coast—I'll let others answer—is a very vibrant and active group.