Fisheries Committee on Feb. 6th, 2018

[Christie Chute, Manager, Marine Conservation Programs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I'm the acting director of marine conservation programs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, thank you very much.

As you know, we usually start with a statement, and I'm assuming that you have one statement.

Mr. Morel, you have the floor for 10 minutes.

[Philippe Morel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you very much.

Good morning. You'll have to excuse Mr. MacDonald, who has to leave around 10:15 or 10:20 to act in support of the minister.

Good morning and thank you for inviting us today. We appreciate the opportunity to come back before you and support your interest in the government's efforts to protect the three oceans.

We have made significant progress since I was here last April, and we thank you for the hard work that you put into Bill C-55 , and look forward to your MPA study report.

When I was here on April 4 last year, I outlined DFO's approach to meeting our target, as mandated by the Prime Minister in 2016. Our five-point plan has been the driving force behind our collective achievement, and I would like to take the time today to share them with you.

Since 2015, we have moved from 0.9% of protection of the coastal and marine areas to 7.75% as of December 21, 2017. The success brings us well beyond our target of 5% by the end of 2017.

The breakdown of that 7.75% protection of marine and coastal area is as follows: 11 Oceans Act marine protected areas; three national marine conservation areas; 51 marine refuges, also referred to as “other effective area-based conservation measures”, or other measures; and a suite of areas protected by the provinces.

Through hard work since 2015, we have established the following increases in marine protection. DFO has added a total of 5.12% through three new ocean MPAs: Anguniaqvia Niqiqyuam in the Northwest Territories, in November 2016; the Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound Glass Sponge Reefs in B.C., in February 2017; St. Anns Bank in June 2017; and 51 marine refuges, or 4.78% were added.

In addition to the work by DFO to establish Oceans Act MPAs and marine refuges, other protected areas have been established by Parks Canada. I'm referring here to the Tallurutiup Imanga, or Lancaster Sound, national marine conservation area established by Environment and Climate Change Canada, and also provincial governments.

The federal MPAs and marine refuges are found across our bioregions, and we are guided by science-based decision-making in identifying areas of our oceans that require protection due to their significance. This achievement would not have been possible without the hard work of our regional counterparts, provinces and territories, and indigenous partners and stakeholders who have worked with us to identify areas of protection.

With the current protection in place, there are an additional 129,000 square kilometres of protection to be put in place to reach 10% by 2020. Our approach of achieving the final amount is to continue to advance the five-point plan and utilize other ongoing activities.

To achieve our interim target of 5%, we worked to designate areas already under way and identify existing and establish new other measures.

In 2018, we will continue work to designate previously identified areas by finalizing the proposed Laurentian Channel and Banc des Américains marine protected areas, or MPAs.

Work has already begun to protect large offshore areas such as the Offshore Pacific Area of Interest, which was announced in May 2017, as well as additional areas possibly in the High Arctic and Labrador Sea.

Within this area of interest, the Offshore Pacific Seamounts and Vents marine refuge, which is more than 82,000 km² and represents 1.4% of protected oceans, was announced to quickly protect the most sensitive areas. Upon designation of the Large Pacific Offshore MPA, this marine refuge will be included within that area.

Our focus is also on the development of MPA networks in five priority bioregions. These networks will identify areas in need of protection by 2020, and those that will be prioritized for future protection.

We are also continuing to identify existing "other measures" and establish new other ones using the science-based guidance and criteria developed by DFO.

Thus far, to identify "other measures", an inventory of more than 1,000 existing fisheries area closures has been assessed against our five criteria.

First, the measure must be spatially defined with a clear geographic location. Second, the measure must have a conservation or stock management objective. Third, the measure must contain at least two ecological components of interest, which are habitat and species of regional importance that uses that habitat. Fourth, the measure must be long-term, either in legislation, regulation or clearly intended to be in place for at least 25 years. Fifth, the ecological components must be effectively conserved, with no human activities that are incompatible with the conservation objectives.

Our criteria were developed based on science and in consultation with the provinces, territories, indigenous groups, conservation organizations, scientists, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

The location, management approaches, and size of future measures will be determined in consultation with our partners and stakeholders.

This week in Montreal, Canada is hosting an international workshop on other measures for the Convention on Biological Diversity. This is an opportunity for Canada to align these criteria and guidance with international processes.

Lastly, as you are aware, Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, is proceeding through the legislative process. Once Bill C-55 comes into effect, interim protection MPAs may be established in an area where more time is needed to consult with stakeholders and gather science to finalize a long-term protection approach.

In addition to following our five-point plan, other concurrent initiatives that will contribute to our efforts to identify and establish MPAs and other measures to support co-governance efforts with indigenous people will be pursued.

DFO's approach to establishing MPAs and other measures is aligned with the whole-of-government reconciliation agenda. For example, DFO is working with other federal departments on a whole-of-government approach to Inuit impact and benefit agreements for federal MPAs. Our department is also working with these partners to identify and coordinate federal government contributions to the development of ongoing management of MPAs in the Arctic consistent with the emerging Arctic policy framework.

As we work toward and beyond the 10% objective, extensive scientific peer-reviewed processes will continue to provide the foundation of our decision-making. We continue to improve coordination with indigenous peoples and the use of local knowledge to inform broader understanding of marine protection.

As well, consultation and engagement continues to remain a core principle as we rely on provinces and territories, indigenous organizations, and other stakeholders to identify and establish protections. DFO sees this as a collaborative effort that needs everyone on board to ensure that the protections established are meaningful and effective.

As I mentioned before, DFO is conscious that protecting our oceans is a long-term but necessary investment in renewing our marine natural capital to support future generations and a balanced ecosystem. We are laying the foundation to advance broader ocean management to better manage our ocean resources for an ecologically and economically sustainable future.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide an overview of our progress to date and our approach moving forward with MPA establishment in Canada.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Morel.

Mr. Finnigan, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. As indicated earlier, marine protected areas have been a topic of discussion for some time, and that will no doubt continue in the future.

Something occurred to me recently. Some people say it would take a catastrophe, a scourge, for us to start protecting our oceans. Yet people with the most basic knowledge know that our oceans are in trouble. They are polluted by plastics and contaminants of all kinds. There are some very serious problems. Fortunately, our governments—the previous government and the current one—have made a commitment to protecting our oceans, that is, 10% of our oceans in 2017.

Is protecting our oceans a political issue?

Does the science truly support what we are doing?

[Philippe Morel]

Thank you. I do not think protecting our oceans is a political issue. Political support is needed to enable scientists and organizations to indicate the areas to be protected. You said it is not like you get to the office one day and draw boxes or circles on a map of the oceans. Our work is based on science, and on what we know about protected areas in particular. That can include coral, sponges, species of fish or species at risk. It can also include regions subject to multiple human and ecological pressures which then become priorities.

Our approach also involves using the science that DFO has and drawing on the science of other organizations if necessary. We also draw on traditional knowledge to determine the priority areas for protection. We give priority to areas where stress factors are the most obvious, such as human or historical factors or climate change. That means we have to designate locations. This approach then leads to the whole designation process. This can include the closure of fishing areas, for instance, or marine protected areas.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you.

I would like to return to the process through which various groups have been involved in many consultations. I do not necessarily mean consultations about marine protected areas. I am thinking in particular about a project in our region, the Collaboration for Atlantic Salmon Tomorrow, or the CAST coalition.

We heard that indigenous persons had been consulted, but in many cases they were not at the meeting. In my opinion, that is not a consultation. We should never simply say that people were consulted if they were just called and were not physically present. We have to find a way of making sure real consultation takes place. Whether the groups are off fishing or elsewhere—I am not referring only to indigenous persons, but to all the groups involved—, if they are not physically present to take part in the process, it should never be called a consultation.

I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Philippe Morel]

I completely agree with you and think we are well enough informed at the department to know when the fishing or hunting season is or other traditional indigenous activities. They same applies to other groups. We do not consult crab fishers during crab fishing season. Our objective is to communicate with as many people as possible.

I would like to point something out, however. We invite people to consultations, but some are not interested or do not consider it a priority to attend one consultation or another. The fact that they are not present does not mean that we have not held consultations. If their absence is justified and we hold consultations when they are not available and we know it, then I agree with you. You are right in saying that does not constitute appropriate consultation.

We often invite people who say that are not active in the sector or do not have any rights to assert. They say then that they will not take part in the consultations. Some simply do not reply. In those cases, I would say that we have made the effort to consult them. Moreover, we cannot consult everyone. Our intention is to consult the people affected by the policies or measures we put forward.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you. I have more questions for you, but I would like to turn to Mr. MacDonald now.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Finnigan.

I just have one question. DFO did some outreach meetings throughout Newfoundland and Labrador over the past month or several months. During constituency week, three of them were done in my riding, and I attended them.

At each of those meetings I was asked about an area that was recently identified offshore of Newfoundland as a marine protected area or to be considered for one. Fishermen were concerned that they were being told they would not be able to drop a hook but that the oil and gas industry would be able to continue its seismic and oil exploration work.

Can you confirm for me if those are the actual facts or not? Why would we allow that sort of activity to take place but yet fishermen or a fishing enterprise can't take a fish out of the water in the same area?

[Philippe Morel]

Mr. MacDonald will respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You have one minute.

[Jeff MacDonald, Director General, Oceans and Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Very good.

The marine refuges that were put in place and announced by the minister in December are fisheries closures under the Fisheries Act. Oil and gas activity is regulated in Newfoundland and Labrador under the Canada-Newfoundland offshore petroleum act, and as a result, it's a different regulatory regime. Where the two have overlapped in the sense that there is a fisheries closure but oil and gas permits still exist in the area, we still close the area to fisheries because what we are protecting in that area is the bottom species—more specifically, corals, sponges, and sea pens. The area is closed to fishing, but we are not counting the entire area as contributing to our targets.

The criteria that Mr. Morel outlined in his opening remarks are the ones we're following. In an area where we have a fisheries closure but other human activities taking place, we're closing the area to protect the benthic areas, but we're not counting it towards our targets because it doesn't meet the criterion specifically that there are no other human activities in the area. Human activities are being defined on a permit basis, so even if the permits are valid but not being exercised, we're still not using that particular geography as contributing towards our targets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Arnold, for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair; and thank you to all three of you for being here today.

There's a 2005 DFO document, Canada's Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy. Is this document still being used by the department as the strategy, or has there been another strategy developed that we haven't seen yet?

[Jeff MacDonald]

It was the first strategy related to marine protected areas, coming out of the Oceans Act adoption in 1997. We have other more specific strategies that have been developed more recently. One that is guiding us is one that was signed by provinces, territories, and the federal government in 2011, which is our MPA network strategy. It's one that's been guiding a lot of the actions that we have been undertaking since the adoption of the national conservation plan in 2014 and the marine conservation targets in 2015.

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

Are these further strategies available to the committee and the public? Where would we find those?

[Jeff MacDonald]

Yes, they're on our website. We might have supplied it to the committee in the past, but if not, we'll make sure that it is brought to your attention.

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

Okay. I ask because in part of this strategy paper, consultation and collaboration are mentioned, and it states that the success of the MPAs “depends on how well various interests are able to work together” and that “ensuring participation of those with an interest or role to play in marine protected areas planning and management will be established to improve collaboration and co-operation amongst partners.”

I was just going through a briefing document we received earlier today from the Groundfish Enterprise Allocation Council and the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers. They are referring to an area in the Scotia-Fundy region. The “haddock box” is the specific area they're referring to. The briefing says, “Although industry has generally accepted this closure for the last three decades, everyone knew it was not achieving the outcomes for which it was established—namely the protection of juvenile haddock to promote the recovery of the 4VW haddock stock.” It goes on to explain that it “was clearly an unsubstantiated and false claim” that it's protecting the area and that it “continue[s] to be inconsistent with science on the matter” and yet is being considered as one of those other areas of protection. Can you explain that?

[Jeff MacDonald]

I can start, and perhaps Ms. Chute can finish with regard to more specific elements of the establishment of the conservation objectives.

As Mr. Jenkins mentioned earlier this morning, when we were identifying the other effective area-based conservation measures to help meet the 5% target, we looked initially at areas where there had been closures under the Fisheries Act. Obviously, the fishing industry had already been making a contribution to marine conservation, but it just wasn't necessarily being counted because there weren't any criteria to count them as other measures.

The haddock box, which we're now calling the Western/Emerald Banks conservation area, was one of those areas that we looked at. Through the several phases of consultation we did with the fishing industry, as well as with first nations, the Province of Nova Scotia, and others, the conservation objectives were changed and updated such that it wasn't just about protecting haddock anymore; it was also integrating some of the new information we had with regard to the benthic environment. As a result of the information we received from the fishing industry, as well as the new science, we updated the conservation objectives, and then we also looked at how we would delineate, much as with the previous example, the areas that would count towards the target, with the areas that would be incompatible because of, in this case, scallop fishing, which affects the bottom. That's the history of that particular one.

With regard to the correspondence you're referring to, that's the perspective of the department. We did work very closely with the fishing industry, but they may have a different opinion on what the conservation objectives ultimately became.

I'm not sure if Christie wants to add to that.

[Christie Chute]

Just to add to that, this area, which we refer to as a marine refuge, meets DFO's operational criteria for what constitutes another effective area-based conservation measure. It does so because we have specific conservation objectives in this case that have been brought in to increase protections and to protect the coral concentrations that are present.

We also have prohibited any human activity or fishing activity that poses a risk to those conservation objectives. By doing so, we meet our criteria, and we count this towards our marine conservation targets as a result.

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

Everybody who has looked at the targets that were originally set—fisheries and even the science—indicate that it didn't achieve those targets, but you kept the same boundaries and added new targets so that it fitted would work.

[Jeff MacDonald]

We updated the conservation objectives. In the examination of closures that had been in place historically under the Fisheries Act, some of the areas were areas that we knew right away did not meet the criteria for biodiversity purposes. They're useful as fisheries management measures—for example, protecting a particular stock—but just protecting a stock doesn't necessarily protect biodiversity. There have to be other elements to it, and one of those elements is the benthic habitat.

By combining those two objectives and updating the purpose of the closure, we were able to say, yes, this does count towards biodiversity.

The reason that we would look at the existing areas is partly taking into consideration the economic impact on the fishing industry. If it was an area where they had traditionally not been fishing, then by expanding the conservation objectives but maintaining the boundaries, we were having less of an economic effect than if we were to pursue a closure in a different area where there was fishing activity.

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

Thank you.

I want to go back to your presentation this morning. You said that since 2015, we've moved from 0.9% protection of our coastal marine areas to 7.75% as of December 21. A lot of that increase in protected areas was through the incorporation of these other protected areas, was it not?

These aren't new creations of this government. They were simply adaptations from existing protection that was out there. Is that a correct statement?

[Philippe Morel]

Yes, most of the protection of the 7.75% comes from other measures that are not the creation of the government. They are internationally recognized measures to protect either land or marine areas.

We use different tools. These could be Parks Canada tools for the national marine conservation areas, the Canada Wildlife Act, the Oceans Act, or the Fisheries Act.

Other measures are meant to expand protection to reach the 5% and 10%, not only through the Oceans Act, which is more restrictive, but also through other tools within certain boundaries that are credible to the international community. Thus Canada can claim that yes, the fisheries closures that were announced as of December 21 are meeting protection objectives, and we believe they meet the international criteria of CBD and IUCN.