Fisheries Committee on Feb. 6th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Good morning.

It is a nice day today.

I first want to apologize for the delay. These things happen, of course. We were able to get a room in the same building, which makes it that much easier. We've missed about 25 minutes, but we'll hear from both groups and have two rounds of questioning.

As a reminder, this is the last day of our questioning before we delve into a discussion of our recommendations. After that, of course, we'll have the report finalized.

We'll start with Randy Jenkins, the acting senior director, integrated resource management. We also welcome Brett Gilchrist, acting assistant director, fisheries national programs.

The people you see this morning are no strangers to you, because they've been here before.

Will one or two of you speak? Just Mr. Jenkins.

You have up to 10 minutes, sir. Please proceed.

[Randy Jenkins, Acting Senior Director, Integrated Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Good morning, everyone. It's great to be back again after such a short absence. As you recall, on this Thursday past we discussed commercial indigenous licensing. Today is the fisheries management side, so you're stuck with us again for a bit.

I'd like to start by saying that for the fisheries management component, our contribution to achieving Canada's targets is largely through the other effective area-based conservation measures, or the creation of marine refuges. We use Fisheries Act tools to evoke various closures for certain aspects of oceans, whether we're protecting the ocean bottom or there's a particular species of fish, or some combination thereof.

In that capacity, we have been quite active in helping Canada achieve in December the 5% target for marine and coastal protection. We've had several high-profile or good examples of where we've had a lot of engagement with the fishing industry, communities, and indigenous groups. For example, the Disko Fan conservation area in the eastern Arctic, Baffin Bay, would be a good example of where we're protecting not only the corals but also the narwhal feeding source.

From that perspective, we'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have today. I would also point out that, as you're aware, the next session will include be Oceans Act professionals and the persons who are leading on the MPA component. If there are any specific questions on MPAs or something beyond what we would normally be covering as fish managers, certainly they would be more than happy to answer those questions for you.

With that, Mr. Chair, thank you for welcoming us back. We'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It's great to have you back, Mr. Jenkins.

Ms. Jordan, for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing again today.

We're coming to the end of a very long study on marine protected areas. We've heard a lot of testimony on all sides—from stakeholders, from environmental groups, and from the officials, including the minister's office.

One of the things we heard a few times that I'd like to get your take on is that there seemed to be a lack of communication between the fisheries management branch and the oceans branch when it came to designating MPAs and what they were going to protect. It seems that when the fisheries management branch was actively involved, there was better communication within communities and stakeholder groups, but if it were the oceans branch was leading on the MPA, that was not necessarily the case. Can you comment on that? Do you feel there's good communication between the two branches, that when an MPA is being discussed or being determined, both branches are well versed and onside when it comes to designating MPAs?

[Randy Jenkins]

Thank you for the question.

I know from my experience in national headquarters—Brett works in my shop and I'll let him speak in a few minutes—we worked hand in glove with our oceans colleagues. It is not an individual silo approach. It is a cohesive, collaborative approach. There are many people we're consulting and many individuals involved, but I think, as a program, we certainly are in touch with one another and we work collaboratively to achieve the goals.

I'll let Mr. Gilchrist speak to it. He participated in a lot of our consultations and was our national lead at headquarters.

[Brett Gilchrist, Acting Assistant Director, Fisheries National Programs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you.

As my colleague, Randy, indicated, I've had an opportunity to go cross-country—I think it was four times, the last time I checked—to participate in consultations on the other effective area-based conservation measures, which are under the Fisheries Act. On each occasion, we had representatives from our oceans branch. We had representatives from the science branch too. We also had representatives in individual spots from other departments, like Environment Canada. I think there's definitely communication between our sectors, but I would say that, obviously, we have the benefit in resource management of having a regular process of engaging stakeholders through our regular advisory committee, so we have an ongoing relationship with a lot of our stakeholders. In my experience, we've had good interaction with our other colleagues, as well.

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

We've heard from several stakeholders that MPAs seem to be most successful when they're driven from the ground up. When we talk about places like Baffin Bay; Eastport, Newfoundland; and Darnley Bay, they were actually MPAs that were initiated within the community. Is there more of a movement to have those kinds of grassroots organizations involved from the start, as opposed to a top-down approach, whereby Fisheries and Oceans or Environment determines where it's going to be and says, “This is what we're going to do”, as opposed to asking, “Where should it be?”

[Randy Jenkins]

I think it's fair to say that if an area or concern has been identified already by the fishing industry or communities at large and they're behind it, and are advocating for more measures to protect the area or species, then those will likely be the most successful and the easiest to deliver. That doesn't mean that others would not be. It just might mean that you need a lot more consultation to arrive at an end point, if the communities or user groups are not already familiar with the plan.

In the case of the marine refuges that we've created, some were already under consideration or had some closures in place for various reasons, and we've leveraged those to help move forward. Others are the result of science, academia, NGOs, and others pointing out specific areas of concern. We can then work with them and the communities in the fishing industry to define a footprint that needs to be protected and to invoke the fisheries closures.

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

We've heard a lot regarding consultation and what it looks like. One of the main concerns we've heard is that stakeholders often feel that it's not actually a consultation process, but an information session. They feel that officials come in from the departments and basically say, “This is what we're going to do.”

What does real consultation look like? We've struggled with this one a lot because we're not getting good feedback from a lot of communities, because they feel like they weren't consulted but were told what would happen. I'm going to ask for your opinion on what a consultation process looks like.

[Randy Jenkins]

I guess whether you've been adequately consulted is in the eye of the beholder. I do know that with the areas we've closed.... I'd like to pick an example, simply because it's easier to visualize in my mind.

I'll go back to the Disko Fan conservation area in the north. That one started out with an existing narwhal “box”, as we called it, that was protecting the food for the narwhal. We thought that area would be a good candidate for other closures. We worked closely with the fishing industry, NGOs, and academia to help define the actual footprint. In this case we had a predefined geographic area that we can outline to say there are corals or sensitive bottom areas and there's a feeding area. From that perspective, yes, there was a preconceived image of the general area. But with feedback from the user groups, including the indigenous groups—because we ran this through the Nunavut wildlife boards and the Nunavik wildlife board—we were able to shape and define the footprint so that it would achieve its overall objective while still allowing for some economic and social activity that was...I guess, I would use the word, “compromised”. I don't know if that's the proper term. There was some give and take, shall we say. We arrived at a final area that was perhaps not satisfactory to everybody, depending on whom you ask, but it achieved the objective: it allowed the fishing industry to still carry out some of its objectives, and it met the indigenous objectives.

I think that would probably be an example of consultation that was effective. Even in that case there will be individuals who will come out of the woodwork to say, “I wasn't consulted”, or “My community wasn't consulted”, or “My fishing group wasn't consulted”. However, I think there was an opportunity for everyone to participate in the consultation. At some point there has to be a finite end date to the consultation process.

I don't know if my colleague would like to add anything to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Actually, he can add to it during the next round of questioning, if he so desires.

Mr. Arnold, you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for coming back today on a slightly different topic than we had last week.

Mr. Jenkins, I'm glad to hear you say that Canada is using other protected areas as part of achieving the targets. Are those other protected areas being considered or accepted by NGOs, the UN organizations that are part of the Aichi targets, and outside organizations?

[Randy Jenkins]

I'll let Mr. Gilchrist respond.

[Brett Gilchrist]

We had a range of stakeholders from across the country from all different communities—indigenous communities, industry groups, recreational harvesters, commercial harvesters, and a range of non-governmental organizations. As my colleague noted, in some cases there were individuals and communities that were struggling a little bit with the closures, but we did have a lot of support. In many cases—and for one of the first times in my career—we had stakeholders working together: commercial industry working with NGOs to help the government land on something and putting forth proposals that the government could work with. I would say it was a really good example in 2017 of acceptance from a broad group of individuals. Our industry is very aware of the growing demands in the market for this kind of evidence of helping protect areas.

From an international perspective, I think my colleagues from the aquatic ecosystems sector, who are speaking next, might be a little more familiar with that. My understanding is that some of the discussions on the criteria are ongoing at an international level, meaning the criteria for how areas would be assessed in meeting the Aichi targets. To my understanding so far, Canada has been ahead of the game, because the Aichi targets are, I believe, 10% for 2020, and it was a Canadian target for the 5%. There have been some Canadian examples put forward.

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

Are those other protected areas being accepted by the international groups: the UN organizations, the NGOs? Yes or no?

[Brett Gilchrist]

Again, I'm not sure on the international side. That would be for my aquatic ecosystems colleagues to answer.

Yes, there has been acceptance by a number of the ENGOs on our area closures.

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

Due to the time constraints, are we able to pose that question to the science branch to get an answer back to us before Thursday?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We can try. That's all I can tell you.

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

Okay, thank you.

Again, along the line of questioning that Ms. Jordan began about coordination between different branches and so on, is there an economics branch within both the fisheries and oceans branches? Do they each have their own economics analysts?

[Randy Jenkins]

There is a single economics branch within the department, and both of us can leverage whatever types of reports or requests we may have for their input.

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

Is there good coordination between the oceans branch and the fisheries branch on those economic impacts when it comes to MPAs or areas of interest?

[Brett Gilchrist]

I would say that our aquatic ecosystems branch was the lead for the MCT process, so we certainly worked a lot with them to get an understanding of the various issues they've reviewed, including economic impact analysis. I would say that, obviously, resource management has, again, a day-to-day engagement, from a regional perspective, with stakeholders, so we probably hear a lot of the potential impact and the benefits of individual initiatives.

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

How much time do I have? Two minutes.

We've heard a lot during our field trips and so on about the different approaches to the MPAs: areas of interest, the development, and the consultation. Why would there be such a difference even within some of the areas in the Maritimes: the gulf region versus the Atlantic region? From the harvesters we spoke to, there seemed to be a notable difference in the approach that was taken. Can you explain that, and is there an effort to, I guess, equalize the approach that's taken in the different regions?

[Brett Gilchrist]

Certainly, it was part of my job to help ensure there was some level of consistency in engaging stakeholders across the country. Every region has a very different perspective and client group when it comes to ENGOs and industry, and management partners like indigenous communities. The consultations wouldn't have been exact because, again, you're dealing with very different areas. The areas don't impact the fisheries the same way across the country, because we focus on the ecosystem features themselves, so it might have a different impact on this fishery versus that fishery or this community. We did try to make sure there that was a level of consistency in our delivery across the country.

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

I have one minute left? Actually, I'll pass it to Mr. Miller, if he's ready.