Evidence of meeting #14 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was area.
A video is available from Parliament.
Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency
There's no reason it couldn't be allowed in that area.
Liberal
Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency
We'd have to look at the specific nature, the gear, how it's being undertaken and what the relationship is to the habitat in the area, but there's no reason a food fishery could not be permitted in the area.
Liberal
Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency
Again, lobster fishing is not incompatible with a national marine conservation area.
Liberal
Paul Connors Liberal Avalon, NL
You mentioned that there's been a certain portion of the aquaculture industry excluded or moved out of the proposed area. Would there be any restrictions or anything placed on that in a marine conservation area?
Director, National Marine Conservation Areas Establishment, Parks Canada Agency
For the aquaculture industry, we have removed all existing and potential licence sites from the NMCA and have reduced the boundary by approximately 30% to make sure there's a distance between aquaculture and the national marine conservation area and have assured the industry that they can continue to ship through the NMCA as they go to Stephenville, as long as they're not applying pesticides within the NMCA, which the industry has told us is not their common practice.
Liberal
Paul Connors Liberal Avalon, NL
There's always concern that the NMCA would be approved now and, then, once the first approval gets put in place, it would move on to larger areas or greater areas. What's the possibility or the likelihood of that once it is approved? Would it expand to take in the aquaculture industry?
Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency
You can't just go and unilaterally expand a national marine conservation area. Typically, it would be established through an act of Parliament. We can't usurp the authority of Parliament. We would have to come back to Parliament to make a change like that if we wanted to actually change the boundaries of the area. There are ways that it can be done through an order in council under specific circumstances, but we typically establish through an act of Parliament.
Do you want to add to that, Lori?
Director, National Marine Conservation Areas Establishment, Parks Canada Agency
Any kinds of expansions that take place within national marine conservation areas undergo virtually the same process we use to establish them. There would be a very thorough consultation process with local communities, industry and stakeholders if we were to expand them.
Right now, within the south coast fjords, we are looking to establish that site as per the boundaries that are currently out there, but we are still in feasibility, and we are still able to adjust those boundaries as we meet with concerned stakeholders.
We would look to establish that site, get it up and running and get it to be an established park place, before we would ever consider even expanding that. You're looking at probably a couple of decades away, typically, before we look at expanding our sites.
Liberal
Paul Connors Liberal Avalon, NL
I know the bottom trawlers are out. Is there any gillnetting or anything like that permitted in marine conservation areas?
Director, National Marine Conservation Areas Establishment, Parks Canada Agency
Yes. We have worked to give assurances to the fishermen in the south coast fjords that we would look at restricting less than 5% to fishing—longline fisheries. The halibut and the lobster fishing, which are the two of the main ones, but also anything else that is not bottom trawl, would be able to fish every place else until a management plan is established down the road.
The management planning cycle always takes into consideration industry, and industry participates as part of that management planning. As of right now, there's only restriction in less than 5% of the NMCA as it stands, but we're still in feasibility and those numbers are not finalized until we're at the establishment phase.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much.
I now give the floor to Mr. Deschênes for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. DeMarco, paragraphs 47 and 48 of your report are quite striking. We should also thank you because, without you, we would have had trouble getting a good sense of the situation and the efforts that have been made. What you are saying is quite striking, and I think it should be mentioned.
Parks Canada did not use a reference value, so it seemed to have achieved 45% of the target, even though nothing concrete had been done since 2019. As for Environment Canada, the department used the total area of protected habitat, without mentioning that it had not expanded its network of marine areas since 2018.
Have you been able to confront the departments to find out what ultimately led them to hide their lack of progress?
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
We did not audit their motivation or their state of mind. We were concerned that a complete picture of progress had not been painted.
Exhibit 3 of my report provides more useful information. You can see the progress from year to year in meeting the target. Telling Canadians that 45% of marine regions are part of the network of marine areas without specifying that it was 45% the previous year as well is not very useful. We are pleased that they agreed with our recommendation to be more transparent when they share information, so that they can truly tell Canadians whether or not progress has been made, or whether the same information as the previous year is being provided.
Some progress has been made since 2015, and if little progress has been made in any given year, they do not have to hide that information. I would like to see much more transparency with Canadians.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Deschênes.
Next we're going to go to Mr. Gunn for five minutes.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Commissioner, as you know, right now Canada is implementing the UN 30 by 30 policy, which means, as it pertains to oceans, closing off 30% of Canada's waters to various economic activities and turning them into these marine protected areas or underwater parks.
What is the basis for the 30% number? Is it scientific or political?
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
The 30% is not about closing off. I'm not going to repeat what the department said, but in paragraph 46 we have highlighted that they should be much more transparent about the portion that actually is a no-take zone, which is the closing off that you're saying. I would like to see them be more transparent about that.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
I agree.
How did we get to 30%? Is that a scientific number that was decided by marine biologists or is this a political number?
Why not 32%?
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
It was the product of negotiations in Montreal, I believe in December 2022, under the auspices of the—
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Is it safe to say it's political and not scientific? The reason it's 30% and not 35% or 22% seems arbitrary.
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
It was a product of international negotiations. If that's purely political.... It depends on your definition. There were delegates there who were politicians and delegates who weren't, so I don't know if it was entirely political, but it was a UN negotiation.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
It sounds political to me.
One of the reasons I ask is that more than 30% of B.C.'s coast is already conserved under this formula. Why are there additional closures than planned in B.C.? Why is B.C. bearing a disproportionate number of these closures and the economic cost of them?
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General
I don't have information on the degree of closures. Do you mean the degree of marine protected areas?
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
You're playing with words over there. The entire point is that marine protected areas are closed to economic activities. The department doesn't seem to know, in some cases, which activities, but that's the entire point of the marine protected areas, I presume, or else there would be no point in having them.