We received wide-ranging comments and suggestions. Some people provided feedback directly related to the proposed regulations but not necessarily connected to a specific summary paper. We outline this feedback in Section 1. Many of those who submitted comments focused on a particular theme or a specific aspect of the proposal as outlined in the summary papers. You can find a summary of these comments in sections 2 to 6. Comments that were unique to First Nations, Inuit, and Metis individuals and organizations are highlighted in the relevant sections. In some cases, respondents also suggested broadening the scope of the proposed regulations to include additional topics. These ideas are captured in Section 7.
Some of the feedback did not address the proposed regulations but offered ideas about the national marine conservation area program overall. For example, commenters provided their perspectives on the Policy on the Establishment and Management of National Marine Conservation Areas, the establishment process, and the national zoning framework. Others addressed topics related to the operation and management of national marine conservation areas like ecologically sustainable uses and cultural heritage standards and practices.
We also heard about the importance of early and active engagement with Indigenous organizations, provinces and territories, and stakeholders at every step of the process – from the establishment of national marine conservation areas to their day-to-day operation. Since those comments did not pertain directly to the development of the regulations, they will not be addressed in greater depth in this report. However, they contain important feedback and will be taken into consideration for the management of national marine conservation areas.
Section 1.
What we heard broadly about the regulatory proposal
In general, we heard that regulations could help advance important goals for national marine conservation areas and that the approaches we proposed in the summary papers seem appropriate. Respondents identified important goals that could be supported through the development of regulations:
• Biodiversity and nature protection
• Contributing to the well-being of Indigenous peoples and coastal communities
• Supporting tourism activities
Those who provided feedback expressed differing views about how the goals should be prioritized. Some maintained that biodiversity protection and ecosystem conservation should take precedence over all other objectives. Others affirmed that the proposed regulations should seek to balance conservation goals with economic opportunities and sustainable uses and that they should consider impacts on businesses, property owners, and others.
“We support Parks Canada in its intention to develop regulations that contribute to the well-being of Indigenous peoples and coastal communities. Deep and meaningful consultation with Indigenous groups, communities, organizations, and individuals potentially impacted by these Regulations is required to achieve this goal.”
We heard the following general messages from Indigenous organizations:
• National marine conservation area regulations and program implementation must respect Aboriginal and treaty rights, along with other foundational documents and principles such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• The proposed regulations should not apply to rights-based activities, nor should they apply to modern infrastructure and technologies – like seasonal camps and powerboats – required for the exercise of those activities.
• Co-governance structures and formal Crown agreements should be recognized in regulations. Agreements can provide clarity about Indigenous-led activities that should be exempt from the regulations.
• Indigenous partners must be involved in decisions related to the implementation of regulations. Some partners highlighted their interest in having formal authority for issuing permits and conducting law enforcement delegated to them by the minister.
• Sea ice is an integral part of Arctic ecosystems and essential to Inuit cultural continuity and livelihoods. Therefore,
o regulations should provide the same level of protection for sea ice as they do for land and water, and
o activities and infrastructure need to be managed to ensure that the structure and function of sea ice are not compromised.
• Parks Canada should clarify how different pieces of federal legislation, policies, and Indigenous laws interact and work collaboratively with Indigenous partners to address conflicts.
“Sea ice in Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area is typically present and used by Inuit from early November to late June, meaning that for 2/3 of the year, the sea is effectively “land”. Sea ice is used by a range of users, whether for commercial tourism, outfitting, research, or the exercise of Inuit rights. If a set of regulations is being developed to manage potential use conflicts and adequately protect the environment within this NMCA, the sea ice must be explicitly considered in those regulations.”
Several non-Indigenous organizations shared similar perspectives about the importance of upholding Aboriginal rights and title, clearly identifying exemptions for rights-based activities, and supporting co-management or co-governance arrangements.
Other respondents also identified several important ideas for us to consider while developing the regulations:
• Ensure decisions to prohibit or restrict activities are based on scientific evidence.
• Build in flexibility to respond to external and internal pressures such as climate change or new fishing methods.
• Work with provincial and territorial governments to explore the potential implications of regulations for the management of lands within or adjacent to national marine conservation areas.
• Recognize that national marine conservation areas in the Great Lakes environments may require different policies and regulations than other marine areas.
• Broaden the application of the proposed regulations to all marine areas administered by Parks Canada, not just national marine conservation areas.
• Provide further engagement opportunities during the regulatory development process.
Section 2.
What we heard about the protection of natural and cultural heritage
The summary paper about natural and cultural heritage describes proposed ways of strengthening protections for flora, fauna, and archaeological, historical, and cultural resources within a national marine conservation area. These include both general prohibitions and permit requirements.
Whether respondents were thinking of plants, animals, ecosystems, sea ice, cultural resources, or visitor experiences, the importance of protecting natural and cultural heritage within national marine conservation areas was a major theme. Some of those who commented highlighted the need to support the sustainable use of marine ecosystems and renewable resources.
We heard the following feedback from Indigenous organizations:
• Parks Canada should ensure that general prohibitions to protect natural and cultural heritage do not create barriers to Indigenous peoples’ cultural practices.
• Indigenous partners should be notified of any archaeological discoveries and any potential impacts permitted activities might have on archaeological resources.
• A definition of “cultural resources” is needed.
Other commenters made the following points:
• The proposed regulations should not provide too many exceptions, or exceptions that are too general to ensure a high degree of protection for ecosystems and other resources.
• The proposed regulations should be consistent with the protection standard for federal marine protected areas.* For example, they should include prohibitions on bottom-trawl fishing, disposal of substances in the ocean, and operational discharges from vessels.
• Prohibitions on bottom-trawl gear should not be part of the regulations. Instead, they should be assessed on a case-by-case basis based on the conservation objectives of each site.
• The Fisheries Act and Shipping Act do not provide enough protection from unsustainable fishing and shipping within national marine conservation areas. Additional regulatory tools may be needed.
• Parks Canada should not limit or restrict fishing methods or the harvest of specific species.
• Parks Canada should not regulate shipping or any related activities and infrastructure.
• Some of the terms used to describe the general prohibition against damaging natural heritage would benefit from more description or clarification.
• Increased protection of cultural heritage could decrease visitor access to shipwrecks and other underwater cultural heritage.
* The Federal Marine Protected Areas Protection Standard (https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa-zpm/protection-standard-norme-protection-eng.html) provides clarity and consistency on prohibited activities in federal marine protected areas, including in national marine conservation areas.
“We recognize the work done by Parks Canada staff alongside their counterparts at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, and Natural Resources Canada to develop the minimum protection standards and the significance of the policy in ensuring that new federally designated protected areas meet a basic level of protection. Officially reflecting the minimum standards in the regulations will ensure that the minimum standards are applied as intended in the long term, regardless of future political contexts.”
Section 3.
What we heard about commercial activities, special events, and other forms of land use
The summary paper about commercial activities and special events focuses on commercial tourism activities, filming and photography, and special events. It also covers authorizations for commercial facilities that might use or occupy land, including submerged land. Feedback covered ideas for permitting processes, potential exemptions from permit and authorization requirements, and areas where more regulation might be required.
Leases and licences are examples of land use authorizations that Parks Canada might issue for facilities or infrastructure like docks and underwater cables.
All commercial activities related to tourism and visitation, such as boat tours, charters, and shuttle services, would require a commercial activity permit.
Indigenous organizations provided the following feedback:
• The concept of “land use” needs to include sea ice, which is not viewed separately from land in the Inuit understanding of the environment.
• The proposed regulations should cover temporary facilities and infrastructure installed on sea ice.
• The commercial activity permitting process should consider the scale and amount of commercial tourism activity.
• Some Indigenous community events, such as community hunts, commemorative events, and youth learning opportunities, should be exempt from special event permits or commercial activity permits.
Other respondents commented on land use authorizations:
• Some commercial facilities, like industrial-scale aquaculture and commercial renewable energy projects, should be prohibited in national marine conservation areas.
• Land use proposals should be evaluated using the precautionary principle.
• High standards should be applied to assess the environmental impacts of land use proposals, and Parks Canada should oversee the monitoring of approved projects.
• Land use authorization should be compatible with provincial authorization systems to ease the transition to federal ownership and responsibility that accompanies the formal establishment and protection of national marine conservation areas.
Here is what respondents had to say about commercial activity permits:
• Permits for commercial activities should prioritize local, small-scale, and sustainable ventures.
• Commercial activity permitting processes should be designed to provide more certainty for commercial tourism operators.
• Parks Canada should provide commercial activity permits to tourism operators for longer terms than the current one-year standard.
• Parks Canada should review commercial activity permits on a regular schedule.
• Parks Canada should engage with and educate commercial tourism operators to reduce the potential for non-compliance.
What we heard in general about processes for issuing permits and other authorizations
Four of the five summary papers include information about activities or uses that would require a permit or another kind of authorization. We received comments that apply to all the different kinds of permitting or authorization processes that could be implemented in a national marine conservation area.
Overall, we heard that minimizing the cost and administrative burden associated with new requirements will be important when implementing them. We also heard that we should work to streamline future permitting and authorization processes. Participants had the following specific recommendations:
• Provide more information and transparency in permitting and authorization processes and associated fees.
• Simplify application processes and streamline reporting requirements.
• Work with other jurisdictions to coordinate processes. This might involve leveraging other regulatory tools and permitting.
• Explore economic opportunities for Indigenous partners from fees associated with permits.
“I am an outfitter and commercial tourism operator affected by these proposals. I am generally in favour of the spirit of these proposals. My general comment is about timelines for approvals of commercial permits. People visiting these places like to plan ahead. If we could have a multi-year permit, secured many months or even years ahead of time, we could plan with confidence. The annual reapplication with uncertain timelines results in a lot of stress for outfitters and tourism operators.”
Section 4.What we heard about research and collectionThe summary paper about research and collection outlines the importance of scientific, display, or educational programs to support the management goals of national marine conservation areas. Many of the comments we received supported the proposed approach.
Here is what we heard from Indigenous organizations:
• Research permitting requirements for Indigenous peoples should be waived.
• The requirements of formal agreements to streamline the permitting process for Indigenous partners should be honoured.
• Researchers should be required to
o follow the application processes and protocols of Indigenous communities for new proposals,
o develop agreements or protocols with Indigenous communities concerning research,
o include community members in research activities, and
o avoid research and collection activities in sacred sites within national marine conservation areas.
Other respondents said the following:
• Applicants should be allowed to reuse permit information provided to other government organizations or permits issued by those organizations.
• Fisheries surveys and stock assessments mandated by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, including surveys and assessments conducted using contact gear, should be exempt from the research permit requirements.
• Intergovernmental agreements for information- or data-sharing should be developed.
• Research related to climate change and national marine conservation area management goals and objectives should be prioritized. Non-extractive, low-impact research methods should be used.
• Permitting processes of other jurisdictions and Indigenous partners should be clearly communicated to applicants.
• Research proposals and results should be made publicly available.
Section 5.
What we heard about visitor experience and public use
The summary paper about visitor experience and public use outlines the proposed intent for managing activities like recreational boating, camping, and diving. Feedback generally supported the use of national marine conservation areas for recreation, exploration, and access to significant natural and cultural heritage.
“Acknowledging that fully protected areas yield better biodiversity outcomes, the regulation should reflect an intention towards the highest protection level possible. The language employed in the regulations must more explicitly state that visitor experience and sustainable use shall not supersede the importance of environmental protection and conservation. While exceptions must be present for well-being and cultural/traditional use, conservation shall be maintained as the priority.”
Indigenous organizations submitted the following input:
• Regulations should ensure Indigenous harvesting is not disrupted by visitor use.
• Activities that take place on sea ice, like recreational camping and use of motorized vehicles, should be treated in the same way as activities on dry or submerged lands and in the water column.
Here is what we heard from other respondents:
• Visitors should not require permits or bookings to camp in national marine conservation areas.
• Parks Canada can help visitors follow rules by using visitor education programs, public notices, and stricter fines. It will also be helpful if the regulations at national marine conservation areas are the same as the rules at other protected areas.
Section 6.
What we heard about zoning and area-based management
The summary paper about zoning and other area-based management outlines ways of prohibiting or restricting activities and uses within defined spaces in national marine conservation areas. The three measures include zoning, special management areas, and temporary closures.
Feedback common to all three measures emphasized the potential for social and economic impacts on communities and other sectors such as tourism and fishing.
“We are pleased to note that [in the summary papers] there is the inclusion of temporary closures, restrictions, and prohibitions rather than relying only on static, permanent measures. The marine environment is constantly moving and shifting, especially as a result of climate change, which requires the need for flexible, dynamic approaches to conservation efforts.”
ZONING
Zoning is the process of dividing a national marine conservation area into different areas in order to delineate where certain activities can and cannot take place. Zoning plans are developed and reviewed on a ten-year cycle.
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS
Special management areas are shorter-term measures used to respond to conservation and management challenges that require customized prohibitions or restrictions within a specific part of a national marine conservation area.
TEMPORARY CLOSURES
Temporary closures, restrictions, and prohibitions would be used to quickly respond to emergencies or other pressing issues that require immediate attention. This authority would be limited to a 30-day period.
We received the following feedback about zoning:
• The majority, or all, of a national marine conservation area should be placed in a fully protected zone. This long-term policy target should be entrenched in regulations.
• Parks Canada should support the sustainable use of marine ecosystems for activities such as fishing and hunting through zoning.
• Regulations can be used to strengthen protection in ecologically sustainable use zones, through, for example, prohibitions on anchoring and restrictions on certain types of infrastructure.
• The potential negative social and economic impacts of full protection zones might be avoided or mitigated by supporting community-based projects such as community science and habitat restoration, tourism, and other ecologically sustainable activities.
• More information about how zoning regulations will interact with the management planning process at sites is necessary.
Here is what respondents had to say about special management areas and temporary closures.
We heard from Indigenous organizations that Indigenous partners should be involved at the earliest stages of creating special management areas. Both Indigenous organizations and other respondents also indicated that more information is needed about the process for identifying and consulting on special management areas and their potential uses, including adaptive management and facilitating Indigenous harvesting.
We received general support from other respondents for the use of special management areas and temporary closures as appropriate responses to conservation challenges and public safety in dynamic marine environments. We also heard that special management areas should be used to add additional protections to an area and not to remove prohibitions or to circumvent the zoning process.
Section 7.
What we heard about other topics
Some respondents advocated for broadening or revisiting the scope of the regulations to do the following things:
• Address national and international commitments to reduce carbon emissions, minimize biodiversity loss, and manage waste.
• Ensure the cumulative effects of activities and the carrying capacities of local communities and national marine conservation areas are considered in decision-making.
• Cover emerging activities that may need to be regulated in the future, like floating homes.
• Include mandatory standards for tourism operators, including training and operating requirements such as waste and carbon emissions reduction.
• Re-evaluate certain activities or uses identified in the summary papers, including drones and the harvesting of marine plants and invertebrates, to ensure the regulations will adequately cover all aspects of those activities and their potential impacts.
