Fisheries Committee on Feb. 25th, 2016

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

Currently, you said we're at 1%. The goal is to reach 10% by 2020. That's quite a large goal.

What challenges do you foresee DFO facing in expanding that network of MPAs?

[Kevin Stringer]

Thank you for that question.

There are enormous challenges. The minister has said this is very ambitious, but achievable.

You asked as to what challenges DFO faces. One of our objectives is that it's not a DFO issue. It's a whole of government issue, a federal-provincial issue, and we are also working with environmental groups, indigenous groups. To be able to do this will take an all-in effort.

It also means a different approach from what we've done. We tend to look at very small areas that need protecting and do small protection, but that means working with the fishing industry and other industries out there.

We're very excited, and were a bit terrified when we saw that item in the minister's mandate, but we're really mostly excited. It's a huge opportunity.

The minister has been talking to environmental groups, establishing a task group with the provinces, meeting with indigenous groups, meeting with the fishing industry about ensuring that we continue to have a robust fishing industry, meeting with land claims groups who are partners in this. It will be a huge effort.

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

In a short way, I guess, can you take me through the process of how you determine what these marine protected areas are? How do you decide where they will be, and how do you move forward?

[Kevin Stringer]

We need to look at a number of objectives. I'll make this short, but I'd be happy to come back and take longer on it.

For us, for the Oceans Act MPAs, it starts with science and with understanding what needs protection. We have done work that identifies ecologically and biologically significant areas. These include corals, sponges, rearing areas, and spawning areas, the types of things that need protection for one reason or another. They're important habitat; they're important areas for part of the life cycle of a species, or those types of things.

It starts with the science and it ends with a management plan. You've identified the area. You've identified what activities can take place. Some people think they should be no-take areas. Others say you can have some things take place. But in between there's an enormous amount of consultation with users, with environmental groups, with local indigenous groups, and with provinces and territories.

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

You said there was lots of consultation. Would community organizations be affected by that?

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes.

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

This is for you particularly, because I notice that your mandate is quite huge with regard to the areas you cover. How do you assess the value of the ecosystems?

[Kevin Stringer]

That's a loaded question—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Stringer]

—and it's an excellent one.

We can come back and talk for ages on that, but I would point again to the science. We've looked at the science, and we need to do more. We've looked at large areas of the oceans and identified where the corals and sponges are and where the protected areas are.

We actually identify vulnerable marine ecosystems, and that's kind of been the approach: what ecosystems really need protection to enable the broader ecosystem to function effectively. That's really been the approach with the ecologically and biologically significant areas, or EBSAs.

I would also say that an ecosystems approach with respect to fisheries and oceans management is probably something we've been better at talking about than doing, but we are, with more and more science, getting into that world. This work that we're doing now on protected areas will help us get there as well.

It is a huge challenge to be able to manage species one at a time. It is a gigantic challenge to be able to manage an ecosystem and understand the relationships between the trophic levels and the relationships between the various species. That is a work in progress and something that we're committed to moving forward on.

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

I have a final quick question.

Now, 10% takes in more than just the ocean, obviously; it's a broader range. You said it's taking in national parks and things like that. Is there a collaborative effort with other departments to make sure we meet that target?

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes. Our main two partners in the federal system are DFO and Parks Canada. Environment Canada is also important.

When we talk about national marine conservation areas that Parks Canada does, these are in marine areas. They're often contiguous to parks. If you have a park that is on land, and you can establish a marine conservation area—they've done some really important areas—Parks will actually look at representative areas. We look at protection for vulnerable marine ecosystems.

We have different objectives, but at the end of the day, they are protected areas. We work very closely with them. Particularly since we've all seen the same mandate letters, we've been working together to make sure we will meet these objectives together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Ms. Jordan and Mr. Stringer.

That concludes the first round.

May I safely assume that we'll just go into the second round without delay, as we did last time.

Mr. Strahl, you're up next. You have five minutes.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I will thank the witnesses for coming.

I am looking forward to hearing but haven't heard any update yet on when we will have the minister as a witness. We invited him a while back. I was encouraged to hear Mr. Rosser say that he'll be coming on the main estimates as well. We haven't even asked for that yet, but I'm excited that he will be here on two occasions in the very near future to answer our questions.

I was also glad to hear that, as per Mr. Sopuck's suggestion, we'll be able to have scientists here to discuss their work at our request. We'll look forward to making those requests during future committee business, perhaps. That is a good sign.

I want to go back briefly to Mr. Donnelly's questions on the Cohen commission. The minister was very clear yesterday in the House in response to a Liberal lob question that several of the Cohen commission recommendations had already been enacted, I assume under the previous government. I would like to request that if you have an analysis, which I'm sure there is somewhere in the department, as to which of the 75 recommendations have already been implemented, and the list of the others, perhaps, if they're partially implemented, showing why they haven't been implemented, if there is such a list, attached to it, I'd like to also know what the cost of implementing each of them one time annually would be.

Perhaps I'll just ask for that to be tabled at a later time.

On marine protected areas, I met with a number of stakeholders who are very concerned about what this will mean for them. Their advice, hopefully, if the minister is consulting with industry groups, is that first you need to determine what you're protecting and why you are protecting it.

In your view, can you protect, for instance, sponge reefs on the bottom and still fish above them and have that considered to be part of a marine protected area, or are we talking about fishing at all depths? You mentioned that some want it to be closed. I've heard, even from the shipping industry, that some want there to be no passage, even, over these areas, which I think is a very scary prospect for many of our coastal industries.

Perhaps you could give me a quick indication whether it's possible under the IUCN qualifications that you can still perhaps have a productive ocean at the same time that you have a protected ocean.

[Kevin Stringer]

Thanks for the question.

There are two points. One is, the minister has met with the fishing industry on this. He met with people on all three coasts who have expressed this concern and has given assurances that they will be involved as we go forward.

With respect to the example you used—a very good one in terms of there being corals and sponges to protect—as to whether, if you're not impacting them, you can continue your activity as long as you're not impacting them, the answer is that you can. There are some views from some stakeholders who would say that when you establish a marine protected area it should be as a matter of course a no-take zone, but it is not required in our current Oceans Act. The Oceans Act MPAs don't require it. The Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the act under which the marine conservation areas for Parks Canada fall, requires that part of it be a no-take area. It doesn't say how much. It could be 1%, 2%, or it could be 80%. But there is no specific requirement to make them no-take zones.

At the end of the day, for us and certainly for the IUCN, a marine protected area doesn't need to be a no-take zone. It needs to be a specific area. It needs to have conservation objectives. It needs to have a management plan that speaks to how you're going to meet them.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Another concern I've heard is that Canada has a very well-managed fishery, well-managed oceans, that we are a leader in conservation and protection and fishing standards, and that if you are creating marine protected areas in Canada, it's a very integrated industry and the world is going to get its protein from somewhere. The concern is that if you close off large portions of the Canadian well-managed fishery, you will essentially be sending fishing fleets elsewhere, or even that domestically you'll more heavily fish the non-protected areas, which would perhaps have a neutral effect or a net negative effect.

Can you explain to me how you prevent additional stress in other areas when you are closing off sections under the MPA?

[Kevin Stringer]

First of all, in terms of some of the types of protection for corals, sponges, reefs, and those sorts of things, if you're destroying those areas with certain types of fishing or any type of activity, it's not good for the fishery. There's absolutely no question. I think all stakeholders would agree with that.

With respect to having specific areas set aside and then increasing the pressure in other areas, in neighbouring areas, the theory—and there are different views on this—is that by protecting a certain area you're really going to allow it to grow and it's going to populate, because fish tend to move around. It's going to populate those other areas, and there's going to be a benefit from that. MPAs are fairly new. For some, there's documentation that shows it does work. Others are saying that if it's a well-managed fishery, it doesn't make that big a difference.

We are going to have to keep all of those things in mind to ensure that there is an ongoing robust fishery in Canada, but that we are applying the proper protection. It's not an easy thing.

Tom, did you want add something?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Please be brief.

Thank you.

[Tom Rosser]

I was just going to say that in addition to the consultations and things that Kevin described, in the regulatory process to establish a marine protected area, there's a requirement that a cost-benefit analysis be done, so any costs associated with the establishment of a marine protected area would be explicitly analyzed and considered as part of the normal process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Rosser.

Mr. Finnigan, go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you to DFO. It was great that you talked to us about the good work you do.

I'm from the Miramichi area in New Brunswick on the east coast, where of course salmon is constantly a big issue. In February last year, a ministerial advisory committee for Atlantic salmon was established. They finished their report in July. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at it, or if you plan to implement some or most of the recommendations that came out of that committee.

[Kevin Stringer]

Thank you for the question.

Atlantic salmon is an enormously important issue. It's an iconic species and a driver for the economy, and Miramichi is certainly a key area. We are seeing challenges. In the U.S., it's endangered. Some say it's pretty much gone. It's doing much better in Labrador and northern Newfoundland, less well the further south you go, and almost gone in the U.S., so it is a challenge.

That ministerial advisory committee tabled a report on, I think, July 31, so the department has had an opportunity to look at it. We are going forward to the minister with some advice about the implementation of various of the recommendations. I've forgotten exactly how many.

There weren't as many as in Cohen, but they weren't that dissimilar. They actually recommended that we look at the wild salmon policy on the east coast as well as the one on the west coast. It's something we're looking at very carefully and will be going forward to the minister with advice on.

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

As a follow-up to my question, if the salmon were just in the Miramichi, we could probably manage it, but of course it has a migratory route that takes it all the way to Greenland, with all kinds of obstacles on the way up and on the way down. I'm not an expert on salmon, but to me, one of the big barriers or obstacles in rebuilding the stock is the commercial harvesting in Greenland, which almost doubled last year.

How involved is Canada in trying to let them know that this salmon is really not that abundant? We're stocking the rivers every year. We're trying to do what we can here, yet on the other coast.... I'm not saying that it's the only thing; I know that the seals, the cormorants, the bass, and everything have their feast on the way.

Could you elaborate on what we're doing internationally to protect the species?

[Kevin Stringer]

Thanks for your question.

Actually, on your last point, this is a really important issue. There are habitat issues, predation issues, and at-sea mortality issues. There are many, many issues, and the Greenland issue is certainly one of them.

The way we address that is through NASCO, which stands for North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization. In any case, there's us, the U.S., some European countries, and Greenland. All of us have been talking to Greenland about that. Greenland did make some changes in the last year to put more monitoring and management in place to restrict the harvest, which has been helpful.

We continue to be concerned about the commercial take in Greenland. There was not a commercial take a few years ago, and they started, but in the last couple of years, it seems to have actually reduced.

We continue to be concerned and we continue to put pressure on. It's largely through NASCO, but it's also something that the minister would raise with the EU and with others on a regular basis. It is one of the issues, and we're continuing to put on the pressure.

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

Taking it closer to home, I've had discussions with some people about the Miramichi River and the Tabusintac River specifically, where we were talking about resources being cut. I talked directly to the people who live on the river and the DFO officers, who told us that they absolutely could not monitor the river where they should. There are lots of illegal catches, lots of nets across the river, and it's been worse in the last few years.

Could you comment?