Fisheries Committee on April 4th, 2017

[Philippe Morel]

Measures will be developed by the stakeholders around the table, so for now it's a governance to be developed where we hope to implement the marine spatial planning. The objective of PNCIMA is not to necessarily create an MPA. It could end up adding some MPAs or adding a network, but the objective is not that. The objective is to have a better management of the ocean.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

So what would be the impact of MPAs on the shipping traffic, marine traffic, on the west coast?

[Philippe Morel]

It all depends on the conservation agenda and where the MPAs are. Shipping is permitted in most of the MPAs unless there is some direct impact. Usually the measures to stop the shipping in one area, where there is an MPA, or, for example, where there are other measures like a critical habitat order, are voluntary and negotiated with the shipping industry; and they change their route to avoid impact on the conservation—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Then how do you balance the economic impact of, again, shipping, i.e., fisheries where an MPA is going to be had? We've just heard a concern from our colleagues from the east coast, but we also have communities that depend on fishing and depend on those routes for shipping. How do you balance the economic impact of MPAs?

[Robert Elliott]

Frankly, it depends on the conservation objectives of the area of interest in the MPA. There are certain measures that can be undertaken in terms of mitigating economic consequences where—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

What would those be?

[Robert Elliott]

For example, as Jeff indicated, you could switch the type of fishing gear. That would mitigate the impact on the MPA.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

That would come at a cost to the fisher as well, correct?

[Robert Elliott]

That would be incorporated into our analysis. When we take a look at what the overall impact is going to be, all of those considerations would be taken into place in terms of identifying what the options are for mitigating the socio-economic impacts. For the change in gear and the change in the navigation routes, we will work very closely with Transport Canada on that—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

There would be financial measures put in place for fishers and for companies that would be affected?

[Philippe Morel]

Usually no. We analyze everything, but no, there's no program to compensate for the impact of these measures.

We're trying to accommodate the industry for the impact they may have, as I mentioned earlier, maybe by just changing the fisheries from one area to another and buying back some licences, and to provide opportunities to other fisheries, to some other fishermen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Arnold.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe I've interpreted this correctly, but correct me if I'm wrong. For previously protected areas that were closed for fishing—for example, I know there are rockfish closures off the west coast of British Columbia—are those closed areas now being incorporated into the MPAs to reach the targets of 5% and 10%?

[Jeff MacDonald]

Yes, that is correct, in the sense that the criteria for other measures that we described in the presentation are being applied to each of the existing areas. What we're determining is whether they meet the criteria or not, and those that do, we would count towards the target.

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

Meet the criteria of an MPA?

[Jeff MacDonald]

Of another measure.

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

Of another measure under the criteria for MPAs?

[Philippe Morel]

Well, no, not exactly. The criteria of protection that are not under the Oceans Act protections.... On page 9 of the presentation, you have the five criteria that are used, which we believe are criteria that will enable us to designate some of the fisheries closures as protected areas, but not necessarily under the Oceans Act.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

Mr. Finnigan, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to pick up on Mr. Morrissey's question, with respect to fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, an area of interest that runs along my region. I am curious as to the reason for the interest, since the area is home to numerous fisheries—including crab, lobster, and all groundfish—and is already intensely monitored by DFO. The department knows exactly which resources are there and does a yearly evaluation, so I wonder what the benefit of making the region a marine protected area would be.

[Philippe Morel]

I'll say a few words and then turn the floor over to Mr. MacDonald.

An area of interest may become a marine protected area if we believe that additional protection measures are needed to ensure the resource remains sustainable. Overfishing and climate change can have an impact on marine resources, potentially resulting in long-term declines.

In such cases, protection measures such as fishery closures and the creation of marine protected areas can be applied to ensure the continued growth of the resource. Fishing in other areas may then be possible. These areas are more relevant to the proliferation of the resources used by fish harvesters.

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

Is that not a measure the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can already apply?

Normally, it reduces the quotas when it sees the resource declining.

Why is this measure needed?

[Jeff MacDonald]

I'll answer in English if that's all right. The difference, I think, is that with marine protected areas and the other measures that we use for protection, the objective is biodiversity, and not just specifically that particular fish stock in question. So, yes, we would use measures to protect the health of the fish stock, but marine protected areas writ large are intended to protect the aquarium, if you will. It's not just the fish itself; it's the environment within which the fish lives and has its life cycle.

For example, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, le banc des Américains is an example of where we have identified a sanctuary, if you will, for groundfish. In developing that particular MPA, we would create a core zone where no one would go. We know that's a spawning area for that particular species, so we would allow that to take place so that there would be a greater productivity of the stock. They're intended to complement each other. We use mainly the fishing measures to manage the particular commercial fishery, but the MPAs are intended to complement that and to create areas that protect the broader ecosystem.

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

We have areas that have been of interest for the last 20 years. Why are they still on the list or what are the plans for those areas?