Fisheries Committee on April 4th, 2017

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Okay, then, you can specifically refer to the national marine conservation area that's mentioned in the budget. The Churchill and Nelson rivers were mentioned. That's clearly a DFO issue.

[Philippe Morel]

Marine conservation areas are also under Parks Canada legislation. They're not under the Oceans Act. The MPAs that are under our responsibility are the MPAs that we do in the oceans, not on the rivers.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

What are the plans for marine, or so-called marine...? I use the term advisedly in terms of the difference between marine and non-marine. What are the plans by DFO? Do you have any plans for these protected areas within the freshwater regions of Canada?

[Philippe Morel]

No. We don't have freshwater jurisdiction under the Oceans Act.

When we designate an MPA—this is the process we outlined earlier—it starts from an ecologically and biologically significant area, and we consult at that stage. After that, before it becomes an area of interest, we consult at that stage with everyone. When we consult, it's with the larger groups that have national interest or regional interest, but it's also with the community. That includes the rural communities that are impacted, the fishermen, and the users, such as the tourist associations that use that area. We also do that through the designation of the MPA process. We also receive their comments during the formal Canada Gazette process.

There are all sorts of consultations at all levels throughout the process. Mr. Arnold asked earlier why it takes so long, and that's one reason why. To do it right, we need to consult on the conflicting interests and try to reconcile them.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I guess this message is better delivered to Parks Canada, then, given what happened with both of the examples I used.

I'm a strong supporter of the notion of fish sanctuaries. In Australia about 6% of the marine area has been designated for them. Do you see the creation of fish sanctuaries, where very important breeding, spawning, and nursery habitats are completely off-limits to everybody, with a resultant core of a very high-producing area—I'm not saying it well, but you know what I mean—and then the surrounding area benefiting from these fish sanctuaries?

[Jeff MacDonald]

It is a concept that we have been following not only in Australia but also in New Zealand, where the term that's become common is to determine whether there is a spillover effect.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Right.

[Jeff MacDonald]

So if you create a protected area, can you profit from the stocks that have benefited from the protection? In what Philippe announced in terms of other measures, we are looking at existing area closures and we've brought in a map for you in the presentation that shows areas where we have closed fisheries in the past, and we believe that they can actually count as other measures towards our target because they were ostensibly put in place for protecting the spawning areas of a particular species, or also to protect the habitat. They may call them fish sanctuaries there; we're calling them right now “other measures”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald. Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.

I just want to remind our committee members that we're going to have 15 minutes of committee business at the end of this meeting. So that would be from 10:30 to 10:45.

Mr. Morrissey, five minutes please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is to Mr. Morel. Have there been any MPAs where commercial fishing existed and that commercial fishery is not allowed there today?

[Philippe Morel]

There are some Jeff knows of.

[Jeff MacDonald]

Some examples would be the Gully off eastern Nova Scotia. Another example would be the Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte sponge reefs. They are examples of where we've restricted fishing in the core area.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Have those fishers been compensated for their loss of resource?

[Philippe Morel]

In the case of Hecate Strait there's no compensation because we're moving the fisheries opportunity outside of the area so there's no need for compensation. We have never compensated with money or contributions a fishery. We try to adapt to provide them with other opportunities.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

On page 21 of your document there are six areas of interest identified. Explain how you develop an area of interest.

[Jeff MacDonald]

As Philippe said, we start with oceanographic information on areas that are ecologically and biologically significant. So as we've been doing ocean research through our science program either specifically to research the ecosystem and the area, or as a result of stock science that we do, we gather that data and we refine it. So we have a good idea of what the ecologically significant areas are and then, as we've explained, through some of the consultation processes initially we look at more refined...in a particular area. We may do additional science or surveys in that area.

For example, we may do a sonar reading of the ocean bottom and identify areas where we know that it is important habitat for a particular species. There comes a point where we say, we think this sub-area of this broader ecological area is what we call an area of interest. When we get to that point that's when we begin to design an advisory committee to really start to explore how can we protect this area in a way that minimizes the socio-economic impact, but at the same time protects what needs to be protected.

It is an educative process that comes out of our consultation. It starts with a scientific foundation, but then when we designate an area as an area of interest it's because we're satisfied that this is an important area worth protecting, and it's worth bringing our different interests together to begin understanding what can and can't be permitted in the area.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I'm going to be specific; on your map area of interest you have identified the Shediac Valley. What is DFO's interest in the Shediac Valley?

[Jeff MacDonald]

The Shediac Valley is an important area for groundfish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It was identified as an area of interest quite some time ago.

It does not necessarily mean that every area of interest is going to proceed to becoming a marine protected area. Another example is the Race Rocks area of interest off British Columbia. That area is protected under provincial legislation, and as a result, it was determined that is the sufficient tool to fulfill the conservation objectives. Similarly, with the Shediac Valley, we know that's an important area, but it could be protected through other means, either fishery closure or other types of protected area tools. It doesn't necessarily need to be an Oceans Act marine protected area.

That's where the question earlier about networks is important, because this area is identified as part of the Gulf of St. Lawrence network, so we know there are areas that are important, that need to be protected. The Shediac Valley is one of them. Through our discussions with the Province of New Brunswick and with the fishing industry, etc., we'll determine whether or not the Oceans Act is the right tool for protecting that area or whether we can use other statutory instruments to achieve the conservation objective.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

The Shediac Valley is a significant lobster fishing area in New Brunswick, in Mr. Finnigan's area, as well as mine and in some parts of Prince Edward Island. When you look at a map like this, you see that it's an area of interest. This would cause a lot of concern within the lobster fishing areas, and probably with crabs as well. There's a significant crab fishery.

How do you see those two relating, because I believe from your comments you're identifying it because of the concern on groundfish?

[Jeff MacDonald]

That's right.

When we talk about compatible activities, one of the things we look at is the nature of the activity that takes place. There are examples in other protected areas where we would allow a passive technology such as a lobster trap or a crab pot, because it doesn't really affect the ocean bottom. In other cases, we would restrict it to bottom trawling where it does have an effect, so the nature of the technology that is used is part of the analysis that we do when we determine what activities would be permitted and what activities would not.

In the specific case of the Shediac Valley, we have not proceeded to the Oceans Act MPA designation because we do know that more work is required in terms of understanding what the potential impacts are, and so right now it's staying as an area of interest and not necessarily proceeding as an MPA.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

Now we're going to Mr. Arnold for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Doherty shared his time, so I'm going to turn this first question back to him and then I'll carry on when it's my time.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Morel, what is the expected impact of the recently announced PNCIMA or proposed MPAs on the marine shipping traffic and industry on the Pacific coast, i.e., Port of Prince Rupert, Port Metro Vancouver?

[Philippe Morel]

The PNCIMA is not an MPA, it's....

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

An oceans protection plan. But it has measures in place, correct?