Fisheries Committee on April 11th, 2017

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being with us on marine protected areas.

Maybe, Mr. Wareham, I could start with you. You mentioned in your presentation the need for an accelerated timeline. Could you expand on that a bit more?

[Bill Wareham]

In my own experience on the west coast, we had a national marine conservation area proposed for the southern Strait of Georgia. It's been more than 14 years, and we still don't have it even near a stage of the process whereby I would anticipate we're going to see it in the next five years.

The Gwaii Haanas area took 20 years. The sponge reefs took 14 years. In other processes we've been in that took us eight years, we actually didn't get outcomes because the process was shut down.

If you look at the goal, and the scale of area we're talking about protecting, and the historical timelines it's taken us to get through the work, I can only conclude that we have to accelerate the engagement process and the interagency function to realize the intended outcome.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

DFO has talked about this being a huge challenge, reaching 5% by the end of the year. We're at just over 1%.

How would you recommend the department accelerate? They have to work, as you mentioned, with other departments as well.

[Bill Wareham]

One thing that we know they're contemplating is looking at large off-shore areas that perhaps need less consultation because there are fewer users and there is not a near-shore effect from there being a lot of people and communities. That's one option we know they're exercising, and it could land large areas.

Our concern, as I said in my presentation, is to make sure that the outcome of this process actually benefits us from the point of conserving biodiversity and recovering degraded species and fish stocks. It's in that hard work, which is more on the shelf and in the inland waters, that we have to do a lot more.

I don't have the magic on that problem. If we decide that we really want to do this, we have to put more resources in place. Where the government gets them is a bigger economic issue. Whether we take them from oil subsidies or other places in government, it's obvious to me that..... Then if you throw in the layer of first nations co-governance, it becomes very complicated very quickly.

I think there are ways, including revising the Oceans Act, that will help us do some of this. There are some process best practices around consultation and engagement that I think we could use much better to get the job done sooner.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay.

You mentioned “enough resources”. You also mentioned that you sit at planning tables. Could you expand on what is “enough”? What will it take to get us to 5%? What kind of resources are we talking about?

[Bill Wareham]

As an example, in the Pacific north coast integrated management area process on the west coast, we had secured funding from third parties, which I think is a beneficial thing to look at—private-public partnerships. In total, with government and philanthropic money, I think there was almost $30 million put towards that process. It took five years in development, it ran for two years, and then it was shut down.

If you really want to engage at that comprehensive level, you're looking at that kind of money to do the process well. I would say that in this target MPA issue you would look at easily $30 million to $60 million on our west coast over the next five years to meet these targets.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Great. Thank you.

Ms. Fuller, you mentioned that you think things are out of balance and that we're not achieving balance. If we fast-forward to 2020 and, say, achieve 10%, that leaves 90% for economic uses in our oceans.

Can you elaborate more about 10%? Do you think that's enough? What is enough to achieve the balance?

[Susanna Fuller]

Scientist said about 30%, I think, is one of the key objectives. From the standpoint of spatial protection, 10% is probably not enough but I also think that we have other management measures, whether it's through shipping, fisheries management, or marine planning, that we can put in place and that will help us get to more protection.

We have more protection from some industries. I think that has to be considered, but 30% is the figure the world is sort of landing on, based on a lot of scientific advice and what other countries are doing.

The U.S. has set aside about 32% in marine protected areas, and 3% of that is “no take”. That gives a fair amount of leeway for some low-level sustainable activities to continue to happen. We know that already our MPAs tend to be zoned for low-level fishing activity. My view is that 75% needs to be “no take” to have actual biodiversity protection.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

It should be 30%, and you mentioned that the United States is at 32%.

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

They've already exceeded the goal of 30%, then.

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Do you think things are working in the United States, in terms of their oceans?

[Susanna Fuller]

I can't comment on that right now. There's a change in administration.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Well, that's a direction, I guess, but in terms of its historically being 30% or 32%, is everything protected in that area?

[Susanna Fuller]

They have lower levels of overfishing. For about 30% of it, you can't do bottom trawling. I think it's working to the extent that it possibly can and given the amount of science you would need to actually test to see whether it's working. That's the burden of proof. Often we hear, “prove to us that it's working”. We don't ask our national parks to prove to us that they're working.

I think we'll find out in the next few years how long those national marine monuments also stay in place. It has to be long-term protection.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Chair, I want to use the remaining minute to correct the record from April 4. We had on Tuesday, April 4, DFO officials with us. Jeff MacDonald said:

...the purpose of the Oceans Act MPAs is to support the sustainable use of oceans. Therefore, any activity that is compatible with the conservation objective is supported.

I just want to correct that. My understanding is that the purpose of MPAs is not sustainable use. The purpose is special protection, according to section 35 of the Oceans Act, which lists the reasons for which MPAs can be created.

I have that, but I'm sure I'm out of time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

You have 10 seconds.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Subsection 35(1) has paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), and I can certainly read that into the record. I just want to correct that, so the committee is aware of that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Time is up.

I want to thank our witnesses and my colleagues for sticking to the time limits and having a very efficient session.

We will now suspend for a few minutes and have our next witnesses take their places.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

We'll come to order.

We have two organizations and one individual as witnesses. We have the Gulf Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board, represented by Leonard LeBlanc and Andrea MacInnis; and the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association represented by Robert Jenkins and Ian MacPherson. We have Mr. Jordan Nickerson as an individual.

Each organization and Mr. Nickerson will have 10 minutes for their presentations. If there are no objections, we'll start from the top, with the Gulf of Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board.

You have ten minutes.

[Leonard LeBlanc, Managing Director, Gulf of Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting us to appear before you.

MPAs constitute a very important subject. My comments will refer to the one that was contemplated for the western side of Cape Breton, the Cape Breton Trough, as it's best known.

My past experience in the fishery is as a fisherman for 33 years. I recently retired, about three years ago, and I am now the managing director for the Gulf Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board. We represent in excess of 500 harvesters, of whom 100 or more would be directly affected by this MPA, should it be designated.

All these harvesters are primarily dependent on lobster and snow crab but also hold other species licences. The Cape Breton Trough is a very important fishery in the area for these harvesters, and naturally they are concerned about what may happen. I'll give you the financial concerns they have.

The DFO consultations on these areas of interest began on November 10. We had two meetings, one on November 10, 2016, and another one on January 18, 2017. The process DFO used to approach harvester associations and consult on the areas of interest for designation was unorganized and totally not transparent. They indicated that the process to establish MPAs is typically a lengthy process over many years, yet they seemed to be rushing the process along to meet strict deadlines by 2020.

Additionally, there was apparent confusion within DFO about the newly proposed area for MPA designation, with some key departments—by this, I mean management and science—not being on the same level as the consultation progressed. This led industry to believe that the consultation process was not well planned, organized, or transparent even within DFO, and this surely was a red flag for us.

It was also unclear at the consultation meetings why the Cape Breton Trough was chosen for protection, and there was absolutely no scientific baseline provided for why the area was considered biologically important. No answers were provided at any of the meetings. When questions were asked, they were deferred, to be answered at a later date.

Additionally, the science peer review for this area had not been completed before consultation began, and when industry asked whether they could observe the peer review science process, they were originally given a blunt “no”. Again there was a lack of transparency in the process. This meeting was supposed to be held on January 18, 2017, and it was postponed.

It was difficult to understand why industry was not allowed at the science peer review, as industry has willingly participated in fishery science activities for many years, collecting valuable data, including data for scientific studies by Ph.D.s and people with master's degrees. Industry therefore got the impression that there was no scientific reasoning for the placement of this area of interest for MPA designation.

Following these issues, there were no guarantees at the consultation that the traditional fisheries in the area could continue in the wake of an MPA designation. As you can imagine, this was unsettling for harvesters, as there were no answers for what an MPA might look like or what restrictions there might be on their fishing activities.

This area is a significant traditional fishing area, particularly for the area 19 snow crab harvesters, with 156 licence holders. This year their gross landed projected value would be in the vicinity of $32 million, and the estimated net value of their quota trap share would be $136 million in that very box that was being talked about. You can understand their fears and concerns, when their main income was being somewhat challenged.

Finally, this consultation process on the area of interest for MPA designation in the Cape Breton Trough perpetuated the lack of trust between industry and DFO. The lack of inclusion and answers during the consultation phase, the lack of real scientific evidence for reasoning behind the area of interest, and the lack of guarantees that traditional fisheries could continue all led to further distrust of DFO's consultation and decision-making process.

Additionally, area 19 was in a co-management agreement with DFO as of 1996, and in 2010 DFO simply walked away from that legal and binding agreement. Therefore, harvesters, particularly in this area, are very wary about DFO and lack trust in its processes, based on the history.

At this point, you might think we're totally against MPAs, but we would like to think there's a way forward here. First of all, we think it was positive of DFO to have backed off the momentum they were building on the implementation of this MPA. We, along with our first nations friends, who also fish in the same area, had the same reservations. We thought we might want to pause the action and maybe regroup. That was done, and it was a good step.

We think that DFO should provide a concrete definition of what an MPA is and what it might look like in the area. In other words, come with the full package, put all the cards on the table, and let's have the discussion, instead of doing it piecemeal. Industry should be involved in the designation of an area of interest, not simply being told where the box is and here's how we proceed from here.

Second, scientific evidence for why the area is biologically important must be provided before consultation resumes. The first question at consultation will revolve around why we are protecting this area. There should be scientific evidence already in place to answer these questions. Additionally, industry should be invited to participate, with a minimum of two members. When they had finally opened the door to the peer review process, they begrudgingly said, “Okay, we'll give you one seat.” We said, no, we wanted two seats per association. This will increase the transparency and trust.

Third, there should be consideration for a legal and binding guarantee, or at least a contract with the Government of Canada that traditional fisheries must continue within an MPA, particularly in cases like the Cape Breton Trough, where fishing is the main economic driver in the adjacent rural fishing communities.

Lastly, DFO should take advantage of the MPA designation process to continue building trust with the industry. Harvesters in Gulf Nova Scotia are not opposed to protecting biologically sensitive areas of the oceans for the benefit of marine life; however, they are opposed to unclear, non-transparent DFO processes to establish such areas. The fisheries are the backbone of the economy of rural Nova Scotia, and MPAs should be established with this consideration and in collaboration with those who depend on the marine resources in the area for their livelihoods.

I'll conclude with this. Harvesters want to be involved in open, transparent DFO decision-making processes from the start to the finish, and they want guarantees that traditional fisheries will continue within MPAs. Harvesters want to protect marine mammals, marine species, sensitive benthic areas, which are good for the marine environment. At the same time, when we're protecting all of these species, it would be good if we actually protected the owner-operator and fleet separation, and to have that entrenched in the Fisheries Act, as others have mentioned to you in previous presentations. Let's protect the fish, but let's also protect the harvester at the same time.

Publicly, I would like to thank the Pictou Landing First Nation for supporting our actions. They're very much part of our association, and we dialogue with them continually. We really appreciate their support in this endeavour.

Again, I would like to thank the committee for allowing us to present our concerns, and we are willing to address any questions you may have.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Thank you very much, and with time to spare.

I will now turn to the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association for a 10-minute presentation.

[Ian MacPherson, Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. I want to make the committee aware we do have one more person in the room off-camera—Laura Ramsay, our research and liaison officer—if there were a technical question that we needed to caucus on.

On behalf of the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for the opportunity to present today on marine protected areas. My name is Ian MacPherson, and I am the executive director of the association. I am pleased to be joined by Captain Robert Jenkins, who is the president of the PEIFA.

The PEIFA represents over 1,260 core fishers on Prince Edward Island, who primarily fish lobster, with some secondary fisheries in herring, mackerel, halibut, and bluefin tuna. The PEIFA has been very interested in the MPA file since the declaration was made by Prime Minister Trudeau to increase the coastal areas around Canada from approximately 1% to 10% by 2020. We would like to note some observations and concerns we have surrounding the implementation of these areas in the given timelines.

First, the PEIFA understands the requirement to protect marine environments, but we do have concerns surrounding the tight timelines to accomplish these goals. The first step to designating a ministerial order MPA is to gather existing scientific, economic, social, and cultural information on the area. Prince Edward Island is a small province driven by small fishing communities. The displacement of fishers from one community to another as a result of an MPA would shift the economics of the island. Throughout the consultation process, fishing areas were discussed, but not the economics of how a large MPA along the small coastline of Prince Edward Island would impact the island.

Second, scallop buffer zones are now going to be considered part of the other effective area-based conservation measures. We've been made aware of that quite recently, and that's a positive development. This requires a change in management of the zones from a variation order to local licence conditions. We are requesting written confirmation that these buffer zones will remain at a regional level, as they are now, and not be federally regulated like MPAs. We'd like that local control to carry on.

Third, on areas that require immediate attention the information updates to industry need to be more frequent. This includes updates stating that no changes are being considered for a particular area at this time. To date we receive a biannual report, which appears to be created for all of Canada. These updates give a generalized background of the current issues. We are looking for updates more specific to our area and surrounding regions. The Cape Breton Trough was announced as an area of interest in January 2016. However, the PEIFA has never received a formal update from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stating this. These are the kinds of announcements that impact our bioregion, and updates should be provided on a more frequent and timely manner.

Fourth, in reference to the Cape Breton Trough, we received one email saying it was postponed, but conversations at the round table in Boston stated that the plan is to still go forward with this area as an MPA for 2020. Since then we have received mixed messages again. We are looking for confirmation that the Cape Breton Trough is moving forward toward becoming an MPA in 2020. I believe Mr. LeBlanc just alluded to some of those issues about communication and transparency, and certainly that supports our position.

Fifth, although there are numerous situations where MPAs have improved the fishery, there have been situations where MPAs have failed to achieve expected results for the area. Is there or will there be a timeline in place to ensure a positive contribution is being made to the sustainability of the area? For example, if an assessment timeline is five years, and after five years there is no improvement, will the MPA be removed, reassessed, or moved? Is a backup plan in place?

Sixth, the PEIFA was promised a map in January of this year that would note areas of interest. Is there a new timeline for identifying these areas as we have not received any map to date?

Seventh, it is our understanding that areas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are being identified for the protection of corals and sponges. If the fishing restrictions are put in place, these will not count toward any MPA totals. We would like to see DFO advocate that these areas be included in future MPA totals.

Eighth, the PEIFA is greatly concerned over the proposed oil and gas development of the Old Harry region near the Quebec and Newfoundland ocean boundaries. There are many indications that exploration for this project will be proceeding. The Gulf of St. Lawrence is one of the most diverse bioregions in the world. Why would we risk the many fishing and tourism jobs that sustain the region to develop a resource that is more accessible in other regions of Canada? It makes no sense to designate large areas of coastal waters as MPAs, but then to allow oil and gas development in the same region. An oil spill, particularly in the winter months, could significantly damage the coastlines and fisheries in all provinces in the maritime region due to prevailing currents.

In summation, fishing is the lifeblood of many communities on Prince Edward Island. Protection of the environment is paramount, but it must be done in a responsible and prudent manner. We encourage the standing committee to look at the implementation of MPAs through a community impact lens. The fishery in P.E.I. has the largest impact on GDP of any province in Canada. Protection of the environment is very important, but we must also consider the independent owner-operator fleets and their significant financial contribution to the economy of Canada. We ask that our input and concerns be seriously considered as we move forward with these aggressive goals in increasing marine protected areas.

Just before I conclude my portion, Mr. Chair, because I know the committee deals with a number of issues, I would like to request that for any future discussions on owner-operator or changes to the Fisheries Act that the PEIFA be consulted directly. I'd like that to go on the record.

This concludes our opening remarks.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Thank you very much. You have two minutes to spare. We have a very efficient witness group today.

Mr. Nickerson, you have 10 minutes.