Fisheries Committee on April 13th, 2017

[Daniel Pauly]

A good example is the Great Barrier Reef, which is now in danger from global warming. A wide range of activities are allowed around the Great Barrier Reef. There are certain areas where only research is allowed, and in very few areas not even that, and other areas where you can have an expedition, actually.

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

Thank you.

This gets me back to one of my earlier questions. It was about Canada ranking 33rd. Would some of our fisheries restrictions and regulations not even qualify for consideration of what is actually protected already?

[Dan Laffoley]

That's what I was just talking about as part of the development of the guidance we're working on. In addition to marine protected areas, there is the phrase “other effective area-based measures”.

If there is a fisheries closure that achieves in situ conservation of biological diversity as part of broader fisheries management, an area-based closure that is long term and is about actually ensuring the continued persistence of nature and the fish in that context, that is a potential area that could cross over from having the fisheries management target of sustainability to being recognized also as an effective conservation area alongside marine protected areas. That's the guidance we're trying to work on. I think it's a big opportunity to have some very interesting discussions with the fishing sector.

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

Would they have to be actual closures, or very strict restrictions?

[Dan Laffoley]

At the moment, those areas are different from marine protected areas. The origin and journey may be different, but the outcome should be the same: in situ conservation. Your governance of it would need to ensure the continued persistence of the conservation value.

As I said earlier, governance comes in many different shapes and forms. It's about degree of control and ensuring that you have the degree of control for the persistence of the conservation value in the future. There will be fisheries areas that meet that. Large areas protected for historic wrecks and war graves may also meet that, because the outcome happens to match the sustaining of the conservation value.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

I'm afraid we'll have to stop right there.

I want to thank our guests for two very informative presentations. Too often, many of our witnesses give presentations that are general in nature. What I certainly appreciated about yours were the very practical suggestions backed up by very detailed research. I think your testimony will be very helpful to the committee as the report is developed.

With that, I'm going to suspend for a few minutes while we change to our next witnesses.

Again, thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

The committee will reconvene.

We have our next two witnesses for the next hour. From the B.C. Wildlife Federation we have Al Martin, director of strategic initiatives, and from the Maritime Fisherman's Union, we have Michel Richard, union staff member.

Our witnesses will each be allowed 10 minutes. I will try to keep you to that 10 minutes because our committee is very eager to ask questions.

With that, Mr. Martin, you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

[Alan Martin, Director, Strategic Initiatives, B.C. Wildlife Federation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sopuck.

Briefly, I'll tell you who we are.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation is a province-wide voluntary conservation organization representing all British Columbians whose aims are to protect, enhance, and promote the wise use of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations. We have 50,000 members in 110 clubs, and certainly we're passionate about conserving and protecting the province's fish, wildlife, and habitat. As an organization, we try to lead in conservation and wise use. Conservation sustainability is a priority of our organization.

In terms of natural resource management, we have a number of principles that we turn our minds to with respect to marine, terrestrial, and aquatic resources. I think natural capital is best conserved by protecting and enhancing existing habitats, and this rule applies to marine, freshwater, and terrestrial habitats.

In a handout that I understand will be distributed to you later, I have provided the marine protected area definition under subsection 35(1) of the Oceans Act. A marine protected area is an area of sea that forms part of Canada's internal waters, territorial sea of Canada, or exclusive economic zone and “has been designated under this section for special protection for one or more of the following reasons”. Those reasons are protection of marine fish, mammals, and habitats, and conservation of unique habitats. I refer to this because it is the instrument that is used by DFO in marine protected areas. There are many other pieces of legislation, federal and provincial, that are used to support marine protected areas, but this is the one that is focused on in terms of design.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature has a number of marine protected area classifications, and I would suggest that marine protected areas should be designed based on the conservation outcomes, rather than to fit classifications and percentage targets. I think percentage targets are aspirational, but the purpose of marine protected areas is to protect those resource outcomes and should be designed with that in mind, rather than to fit classifications.

In terms of marine protected areas, in British Columbia there are four different areas under consideration: the offshore area; the northern shelf, which is covered by PNCIMA; the southern shelf; and the Strait of Georgia. There are a variety of protected areas in each one of these, but the northern shelf has been a focus of a coordinated effort through PNCIMA to establish a marine protected area network.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation supports the establishment of marine protected areas as an area-based measure to protect natural resources, with the following conditions: they are science based; they're effective in achieving conservation outcomes; they're established in consultation with other levels of government, first nations, industry, and the public; and, clearly, they need to be monitored and enforced, adaptive, and used in combination with other management tools. Marine protected areas in themselves don't need other management support and will not be effective in isolation. Finally, there needs to be clear governance accountability and reporting around marine protected areas.

In terms of the current context, the Canada-British Columbia marine protected area network strategy was released in 2014. It's a very good document that sets out the vision.

Certainly, there was an announcement made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in June that 5% of marine coastal areas would be protected by 2017 and 10% by 2020. This year, the Pacific north coast integrated management area plan was endorsed by federal and provincial governments and first nations. Then a day later, a new Hecate Strait/Queen Charlotte Sound glass sponge reefs marine protected area was established and announced unilaterally by the federal government. I think the context around this is the question of whether marine protected areas are being driven rapidly by percentage targets, and have they sufficient scientific, community, and financial support to make them operate effectively in the longer term. It's our hope that we do not have a number of marine protected areas established and the boundaries put in place, and then have the focus of conservation and marine resources move on, leaving areas that have not had sufficient time, effort, and resources put into their establishment for them to be effective. Certainly, that's a fear of ours.

There are a number of goals for a network of marine protected areas on the Pacific coast of Canada and for PNCIMA, including the protection and maintenance of biodiversity, ecological representation, and special features; and the conservation and protection of fishery resources and their habitats. The other four goals are related to recreation, community and economic stability, cultural heritage, archeological research and resources, and scientific research. I think there is a fairly good policy framework in terms of protection of marine resources, but there is a lot of work to do in the other areas. The question is, how do you move this forward in a coordinated fashion so that you meet these goals, or do you stage implementation?

The marine protected area network planning for the B.C. Northern Shelf has a number of steps that are focused on having network action plans finalized into one option by March 2019. I think the planning principles and the network objectives at a high level have been established. The design guidelines for these areas are basically a checklist. The conservation priorities are basically a question: is a marine protected area the best solution? The design strategies have not been finalized. Recent papers by the Canadian Scientific Advisory Secretariat, which did a pilot ecosystem risk assessment for the Pacific north coast integrated management area by Murray, Mach, and Miriam O, basically said that they looked at this on a cumulative basis and that their analysis should not be used for policy recommendations. Clearly, there is much work to be done on the ecological end of this, let alone on the other planning objectives.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

You have one minute left.

[Alan Martin]

One minute?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Yes.

[Alan Martin]

A related issue is that large, offshore Pacific MPA processes have been announced regionally by DFO. Certainly, because it's offshore, it may be seen as low-hanging fruit. There is a review of rockfish conservation areas as MPAs going on. It appears that there was not any consultation with the Sport Fishing Advisory Board, the major group that represents anglers, on the process. There is a proposal to streamline MPA designation to decrease the time that it takes to make these designations. I would certainly recommend that these designations be related to marine reserves and that there be proper time to get the science, social support, and funding in place and the monitoring done before the final designation of these areas.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

I'm afraid we'll have to stop there. Thank you.

In the question and answer period, witnesses are often able to get other points out that they weren't able to make in their first talk.

Now we'll go to Monsieur Richard for 10 minutes.

[Michel Richard, Union Staff Member, Maritime Fishermen's Union]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the spirit of our sesquicentennial, I will give my presentation in my mother tongue.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the Maritime Fishermen's Union.

Our organization represents inshore fishers and communities along the east coast of New Brunswick, and a significant number of owner-operators in Nova Scotia. Our 1,243 members support themselves and contribute to their respective communities.

I would like to address the main points in the mandate letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, as well as a few paragraphs in the mandate letter of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I would also like to offer the inshore fishery's perspective on the objectives in the strategic framework for marine protected areas.

My presentation will also reflect the holistic approach to the fishery that the MFU has consistently taken in order to ensure the prosperity of coastal communities in the Maritimes.

As our colleagues from the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters stated last November, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is currently focused on the conservation and protection of marine species, but we feel the department's perspective is not broad enough for communities with a sustainable economy. As the stewards of the fishery, we feel a broader perspective is essential.

Each of the ministerial mandate letters talks about consulting and including communities as part of the processes concerned. However, we do not believe that this has been done so far.

To begin with, the mandate letter for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans talks about such subjects as following up with stakeholders in a spirit of collaboration. I can tell you that the industry has not seen this spirit of collaboration yet and we are skeptical about the follow-up to the processes that have been introduced.

At this point, I would like to refer to a paragraph in the mandate letter for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, which speaks of the need to “review Canada's environmental assessment processes to regain public trust.” Your government promotes the values of inclusion, honesty and hard work, and considers collaborative planning to be one of its guiding principles. That is why, at this point, I would like to raise the following concerns in the interest of improving the consultation process on marine protected areas.

The mission of this standing committee should be to conduct a committed and thorough review of the consultative process for marine protected areas. Too often we have heard the concerns of industry stakeholders and our members about what constitutes a marine protected area. What exactly does that mean to many people?

We believe the next step must be to clearly communicate the geographic boundaries of potential marine protected areas as well as the impacts on current fishing practices in these areas. People participating in the inshore fishery must have the opportunity to demonstrate the non-adverse effects of their fishing practices on the marine habitat.

During fishery advisory board discussions to date—lobster, crab, herring—, stakeholders have expressed their serious concerns about whether a marine protected area places restrictions on fishing gear, and departmental representatives could not provide clear information. Consider for example crab fishing area 19, which was raised during discussions through a supporting document.

We would also like reassurance that establishing a marine protected area will not have unexpected negative impacts on our way of life.

The industry must also be persuaded that the consultative process takes into account the economic, social and environmental impacts of identifying marine protected areas.

In closing, we believe it is important for the traditional uses of ocean resources to be respected and for consideration to be given to the values of resource users, such as the members of the Maritime Fishermen's Union, which I represent.

We strongly believe that the objectives of marine protected areas can be achieved, but there must be a true consultation process that does not consist of simply sending a few documents to associations and stakeholders, and holding a few question-and-answer periods during inshore fishery advisory board meetings.

I believe that this forum is an excellent opportunity to consider proposals for a thorough consultation process with the goal of encouraging a spirit of cooperation on the part of the inshore fishing industry.

Our focus is on process and ensuring that our membership can continue their fishing practices.

I'd like to further refer to certain elements of mandate letters. There is often talk about the consultation process, but once again as we stated earlier, it is very limited in the scope of presentation, and we have noted that it's very limited in terms of coordination between the department officers and managers. Nobody gets the same story.

There are often buzzwords in those documents that some of the members of the industry see, and talk about how it must be done quickly. This recurs very often. We understand that this concept is lacking in the gulf area. We understand that, but the creed of the MFU is to protect coastal communities and encourage fisheries that have very limited impact on the ecosystem and other species.

With this, I would like to thank you for your time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Thank you, Monsieur Richard. You had three minutes to spare. I think that's a record, and we really appreciate that.

The first questioner, for seven minutes, is Mr. Finnigan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Merci. Thank you, both of you, for being here today as witnesses to our study.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Richard. I certainly support your efforts and work on the east coast.

Since we are talking about marine protected areas, I would like to know if inshore fishermen are aware of the need to protect the environment and resources.

[Michel Richard]

Certainly. The Maritime Fishermen's Union and our colleagues in the lobster and snow crab fishery are very proactive in developing fish preservation measures.

The traps used in lobster fishing are one example. With all their escape mechanisms, the traps almost always contain just lobster and the remaining bait when they are pulled up. During discussions on these matters, organizations such as the Maritime Fishermen's Union were rather visionary in suggesting that participation be limited, in terms of fishing practices, and in particular that cages be lowered to the bottom, which has a limited impact on the seabed and does not target other species.

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

We have been fishing for 150 years or more.

Would you say that some species or resources have disappeared or are at risk of disappearing and, as the case may be, that you have been able to manage these resources, whether lobster or crab?

[Michel Richard]

Certainly. We primarily fish two species. It has been shown that lobster has been incredibly abundant in recent years. As part of the Maritime Fishermen's Union's Homarus program, a research group is inseminating lobster, pure and simple. In fact, they are inseminating lobster eggs.

We are also conducting artificial reef projects in cases where fishermen find there are not enough habitats. With regard to these fishing practices, I fully support the thinking and proactive participation of our members, excluding the fishing practices that Mr. Pauly referred to. That was in the 1990s and the fishing gear was much larger and more effective than what we use in our coastal fishery. Mr. Pauly said that small-scale fishing practices are highly compatible with conservation principles.

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

I think it was also Mr. Pauly who referred to bycatch. Can that bycatch be managed? Could fishermen consider this bycatch that should not have been caught?

[Michel Richard]

Yes. In recent years, our members have worked well together to find ways to improve the catch report. The industry is developing an electronic report system that will properly document the bycatch.

With their fishing gear, our fishermen do not have any bycatch. Similarly, with the introduction of the Normor grate—a very selective mechanism for shrimp fishing—, the other fleets have not seen any of the bycatch that my colleague, the previous witness, mentioned.

The industry and the MFU are collaborating 100%. Now it is our turn to ask you why the concept of marine protected areas, which dates back to 2005, is suddenly such an urgent matter.

What we want is to participate in the discussion and share information. Then we would like to participate in the consultative process and put ideas forward.

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

I don't know if there will be a protected area in the zone we are talking about, but if all these things were done, do you think the fishermen would be agreeable to having a protected zone where you could still fish?

[Michel Richard]

With a very structured and transparent process, I think the fishermen might even in some ways advise the managers who want to propose marine protected areas. We also have concerns. Oil exploration is one of those concerns.

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

Mr. Martin, do you know if there are any MPAs that the government or DFO would have to interfere in or co-manage if there were an issue in that zone? Do you know of any MPAs where government could manage a certain species, or seaweed, or something? Are you aware of that?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Mr. Martin.