Evidence of meeting #57 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was area.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Robert Sopuck
Could we have a short answer, please? The time is nearly up.
Principal Investigator, Sea Around Us, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
There should have been marine protected areas in the areas that maintain the cod in Canada. The cod was opening the bank vault. You could help yourself to the capital instead of just fishing the interest. If you had areas along the coasts of Labrador and Newfoundland where no fishing occurred, you would still have the cod.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Robert Sopuck
Thank you very much.
I'm going to make a quick editorial comment here.
Dr. Laffoley talked about the value of large female fish. There's been a major evolution in recreational fishing regulations whereby you're mandated to release the large fish now. Back in the bad old days, you had to release the small fish and keep the big fish, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. The cultural shift in recreational fishing has been nothing short of phenomenal. People take great pride in releasing these big fish. It's very rare now to see a big fish killed by a responsible recreational fisherman.
Anyway, we'll now go to Mr. Morrissey, for seven minutes.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question, I believe, is for Dr. Laffoley.
Could you elaborate a bit on the international targets? You said that Canada was a signatory to those targets in 2010.
Who made the comment?
Marine Vice-Chair, World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature
Yes, I made that comment. I'm just finding my reference to that.
This is the Convention on Biological Diversity that countries signed up to. There was a meeting in Aichi, Japan in 2010 to review and renew the targets. That's why they're called the Aichi targets. There are 22 targets, and target 11 is the one that involves marine protected areas.
Marine Vice-Chair, World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature
Yes, as far as I know.
I'm not too familiar with all the details of all of the discussions in Canada, but that is behind the commitment to drive forward to meet the 10% target by 2020.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.
You made reference to target 6 being not so well reported on. Could you elaborate a bit more on what your concern was there under target 6?
Marine Vice-Chair, World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature
Yes, certainly.
The Convention on Biological Diversity undertakes regular reviews to see progress on the targets in order to let countries know how well things are going. They are aware of whether particular targets are being well reported or poorly reported.
Certainly, target 6, which is about sustainable harvesting—that fisheries should “have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems” and that “the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits”—is a target they acknowledge is not being as well reported as it could be.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
I want to follow up on that point with Dr. Pauly.
Your graphs, to me, an MP from the east coast representing a fisheries area, were fascinatingly enlightening and put into context some of the challenges facing the fishery economy. I have two questions.
A concern has been raised a number of times at this committee that the documentation from DFO, the people responsible for monitoring catches, and the actual catches that are reported by buyers and various other parties do not match. Your graph would substantiate that part. How do we address that?
Principal Investigator, Sea Around Us, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
All countries, including Canada, adhere to what is known as ecosystem-based fishing or ecosystem-based fisheries management, but that pays only lip service, because in reality we still have species-by-species management. Imagine we ban cod fishing, but actually we continue to catch cod as codlings as bycatch of the shrimp fishery. DFO does not report this catch because it is discarded. I'm bemused every time I hear, “We ceased to fish cod in 1992 because there was a moratorium.” Actually, we continued to fish cod in the shrimp fishery, but if it is not a targeted fishery, the target being shrimp, the cod that are caught are not reported as being caught. This is totally absurd, but that's the way many, many fisheries management organizations work, especially in the North Atlantic. That has to be reformed, because a fish doesn't care how it is killed, whether it is killed by a targeted fishery or as bycatch. But it is built deep into the bowels of DFO that it reports only on targeted fisheries.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
That's a very good point.
I have a final question to both presenters, and I would appreciate your opinion. There's a clash between commercial fishing, with the economies of commercial fisheries, and the protection of fish habitat. We hear presenters from the fishing community and the communities they represent. Could you both comment on that briefly? Do you see that within marine protected areas the two can operate and achieve the same objective, that commercial fishers can earn a livelihood and support the communities they're from, as well as protecting the long-term sustainability of the fisheries in those areas? Or is it simply no?
Principal Investigator, Sea Around Us, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
If I may, the fisheries should never be seen as one thing. Aquaculture is not one thing; it is carnivores and other aquaculture. It's the same thing in Newfoundland and Labrador: you have small fishers who cannot go very far, and those detected the loss of cod. As well, you have trawlers, big trawlers, of the type I was in when I was a student, and they can go where the fish are, anywhere. Those don't notice the stock dwindling because they always stay at the centre of the concentration. Canada is in the process, our country is in the process, of reopening a fishery to big trawlers. The historic fishery for cod was 100,000 to 200,000 tonnes by small-scale fishers who operated down to a depth of 100 metres. Now, if the fishery is reopened to big trawlers, again the stock will be available—all of it will be available—and fished out. We must concentrate on the small fishery, which is compatible with conservation.
Conservative
Marine Vice-Chair, World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature
I agree with that. For me it is about looking at that intersection between commercial interests and conservation interests, and realizing that protected areas can be an essential part of that process.
I would add that I think we may make some interesting strides in this direction in the coming years. The target I mentioned, target 11, talks about marine protected areas and other effective area-based measures. We are working with the Convention on Biological Diversity, and actually with Fisheries in Canada as well, to look at what that overlap looks like. There are things out there, area-based measures, that, if they fulfill the criteria under target 11 of in situ conservation, should be better recognized as valuable contributions. At the same time, that may provide us with greater clarity on how to inject greater benefits into the fisheries side.
There are important developments coming.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Robert Sopuck
Great. Thank you very much.
We'll let Mr. Arnold finish off, for four minutes.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think I'll pose this question to both of you to answer individually, if you could.
I'd like to get your opinion on whether operations other than fish stock exploitation—fishing and so on—such as whale watching, shipping, natural resource extraction, and tidal energy, can be continued within MPAs if they're deemed to have a negligible effect on the desired biodiversity protection goals of those MPAs. Are those types of operations still possible within an MPA?
Principal Investigator, Sea Around Us, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I'll go ahead and say yes.
Marine Vice-Chair, World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature
Would you like me to go?
Marine Vice-Chair, World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature
It depends on the objective of the marine protected area in question. As Dr. Pauly mentioned, countries will put aside areas for strict protection, for the continued survival of biodiversity, where there are only activities like tourist visits. Sometimes tourist visits are compatible.
You have situations where there is perhaps some compatibility, but then in multiple-use marine protected areas, we accept sustainable activities that can have some impact. There is a continuum in that process. It doesn't mean that if you are stopping fisheries you should stop other things. It depends on your objective for the marine protected area.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
That's very clear. I think MPAs can have different objectives, so other operations could still be allowed within those MPAs.
Principal Investigator, Sea Around Us, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Yes.
Marine Vice-Chair, World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature
It's the continuum I described in the official guidance we have.
Conservative