Fisheries Committee on May 2nd, 2017

[Prof. Sean Cox]

There are more than 87 MPAs worldwide. These were 87 MPAs that were studied in the same ways using the same methodologies, and so on. There were measures of biomass, the number of species, species diversity, and different things like that. Some of these things you expect. If you close an area, then you're going to have an accumulation in that area. If you don't have removals, there will be an accumulation. If you see increases in certain large sharks within a 10-year period, it's not likely those were due to local production of sharks. It's because sharks moved in there and they haven't moved out yet, depending on the size of the MPA.

The particular study looked at having one criteria, two criteria, three criteria. It wasn't until you had all five criteria in place did you actually see a large effect in these metrics in biomass and standing stock, and so on.

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

Can marine conservation be done without upsetting the balance between local economies that depend on fishing aquaculture and the environment?

[Prof. Sean Cox]

I think so. One of the things we're trying to create research to support on the west coast is using things like technology to help the fishing industry avoid places that really do need protection—corals and sponges in particular.

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

Real quickly, would you say that the government's target of 20% is reckless and unobtainable?

[Prof. Sean Cox]

Is it reckless? I don't know.

A colleague of mine has tried to track down where the 20% came from. Maybe Stephen knows better, but it's not based on any theoretical measure. It's a fairly arbitrary number. I don't really know. I think if it were possible to map where corals and sponges are, for instance, or other sedentary species that we don't know about yet, it's possible that our fisheries could avoid them and 20% might be fine. As long as they were adequately mapped, the industry could avoid as much as possible targeting those areas, a few of which we have around.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Thank you very much. Time is up.

Mr. Donnelly, go ahead for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for providing their testimony today. We've heard a number of witnesses over the weeks on this. I know we're going to hear more, and we're going to go on a field trip to a couple of areas and get more information from others who live in areas that are impacted or potentially impacted by MPAs.

I have lots of questions as well. I'll start with Dr. Woodley. You talked about the benefits of MPAs, and you said they do work. I asked your colleague Dr. Laffoley, when he presented earlier this year, to submit to the committee any evidence, reports, and/or studies that demonstrate that they are effective at conserving nature. I'm wondering if you can do the same. You made reference to submitting a report or some evidence. That's what I think the committee would appreciate.

[Dr. Stephen Woodley]

Yes. I will submit what I consider to be the key papers on this.

The interesting thing is that when you start extracting a lot of fish biomass out of an ecosystem, you change the ecosystem rather fundamentally because you change the trophic structure of the ecosystem. You often take the large predators out of the system first. We all know from land examples that when you take large predators out of the system, the system is different. Having an area unfished as a reference benchmark system is kind of fundamental.

Our recent study in Nature showed that we get strong benefits, even in lightly fished areas—though not as large as in an unfished area but significant—and we saw that throughout.

That would disagree with Edgar et al., who said that you have to have all five—and I don't think Edgar said that you have to have all five. You get better results when you have all five of those factors, but simply reducing the pressure on an area gives you significant benefits. There is no question about that.

The benefits aren't merely that you're catching fewer fish. The benefits are broader in the ecological sense.

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

You also talked about the need to put them in the right places. Could you elaborate a little more on what that means? What is the right place? You were alluding to the trophic levels. Could you talk a bit more about that?

[Dr. Stephen Woodley]

Biodiversity is not distributed evenly on the planet. It's distributed very unevenly. We've heard about sponge reefs and coral accumulations. They're distributed. They are obviously important to protect, and on that I think we're in absolute agreement.

There has been a tendency to establish marine protected areas in places where there is no conflict. Generally, in places where there is no conflict there are no fish and no marine productivity, so you're not going to make much difference. Why bother?

If you're going to use marine protected areas as a tool—and I agree that it's only one tool in the tool box—then they should be put in places where they make a difference, so that your investment counts toward the broader health of the oceans.

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

Mr. Morlock, I'll shift to you for a second. In your testimony, you talked about the Gulf of Mexico and the 300 MPAs there.

[Phil Morlock]

That's right.

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

I'm not sure whether you said that they all allow fishing, but I think you referenced that they allow fishing. I'm wondering if you could talk about whether they have seen recovery. Have they seen fish or marine species recovery in those areas?

[Phil Morlock]

Yes, I believe they have. The point is recreational fishing as opposed to commercial fishing, and the State of Texas deals with that differently. Because Texas was a country before it was a state, the limit is nine miles out into the gulf for the state of Texas, as opposed to three miles for most of the coastal region of California, for example. They have a little more real estate to look at. I was referring to Texas coastal waters in that example.

They are there for a specific reason, because the science shows that they are required for a specific habitat reason—protection area, reefs, and so on—and there is also a sunset clause on them. They are required to review them periodically to see whether the desired goal has been achieved. If it has, then in many cases they are removed. They are not necessarily put in place permanently. Some are and there is justification for doing that. We certainly support that, but not in all cases.

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

You started by saying that you believe there was recovery. Is there evidence of that? Can you also submit to us the committee reports and studies that show evidence of recovery. I think you mentioned that was critically important, that the science needs to show that.

[Phil Morlock]

Yes. The Harte institute for Gulf of Mexico studies is at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi. Larry McKinney and Greg Stunz look after their oceans policy program. I will ask them if they can, because they would be the experts on that. They can certainly speak to it better than I can.

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

Great. Thank you.

The committee has heard from DFO officials in the past about the definition of MPAs, and they talked about sustainable use. Ms. Nowlan, do you concur that MPAs are set up for sustainable use, or is there a different definition?

[Linda Nowlan]

The Oceans Act is pretty clear. That's what your study is about: the Oceans Act MPAs. Section 35 gives five reasons for establishing a marine protected area for “special protection”. That's special protection of habitat or species, or for any other reason the minister designates. It's not sustainable use. It's for special protection.

As I've said, so far under that act, it's less than 1% of Canada's oceans. For 99% of the oceans it's business as usual.

The 10% target by 2020 may seem arbitrary, but targets are often used in conventions and laws, and this one is in law.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Jordan, you have seven minutes.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for appearing today. It's been very interesting testimony.

Mr. Morlock, I'd like to start with you, please. You made a statement at the very beginning of your testimony that fish stocks in Canada were actually healthy. We, as a committee, have heard that's actually not the case. We've heard from the environmental auditor that there are196 aquatic species at risk, and that's a non-complete list. We've also done studies on the state of the Atlantic salmon and on the cod fishery off Newfoundland. I'd like to know where the evidence is to back up your statement that species in Canada are not at risk.

[Phil Morlock]

It's the health of our industry. We'd be going out of business if those statements were actually true. People don't go fishing if they don't catch fish.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Do you have the scientific data to back that up? You want us to make our decisions based on science, but I would really like to see where that is. If you have that, would you be willing to submit it to the committee, please?

[Phil Morlock]

No. That would be the responsibility of DFO.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

The statement, then, other than the fact that people are going fishing, doesn't have scientific backup. You don't have a scientific basis for saying that fish stocks in Canada are healthy.