Evidence of meeting #58 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 mpas.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Right.
Ms. Nowlan, you mentioned that there should be some general prohibitions on damaging activities. Can you give us examples of what those damaging activities are? This is an on-off switch you're suggesting. They just shouldn't happen. What would they be?
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
Oil and gas exploration.... There is one Oceans Act MPA in Canada that actually allows oil and gas exploration in the Arctic. I think some forms of bottom-contact fisheries should be automatically prohibited, or at least prohibited according to IUCN guidance.
In 75% of the area of an MPA, the IUCN guidance is very clear that the primary purpose of protected areas is biodiversity conservation, not fisheries management. Biodiversity conservation and the 75% rule means that this portion of the protected area should be free from damaging activities. Underwater mining would be another example. Seismic testing would be another example.
Liberal
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
Yes, but seismic testing doesn't disturb the bottom and it's not only fish we're concerned about. Marine mammals concern us and they're highly affected. You can shatter a whale's eardrum with seismic testing, so there are a number of activities that could be restricted.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
We've heard from Mr. Morlock and Mr. Cox that marine protected areas may be a tool, but only one tool in the tool box. Can you both quickly chime in with some of the others that could be equally effective or complementary to marine protected areas?
Chair of Government Affairs Committee, Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association
In commercial fishing it's gear restrictions. There's also season restrictions on the west coast. Salmon commercial fishing is regulated literally by the minute as to when the season opens, when the season closes. Strong law enforcement is certainly necessary, and I think somebody has spoken to that. On the recreational fishing side, it's the length of seasons, closures during spawning times in certain sensitive areas, gear restrictions on the number of rods that someone can use, harvest limits of how many you're allowed to keep. Catch and release has certainly become the North American method of allowing fishing to continue but the fish are put back. Those other methods have been proven very successful in many cases.
Prof. Sean Cox
Generally we need to limit exploitation. A lot of fish stocks have been over-exploited. Some would call it sustainably over-exploited to the point where they're held at a really low level. At least on the west coast of Canada and to some degree on the east coast as well, there are huge gaps in stock assessment. Some of our flatfish on the west coast haven't been formally assessed in over 20 years. That's just basic. That would be my big recommendation.
Conservative
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, through you, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. I thought the testimony was incredible. Mr. Woodley, Mr. Cox, thank you for bringing that very refreshing perspective.
I'm going to direct my questions to Ms. Nowlan and Mr. Morlock today. Ms. Nowlan, has West Coast Environmental Law now or ever received monies or funding from Tides Canada, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, or WWF?
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
Not from WWF, but yes it has from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Tides Canada. I should be clear that I'm testifying here today as a representative of West Coast Environmental Law Association, which is not a charity. It is a non-profit.
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
The other organizations that are associated—
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
I'm just explaining that—
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I appreciate that. You've answered my question. That's perfect.
Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law Association
The research foundation has accepted funds.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Morlock, we hear a lot from many groups about the urgent need for vast networks of MPAs, plus biodiversity from overfishing, the need for adjacent buffer zones to protected areas, declining fish stocks, etc. But we haven't heard much from anyone else about the points you made earlier today, which challenged much of what we've been told with the exception of Mr. Cox and Mr. Woodley.
I'm wondering why that is and why we aren't hearing more about those points that you made earlier about the MPAs and the protection zones.
Chair of Government Affairs Committee, Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association
As an industry we're not a lobby organization per se. It's a series of businesses across the country of all sizes, from large retailers and manufacturers to small mom and pop operations. We don't get hundreds of millions of dollars from industrialists or foundations to put things forward. Historically, we have trusted the natural resource agencies—provincial, state, federal—in both countries to speak to these issues on our behalf and to manage the resource responsibly.
Certainly in the case of the senior bureaucracy at Fisheries and Oceans Canada I think the evidence is pretty unequivocal over the last 20 years that they've become about the only anti-recreational fishing agency on the continent. We don't experience that anywhere else. Now, that's not down in the ranks of the people who do the work in the field, but there's clearly an agenda going on here, and the PNCIMA process is a good example. When things are conducted behind closed doors there's probably a reason that somebody is hiding something.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
That leads me to my next question. That's a great segue into this. You made reference to the California MPA process and how DFO has adopted that into the PNCIMA plan. Can you elaborate on what occurred in California, and why you feel this government has moved so swiftly with PNCIMA?
Chair of Government Affairs Committee, Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association
I don't know if they have moved quickly with PNCIMA or not. It's gone on since 2008 and 2009 when DFO first brought in people from California to talk about this. I'm not sure how fast the process has proceeded, because we haven't been allowed to be part of it. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that, I think.
The California example is pretty clear that in a down economy in that state, in the first year after the MLPA process was concluded and the no-take zones were established in coastal waters, there was a 20% loss in sales to the recreational fishing industry over those in other regions in the state in those coastal areas. I think I mentioned earlier that the boating industry and engines to propel boats and the truck industry to pull boats suffered even more so in that period. Those areas are closed forever. There are also economic impacts from anglers not going fishing anymore.
There were multimedia campaigns by the proponents, and they spent millions of dollars advertising that the sea was dead and that there were no fish in the ocean, which wasn't true. Out of 96 species in coastal California, only seven were in trouble and they were recovering under the federal legislation, the Magnuson-Stevens act, so the MPA really had no impact on that at the time. But it definitely impacted the economy and the people who made a living from it.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I really appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Cox, in your testimony today, if I have it correctly, you said that out of the 87 MPAs worldwide, only four of them would be deemed successful. Can you elaborate on that?
