Evidence of meeting #62 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 interests.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Just to clarify, do you mean federal laws, provincial laws, other laws...?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
Federal laws, primarily.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Okay.
Mr. Kristianson, you mentioned how in the tier 2 process, which I was really interested in, this could be an improvement. You mentioned the pros, but are there any cons? Is there any downside to it? Is it costly? What would the government have an issue with in doing all tier 2 on everything?
9:20 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
I don't think there are any cost issues. The difficulty that I perceive at tier 2 is that to some extent the federal and provincial government officials at the table have a conflict of interest. They need to balance their responsibility to all Canadians with the crown's fiduciary and constitutional responsibility to first nations. In that bargaining forum there are some issues to be resolved. It seems to me that the way to deal with that is the way that Canada deals with that issue in international negotiations.
I was a salmon commissioner for 15 years, and spent 15 years on the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission. In those contexts, as a Canadian representative at the table, I had behind me a row of people who were there representing various Canadian interests. While they couldn't speak at the table, they could certainly tell me afterwards if I was not handling something appropriately.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think tier 2 would work better if the other Canadian interests were in the room. As I said, that idea was developed in British Columbia in the one context at the suggestion of first nations. I wouldn't for a moment presume to say that it's supported by all first nations. They're exercising their new constitutional responsibilities, and I appreciate that. If I were in the same position, I would probably do the same.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
I wanted to follow up on what Mr. McDonald asked about earlier with regard to one or two recommendations. Are there any further additions you would like to make? I think it's clear that definitions are very important, but I want to pick up on the idea of the alternative management techniques, let's say, or anything that you want to comment on.
For instance, yes, it's good for defining MPAs and protecting portions of biodiversity that need protection, but there was a mention of management techniques. What are those that could help in terms of protecting and recovering a fishery?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
I guess what I would offer in terms of a recommendation is that I think it's absolutely essential that the appropriate consultation occurs. That would be the be-all.
9:20 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
Part of the difficulty when you're a volunteer in a process like this is that you keep asking for more consultation, but that of course means that you have to take the time to participate. There are financial issues here. The tradition in Fisheries and Oceans with the sport fishing advisory board is that all the participants are volunteers, but the government covers their expenses to attend meetings. You get travel expenses and so forth.
In that context, frankly, DFO's budget has been starved in recent years. I appeared before this committee on a previous occasion lamenting that fact. Government has to ensure that those resources are there to make sure that at these consultation tables, first nations, who are now I think adequately being considered, and commercial harvesting interests, recreational harvesting interests, and what I would call the “environmental movement” are also there at the table. It shouldn't depend on whether somebody has deeper pockets than somebody else. The government needs that input. When it gets that input, and if it's successful in securing a consensus, it needs to respect that consensus.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the panel for being here with us this morning.
I'd just like to follow up, Mr. Kristianson, a little bit on Mr. Donnelly's question about the tier 2 process.
Just to go back, we all know that first nations have treaty rights through the courts. In my area on the east coast, it's generally the rule of thumb that they're usually the first in and last out. Usually they have the first rights for food, for ceremonial purposes, and that. Would you not say that tier 2, the first approach to get that baseline established, would be the right approach? Could you further elaborate on that?
9:25 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
Absolutely. In the case of the west coast, which I'm more familiar with, first nations' food and social and ceremonial rights are absolute. They have the priority, there's no question about that. It would be silly to challenge that because it's a fact and a reality. It's also a good thing. We assume that DFO needs to consult with first nations to determine what that right means in terms of quantities of fish, etc. My point is that, while that's a negotiation between governments—and I accept that—those decisions and how those rights are to be exercised have implications for others, given that other Canadians have rights as well.
One of my predecessors, the late Bill Otway, would have been happy to come here to give you a lecture on the Magna Carta and the rights of all Canadians, including access to public fish, etc. But we have rights, and these don't have to conflict. We need to have a process that ensures that, as those details are being worked out, other interests are taken into account. The courts are doing that in part, but I think it's better when representatives of different interests are talking to each other in the room to help make those decisions.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
No, I think Gerry's—
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Okay. Maybe I'll give my second question to you, then.
I think you mentioned that we have existing laws to protect the fisheries and all of that already established. I think you said there's really no need to put MPAs in some areas, because we could just enforce the laws that we have there. We've heard testimony that doesn't go far enough.
I've a question from my side of the country where we've had established fishery zones for hundreds of years, and the stocks in most species are doing relatively well. But we've heard that there is a lot more in the whole ecosystem there to protect and to ensure that it will be able to face climate change and everything. It's not just the species of interest.
Would you comment on that?
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
I think what I'm referring to is access to fish and the fisheries. Again, my great concern is that, while I believe that there is support for the idea of MPAs and protected areas, there needs to be a balance between that and the ability to access those areas. I believe it's quite important that you be able to access those areas where it is reasonable to do so. Where there are regulations and there is science to indicate it, you should be able to harvest fish there at a rate that's sustainable.
Your first comment was that I was saying I didn't believe there was any need for any more MPAs. I don't know that I would say that.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
I'm not exactly sure of the wording, but you said something like that.
9:30 a.m.
Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
I don't know that I would say that at all, but it seems like quite a lot of areas of the B.C. coast are already dedicated to MPAs. If we're looking at it in a pan-Canadian way, it seems that there's a considerable amount of the Pacific coast already dedicated to those areas. Then, as I say, if care and attention are given to science, to harvest, and those sorts of things, then I'm not sure why we can't proceed and satisfy all aspects.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
It's because we've also heard that in areas where there is extraction or activity going on, it's only 65% effective. Whether that's true or not, that's what we've heard in some of the testimony. With that number in mind, would you think that this should have an influence on determining whether it's recreational or commercial activity in that zone?
9:30 a.m.
Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
I'll admit I'm not exactly sure what that number refers to. I'm not sure if that's RCAs or the sponge reefs, or what that is and what that 65% relates to.
9:30 a.m.
Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
Again, with migratory species, and even to a lesser degree non-migratory species, it seems as though the impacts of the recreational fishery are such that.... I can say, with regulations and proper management, there should be no reason why that can't be sustainable access. Again, though, I'm not sure what the 65% refers to.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
We had Dr. Natalie Ban here and those were her numbers. Where she got them, I'm not sure, but some of the testimony was there.
Would you care to comment on that, Mr. Kristianson?
9:30 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
I think this is where it's a question of defining what you're protecting. I do know Dr. Ban and I respect her, as a qualified academic, to comment on these kinds of things, but the issue is to define what it is you're protecting.
In the case of glass sponge reefs, you're trying to protect their unique structure and to ensure that future activity around them doesn't detract from that protection. In that case, for example, while I've been espousing the cause of the commercial sector, we were actually saved because it was harmless, in the sense that it was agreed that, given that recreational fishing in that area—there's not a lot, but there's some—never takes place more than 100 feet below the surface, there was no need to ban that fishery from that area.
On the other hand, another kind of curious anomaly, the Bowie Seamount off Haida Gwaii, is already protected. However, in that protection it was agreed that the black cod trap fishery could continue. I assume that the people who made that decision had good reason for it, but fishing for tuna over the Bowie Seamount is banned. Tuna fishing takes place in the top two feet of the water column, so the tuna fishery—and I sat on the tuna advisory board; we can fish tuna out there recreationally—was banned commercially.
Those are the kinds of decisions that would need to be sorted out as you define what protected areas are and what they're intended to do and how they're implemented.
