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.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
Yes, I mean—
9:35 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
Well, the two examples I gave were examples because, as a representative of my sector, I was heavily involved in the process leading to the consensus in both cases.
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
Yes, consultation has occurred. The thing is that we are moving forward. It appears that I gave the example of the provincial map process, where the appropriate kind of consultation did not occur with all the stakeholder groups. We're sensitive to that and believe that the federal government will do better than that.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Doherty. We appreciate that.
Ms. Jordan, you have five minutes, please.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to start with Mr. Kristianson. Would it be fair to say that the consultation process is good but there is room for improvement?
9:40 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
Yes.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you.
We heard testimony from the Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association earlier this month and Mr. Morlock—who was representing them, and I'm sure you are probably familiar with them—said we have some of the healthiest fish populations in the country. Yet, time and time again at this committee we have heard from various organizations that it actually is not the case, that we have a declining fish population in many areas and a number of fish populations that are in jeopardy.
I wonder if you would like to comment on that. Do you feel that was a fair statement, or do you think we need to do more in terms of conservation? I would like your opinion on that.
9:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
I think it's a general statement. When you have such a large and diverse country and a tremendous number of species available for sportfishing and commercial fishing and otherwise, it's quite a sweeping and broad statement. Certainly, on the B.C. coast, which I am most familiar with, there are great successes, there are some stable fisheries, and there are some that are of concern, for sure.
I think that, in general, they're being observed and there are steps taken in most cases to address those concerns.
In answer to your question, I think that's a fair statement as a general or sweeping one, but because of the scope and size of our country, there are variations within that theme.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
With regard to the rockfish conservation areas, what would have to change in the definition of a rockfish conservation area to make it a marine protected area? You said there's a missing element. What is that missing element?
9:40 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
I can only in this case quote what we were told at the last meeting of the main board of the SFAB, that as long as harvesting by first nations is accepted in those areas, then those areas cannot be defined as marine protected areas. It's a tricky one, because there are some kinds of fishing that take place in RCAs. For example, traps that land on the bottom don't bother rockfish. The commercial prawn fishery was able to show that it doesn't catch any rockfish in its prawn traps, and so it can actually fish in those areas, as can a recreational harvester, but you can't go in there with a hook and line and fish, because you can't fish for salmon in a rockfish conservation area and not catch rockfish. I have great hope for the RCA one. I'm reasonably confident that appropriate consultation with first nations will lead first nations to agree to help ensure that those areas have long-term protection. It's in their interests to do so, and I think that can happen.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you.
We're talking about 5% by the end of this year on all three coasts, and yet you seem to feel that maybe your coast—I won't say it's being targeted, because I don't like that word—has a lot more to offer in terms of marine protected areas. Do you think there shouldn't be any more focus, then, on the B.C. coast? When we look at MPAs, to me the question is what do we need to protect? Obviously there is a lot on the B.C. coast that needs to be protected. The concern I have is how we determine where we go next, if you feel that you—I won't say have done your part—maybe are being unduly looked at.
9:40 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
Do I think we've protected enough important ecological and other zones in Canada? No. Do I think that British Columbia has somehow reached its number and should be exempted from any further activity? Absolutely not. But what I want is a rational, science-based discussion about how best to do these things. Next week, I will attend a meeting on the bird sanctuary area off Scott Islands. The week after that, I have to go to a meeting about the new wrinkle, which is the EBSAs, the large marine offshore areas. I don't know that I see any problem with telling people they can't do something on the bottom of the ocean in an area I can't possibly get to. I accept that protecting those areas is a good thing to do. I would not want you to go away thinking that somehow I'm opposed to marine protected areas. What I want is a sensible way of getting there, which, if you do it properly, means everybody accepts it as the right thing to do.
Let me tell you, creating rockfish conservation areas was not easy. It took a lot of hard work by our sector, the commercial sector, and others, but we've achieved something, and we'd like that recognition, by having it included in the the areas that have been defined as protected.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Kristianson. I appreciate it.
Mr. Arnold, go ahead for five minutes, please.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank my friends from B.C. for being here to add their input. It's an important study. I also want to recognize Mr. Kristianson for the SFAB process. I actually took part in that process in my former role, and it was a circular process where input was provided to the committee members by DFO, and the committee members provided input back to DFO on a regular basis. It's a process that works well.
I'd like to go back to one of your comments just a few moments ago, Mr. Kristianson. You said that harvest by first nations precludes an area from being considered an MPA, and yet we're hearing, with regard to the areas of interest in the north, that one of the reasons they want to create the MPAs is to maintain the local first nations harvest up there. Is there a difference between the west coast definitions and the north coast definitions?
9:45 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
No, I think the same issue is at play. Under the Fisheries Act, I think I'm right in saying, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the right to close fisheries to everybody for conservation reasons. The wrinkle that appeared in the case of RCAs is that you protect an RCA because it's an area of high abundance. Clearly, to define that as an area where first nations cannot harvest is tricky to do, because you're running up against their constitutional right. That said, I think one needs to make a clear distinction between protecting an area, whether it's done by treaty or otherwise, in order to protect first nations' rights and creating marine protected areas, which are designed for a different purpose, and which, therefore, ideally should have rules that apply generally.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
This can go perhaps to both of you.
Should Canada be looking at defining its MPAs under the IUCN definition or more under Canada's or the FAO's definitions, so that those MPAs suit Canada's possibly unique roles and responsibilities?
9:45 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
I've had to grapple with this issue, particularly when sitting on a committee dealing with Haida Gwaii and the creation of areas around Haida Gwaii. I have to tell you that some of the problems we faced were in trying to apply the IUCN designations. They did not, to me, seem appropriate to our circumstances.
In that context I'm a bit in favour of a made-in-Canada definition whereby we all agree that this is what we're trying to do and this is the way it applies in this area.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
I've seen the impact of closures in wildlife management in B.C., concentrating pressures on the areas that remain open.
Do you see this as a risk from the creation of some of these MPAs, that we shift the pressure from one area, concentrate it even more in remaining areas, causing the need for even greater restrictions and regulation and monitoring and enforcement? Is that a challenge?
9:45 a.m.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
I would agree with you that it's a challenge.
9:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
Yes, that's a good characterization: it's a challenge.
