Fisheries Committee on May 18th, 2017

[Prof. Boris Worm]

It's a very good question. It certainly depends on the objectives of the MPA. I'm aware that lobster fishing, in particular, is currently permitted in many of the MPAs and in protected areas in Canada. It's considered a low-impact method of fishing, but it does have a bycatch problem that's not fully assessed under MSC criteria. That could be incompatible when considering endangered wolffish that are caught as bycatch with MPA criteria.

It's on a case-by-case basis.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

What bycatch does the fishery impact on? I'm not familiar with what bycatch would be impacted. You referenced it.

[Prof. Boris Worm]

You have lobster traps that not only catch lobster. They're essentially fish traps and they're designed to catch lobster. They catch other fish as well, like sculpins and wolffish. Wolffish now have a mandatory release back into the water, alive if possible, because this species is protected under the Species at Risk Act now. A number of fish species that co-occur with lobster also go into the trap, attracted by the same bait that the lobster is attracted to. A lot of these species are then in turn used as bait by fishermen, so they don't survive the bycatch process. It then depends again on the objectives of MPA if that bycatch problem needs to be addressed and how serious a threat it is to the objectives of the MPA.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I want to go to the shipping question again, which was addressed by one of my colleagues.

In some proposed areas that you're looking at—and I'm referencing and staying with the east coast of Canada—there could be an impact on shipping. Do you want to elaborate a bit more on how this was successfully negotiated within the Fundy region? Could that be applied to the gulf region as well?

[Prof. Boris Worm]

It could.

I think the Fundy example is a glowing one. I can send some of the related papers and documentation to the committee. It was very science-based. It was science actually done at Dalhousie University by Professor Chris Taggart and his associates, documenting very carefully the seasonal and spacial distribution of endangered right whales, of which there were only 300 left, which were also protected under the Species at Risk Act. They worked with the shipping industry to help reroute shipping lanes in a way that would avoid the particular habitat for the right whale.

As you possibly know, the right whales are now relocating, possibly due to the impact of the changing climate, to the gulf region. They are much more commonly seen now in the gulf region. There have been ships striking them as well. Shipping in that region would have to be addressed once we know exactly where the new critical habitat for the right whales is in that region. It can be done. As I mentioned earlier, all ships have automatic identification systems by which we can track their movements second by second in real time across the regions.

This is also something that is easily enforceable and it does not require heavy-handed regulation, necessarily. Roseway Basin is another right whale hot spot off the coast of southwestern Nova Scotia. Dr. Taggart actually worked with the International Maritime Organization and the shipping industry on a voluntary basis so that they reroute their ships around their critical habitat, which again came at a minimal cost. They all did. It worked on a voluntary basis. It actually didn't take regulation in this case.

Again, on a case-by-case basis it can be worked out. It requires data and it requires a commitment from all stakeholders.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Can this model that was developed in Fundy be applied anywhere within Canada, from a shipping perspective?

[Prof. Boris Worm]

Absolutely.

It is actually a model now around the world for similar whale-shipping conflicts and how to resolve them. It can be used elsewhere, for sure.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I have one final question to Dr. Côté, if she can hear me.

Given the option of having the gold standard of protection, which is no-take area versus a marine protected area that continues to support a certified sustainable fishery, do you see that the two can coexist?

[Prof. Isabelle Côté]

I don't think you can do any kind of extraction in a no-take area. If you decide to have no-take areas, you cannot justify fishing in there because the fishing is sustainable. You should see the presence of a no-take area as something that will provide additional biomass to harvest within the sustainable fisheries outside of the boundaries of a no-take area. I see the sustainable fishing practices and the no-take areas as two ways to manage the ocean that complement each other.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, folks.

Dr. Roberts, can you hear us?

[Prof. Callum Roberts]

I can hear you. Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Certainly we can, very clearly. In your absence, Mr. Donnelly, one of our colleagues here, wanted to ask you a few questions. We're going to return to Mr. Donnelly for three and a half minutes, to finish off his questioning for you, Dr. Roberts.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Roberts, you might think this is a basic question, based on your testimony, but why do you think we need to protect in excess of 30%? What has it come to that we're at the point now, globally and in many different countries, where we need that level of protection? Do you understand my question?

[Prof. Callum Roberts]

I do, yes.

One thing you have to do is to look at the historical context of fishing. Where people have fished for long periods of time, what tends to happen is that we remove the large-bodied animals. We deplete those populations. We start moving on to less desirable species, and then those species get depleted and we move to others. Progressively, we ramp up fishing technology to become more efficient, which also means it is more invasive and destructive.

One problem we see is the supplanting of, let's say, hook-and-line and net fisheries for species like cod, with bottom trawls. The bottom trawls are then supplanted by bottom trawls for prawns, which have finer-mesh nets. Those also are used alongside scallop dredges of seabed habitat. Progressively, what we see is a reduction in abundance, diversity, habitat complexity, integrity, and viability. We've seen that happen over very large areas of the sea around northern Europe, eastern Canada, and eastern U.S.A, for example. It's a progressive process.

We have to start thinking about how we rebuild populations to levels that are much more productive, where habitats are able to recover, where long-lived species are able to rebuild their populations, and where big fish can survive for long enough that they become highly successful reproductively and are the engines of reproduction within a population. We need to provide space for ecosystems to achieve that level of complexity, integrity, high biomass, and high diversity once again.

If you want the cod back in eastern Canada, you need to get the prawn trawls out of large areas of the fishing grounds there, because they're catching juvenile cod. They're not going to be surviving up to reproductively active ages. We see this in the Irish Sea in the U.K. The cod population was hammered, and then we replaced that fishery with fisheries for prawns and scallops. As long as that fine-mesh netting is going on, there is no prospect of recovery of the biggest species that have been lost as a consequence.

If we want those back, we need spatial management. There need to be areas that are off-limits to mobile fishing gear. There need to be areas that are zoned for prawn trawling, which are going to be exploited in that way. We need scallop-dredging zones, but we need no-take zones too. It's part of the portfolio of management to achieve a broad mix of outcomes for the marine environment.

Apart from anything else, we need to rev up the engine of ocean ecological processes once again, because they underpin the habitability, not only of the sea but of the planet as a whole. The oceans occupy most of the living space on the planet, which means that what goes on in them is profoundly important to all of us. If we let those ocean ecosystems get knocked down to the low abundances and diversity that we're seeing, then we're in trouble over the long term. It's part of improving the resilience of the system and enabling it to recover to levels of higher productivity. That will sustain fisheries and surrounding areas, and that's a good management portfolio.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Dr. Roberts.

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Now we go to Mr. Doherty.

You're sharing your time with Mr. Arnold, I understand.

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

Perhaps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, you are if he's lucky. I'll let you know when you're halfway through your round of questioning for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Thanks to our guests for being here today.

To all of the guests, you've provided some insightful testimony and commentary today.

Mr. Roberts, I'm going to direct some questions towards you. You made a comment about consultation. I think it was your comment that Canada tends to over-consult. I believe that's exactly what you said. Would you say that conservation should take precedence over consultation?

[Prof. Callum Roberts]

I don't think it was me who said that Canada over-consults, but—

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

Perhaps then it was Mr. Worm.

[Prof. Boris Worm]

You can look at my speaking notes, but I said we're having a very thorough and fair process that is lengthy and that has resulted in a low coverage with strongly protected areas. That's exactly what I said.

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

Should conservation take precedence over consultation?

[Prof. Boris Worm]

I believe it should not. I think the process we have in Canada is fair and just. It is long, but I think I made it clear in my remarks that I think it's appropriate for what we're trying to set out in this—

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

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Roberts, do you believe we should speed up our consultation process?