Evidence of meeting #67 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Rodolphe Devillers  Professor, Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, As an Individual
Chris Sporer  Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia
Trevor Ward  Adjunct Professor, University of Technology Sydney, As an Individual
Tony Matson  Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Jeffery Hutchinson  Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Catherine Blewett  Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Philippe Morel  Acting Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

9:30 a.m.

Prof. Rodolphe Devillers

Yes.

9:30 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

You mentioned that low levels of marine protection will not be effective. I'm wondering if you could briefly explain that.

9:30 a.m.

Prof. Rodolphe Devillers

I said that the low level of protection would not provide the expected benefits. I'm not saying that it will do nothing; protecting something at some level will provide benefits.

One of my colleagues compared MPAs to bank investments. It depends on the interest rate you get. The more risk you take, the more benefit you get. It's a bit of the same thing with MPAs. If you protect an area and you don't go there, you don't fish there, and you don't do anything, this area has more ability to develop and grow than an area that would be extracted and damaged—for instance, where you get the bottom-contact gear that will destroy the habitat.

Again, that's something that has been well studied over the last 10 to 15 years.

9:30 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

You mentioned the role of science, and not just having it at the beginning of an MPA process but throughout the process. Can you elaborate a little on that?

9:30 a.m.

Prof. Rodolphe Devillers

I've been involved in the DFO process for about 10 years now, and I've looked with a lot of interest at the role of the different branches in science and oceans and all that. One way to summarize it is that science is only consulted when somebody else needs advice, but they're not necessarily encouraged to provide advice spontaneously. In the MPA process specifically, science is very important for originally designating the area, but the rest of the process is carried out by the oceans branch. They don't necessarily request advice from science on the modifications made to the initial recommendation. For instance, if science says we need something big with no take, and then we get something small with partial take, they don't ask if it still works. That's a concern we have, because we think that the outcome sometimes is not scientifically sound.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Sporer, you showed us fisheries closures on one of your maps. Could you explain to the committee why those areas were closed?

9:35 a.m.

Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia

Chris Sporer

I think it was on the second map that I talked about the fisheries closures that were in place in 2012 to 2016. The purple areas are what are referred to as “rockfish conservation areas”. I believe you've had several witnesses refer to them.

Between 1999 and 2007 they were implemented, or phased in over time, to protect inshore rockfish and inshore rockfish habitat. As you heard from one of the witnesses, one of the big problems, especially in some areas, is that they're not being enforced. There's no enforcement, so that reduces their effectiveness.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Could you just elaborate a little more? They would protect them from what?

9:35 a.m.

Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia

Chris Sporer

As part of a comprehensive program, a rockfish conservation strategy includes reducing TACs and increasing monitoring in the commercial fishery to try to reduce fishing mortalities with inshore rockfish species.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Okay, thank you.

Dr. Devillers, you mentioned MPAs and an MPA network. Could you elaborate a little more?

I think you talked about low-quality MPAs versus having a network of more effective MPAs, or having MPAs that would be more effective if they are in a network. Could you explain a little more about the benefits of a network versus just isolated MPAs?

9:35 a.m.

Prof. Rodolphe Devillers

Yes. Isolated MPAs typically tend to protect one specific feature or set of species. There are many ideas for doing a network. One of them is having complementarity, which means that we protect a bit of everything. One MPA may protect rockfish, but another one may protect corals and so on, so through the network we protect a bit of everything.

Another idea is that the network can bring benefits from one MPA to another. A lot of scientists are looking now at larval dispersion. To reproduce, fish create larvae. Those larvae go through the currents somewhere, settle, and then grow. It's an effort to look at how those species are arranged, and to assess whether one specific part of the network can actually benefit other parts of the network. That's something that has been studied in Australia a fair bit.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Again, if you have any studies or evidence on the benefits of a network, could you provide the committee with that, as well?

9:35 a.m.

Prof. Rodolphe Devillers

I would be delighted to provide you with enough reading for a few weeks.

9:35 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Thank you very much.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Now, we're going to go to Mr. Morrissey, and given the time, this will be our last question, because we have to move into another meeting.

Mr. Morrissey, I'm afraid you have about five minutes.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

Thank you, Chair.

My question is to Dr. Devillers.

At the United Nations Ocean Conference last week, Minister LeBlanc stated that there must be a balance between environmental and commercial requirements and pressures when dealing with MPAs.

I would like you to expand a bit on your comment that they must be designed properly. We heard evidence earlier before this committee that a series of small, specifically targeted MPAs would probably achieve more than simply doing large geographical areas within the ocean, and in developing MPAs designed to be small, you may have less impact on the community aspect.

Could you broaden a bit on your definition of how they should be designed properly?

9:40 a.m.

Prof. Rodolphe Devillers

Yes. In terms of the social-economic balance, just to put things in perspective, about 99.9% of Canadian waters are open to industry. There is a very unbalanced balance at the moment.

Small versus large is a long-standing debate in conservation science, and it basically depends on what you protect. If you protect something that does not move, such as coral on the seabed, the enclosure can be very small because the impact would be very localized. If you protect species that move a lot, over hundreds of kilometres, it's a completely different matter. Understanding the species you want to protect will guide you towards the size that is appropriate to protect it.

There is no general, blanket recommendation I can give saying that it has to be large or it has to be small. It depends on the species you want to protect and the context.

9:40 a.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

I know that Mr. Sporer wants to make a comment.

Please be brief, because I have two quick questions for Dr. Devillers.

9:40 a.m.

Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia

Chris Sporer

I was just going to comment that we do not use 99.9% of the ocean. Fishing only takes place in certain areas of the coast.

9:40 a.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

I'm glad you made that clarification, because it does sound like we're putting limited pressure when he says that 99.9% is available to commercial, but commercial does not take place in all of that area, a very good point.

Dr. Devillers, you used the phrase “low levels of protection” in terms of existing MPAs.

9:40 a.m.

Prof. Rodolphe Devillers

Low, yes.

9:40 a.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

That's a concern that was brought by numerous witnesses before this committee. Designating MPAs is one thing, but having adequate protection is another.

I liked your comments on the fact that while science may be used in establishing, we do not have a good history of government returning to science through DFO for advice on the continued specifications in the MPA. Could you expand a bit on your concern about the low level of protection.

9:40 a.m.

Prof. Rodolphe Devillers

Just as a little follow-up quickly, on the 99.9%, I didn't say “fisheries”. I said “commercial use”, and that can be seabed mining, that can be oil and gas exploration, that can be anything.

A low level of protection relates a bit to what I was saying earlier. The level of protection right now is a bit too specific for some species and some threats. What science told us is that things are interconnected. I wanted, actually, to bring something showing the food web, which species eats which species, with the example of cod and capelin in Newfoundland. It's extremely complex. If you're trying to protect only one piece of this puzzle, you may not actually capture the complexity of the system.

High levels of protection have been shown scientifically to work better. That's one of the basic statements in science. It does work. It does not mean that in every case you need a high level of protection. I'm not saying we have to enclose everything in no-take areas. I'm just saying that currently Canada is not doing well compared with most countries, and it's also not doing well compared with scientific advice, scientific advice being about 30% as no take.

9:40 a.m.

Liberal

Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE

I have one question, though, and again I would like for you to expand on a comment you made that the quality of MPAs tend to be lower. Are you referring to Canadian MPAs?

9:40 a.m.

Prof. Rodolphe Devillers

I could refer to many countries, but yes, that was in my statement referring to Canadian MPAs.