Fisheries Committee on Sept. 28th, 2017

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

Ms. Street, as you know, my riding of Avalon takes in quite a large fishing community—

[Dwan Street]

Yes, it does.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

—in just about all regions, not just in urban but in rural regions more specifically. Can specific fisheries coexist with the creation of MPAs? Do you see the creation of an MPA being a complete closure to all types of fisheries, or are there certain fisheries that can exist, using the proper gear or the proper techniques to harvest it?

[Dwan Street]

Absolutely. That's something we've advocated for, especially during the ongoing consultation process to reach the current 5% target. We have tried to come up with ways. When we look at low-impact fishing gear such as hook-and-line and hook-and-line trawl-type gear, we think it will all depend on what the goal of that MPA is. When we come to areas where corals and sponges, for example, are the species that are focused on for protection, obviously certain bottom-contact gear is not going to be permitted in those areas. But if you have gear that is mid-water, if you have hook-and-line, there's no risk to those corals and sponges. Fish harvesters also have no interest in destroying gear and running into those issues either.

In the planning process, there is a bit of common sense there so that we can sit down at the table and come to an agreement. In areas like the Hawke Channel, that's a long-standing closure where certain gear types have been restricted. It's been successful. That was a voluntary closure by harvesters, because the protections there and the goals are obvious and they benefit our members and their livelihoods. Fish harvesters have no interest in putting stocks at risk. We want to make sure we protect them and that going forward those stocks are going to be healthy and vibrant, but we do need those flexibilities to say that maybe we don't need to close these areas fully and permanently. We need to sit down and figure out what's going to be the most beneficial for what we're trying to protect.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Ms. Street again, on the economic side of it, I know you mentioned that the FFAW represents some 15,000 people in the fishery, fishers, plant workers and others associated with it. What is the economic impact of that employment, especially on rural Newfoundland? That's where most of it is taking place. It's in the smaller communities, the smaller harbours. What does it do to a community to know that they have an existing fishery that will continue on for years?

[Dwan Street]

The fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador contributed approximately $1.4 billion to our province last year, and the impact of that is obvious. We've had a lot of discussion over the past few years about the economic situation in Newfoundland and Labrador. The viability of our coastal communities is a key component of that. As much as we hear people asking whether it is viable to keep supporting coastal communities, without the coastal communities Gander doesn't exist; St. John's doesn't exist. The resources in our oceans are what those coastal communities depend on. Nobody can look at $1.4 billion and say that it's irrelevant to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That value keeps increasing every year. When we look at the species we harvest sustainably, which provide a good quality product to market, that value, as you always hear said, you can't pick up. It's a big contributor to Newfoundland and Labrador.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Ms. Street. Thank you, Mr. McDonald.

Mr. Doherty, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you to our guests for being here.

With industry we have a broad spectrum of response and thoughts on the study of the MPA. The one thing we can all agree on is that it is important that we get the process right and we get this right as we move forward. I think that regardless of who we are and what side of this table we sit on, we want to make sure we're getting that process correct. But as we sit here today, the government is pushing through a bill called Bill C-55, which would speed up the MPA process. It would also give authority to the ministers of the Department of Natural Resources and indeed Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

My first question is to Mr. Barnes.

You applauded the government regarding their consultation with you, which is interesting because we've had a number of witnesses, and indeed some today, who are saying that they haven't really been truly consulted. I appreciate your testimony on that. Are you familiar with the provision in Bill C-55 that allows the ministers of the Department of Natural Resources and Indigenous and Northern Affairs to revoke a licence of an oil and gas company, and can you explain to us how that will impact your membership?

[Paul Barnes]

I am familiar with that provision. It will have an impact of course if there is an oil and gas company that has a licence in a proposed MPA area and that licence is revoked. The legislation though also contemplates that licence-holders will be compensated if indeed their licence is taken away. That's certainly positive to us.

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

Does having that in there cause concern? Is it something for which you would rather have other provisions or amendments?

[Paul Barnes]

It's good and bad. It's good in a sense that it's in there that if the government wants to take away a licence, the licence owner is compensated. It's bad in the sense that it does send a bit of a negative signal to international investors, because the oil and gas companies come to Canada largely when they're offshore oil and gas companies, they're international players. Although we do have some national companies like Suncor here, largely they're multinational companies. They know Canada is a good place to invest. They acquire offshore licences in good faith knowing that they should be able to undertake all the activity they wish on those licences, and hopefully produce oil and gas. The notion that they could be taken away at any point in time does send a bit of a negative signal from an investment point of view.

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

Mr. Edwards, I appreciate your testimony. Are you familiar with Bill C-55, and if so, do you agree with the notion that the MPA process should be sped up?

[Dan Edwards]

The Oceans Act was put into legislation in 1996, and one of its fundamental focus points was integrated management and the development of protected areas. So from the perspective of whether they've met their target since 1996 or even focused generally as a Canadian government on the need for more protection, the attitude has been that they've been too slow overall for that period of time and very slow to act. I can understand why there's a need politically to try to meet international targets that Canada has, and that—

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

But is it your testimony today that we should perhaps not be forced to hit international targets? Canada has the longest and largest coastline in the world, and I believe you used the Great Barrier Reef as an example of a poorly done MPA. Again, Canada's geography and coastline are very diverse.

[Dan Edwards]

I've been studying MPAs and why they're being pushed so hard internationally and in Canada as well for the last nine years and I've been very diligent about trying to understand. My opinion on it is that for the most part—and I've said this in my brief—it's been oversold as a conservation objective process. It doesn't often do what people say it's supposed to do. That being said, the train left a long time ago on this, and I know that I'm not going to influence that 5% and 10%; that's going to happen. The best that I could do, as someone who has worked on the ocean for the last 50 years and who represents coastal communities and small-boat fleets, is to try to have as much impact as possible on where they go and how they're done, and if there are going to be negative social and economic impacts, that they be recognized and dealt with. I don't believe that they do.... It's taken a while but there's a lot of evidence coming out now coming out—and Dr. Sean Cox talked about it quite a bit—that in fact there could be negative consequences to biodiversity depending on how these things are put in place.

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

Agreed.

I have to apologize, but I would ask our witnesses to please keep their answers short and concise. I have only one minute left.

To our witnesses, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Street, and Mr. Russell, would you say that your groups and membership have been properly consulted along this process?

Mr. Edwards.

[Dan Edwards]

I've stated that there needs to be a better and more diligent process and it needs to be done.

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

Okay.

Ms. Street.

[Dwan Street]

I think we focus far too much on timelines and boxing ourselves in on timelines. We have been frustrated with the consultation process to date. I think the most important thing is that we focus on getting it right, consulting properly, and making sure that consultation is thorough and that impacts are understood, rather than on timelines.

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

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] our organization has been consulted by DFO, but as I stated, I think they're not having a collaborative approach with the other planning process that's going on with the province and other first nations groups, MaPP primarily.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Doherty.

Mr. Donnelly, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for their very interesting testimony.

Both Mr. Edwards and Ms. Street, you talked about changing boundaries to reflect ocean conditions. I thought that was a pretty interesting concept, and probably it would be an even bigger challenge for the government to try to implement a changing boundary MPA. Could either of you elaborate a little bit more about how you think the government could have floating boundaries?

[Dwan Street]

I think it's important that we put into the process room for re-evaluation to reflect realities. I'll just use our current transition as an example. Right now we are in an environment where water salinity and temperatures are changing. That's bringing its own challenges. We went through the same things 25 years ago, when saw the collapse of the groundfish and the northern cod but we saw opportunities with shellfish. Obviously measures were put in place at those times to protect certain species.

As the environment changes, we have to go back to re-evaluate whether those areas are actually achieving what we want them to achieve. Species move. It's just the nature of fish. They're not going to be sedentary.

As we're now going back and looking at traditional areas where, say, northern cod, for instance, aggregated in pre-spawning aggregations, there's an opportunity there. Down the road 25 years, are those areas still going to be the ones where protection is needed? Has the aggregation moved? There needs to be some flexibility to go back and re-evaluate that and to take into account the scientific evidence and the experience and knowledge of fish harvesters. They're seeing it on the water.

Sometimes we find ourselves in situations where we're still having a lot of the same arguments and frustrations we had 25 years ago, when harvesters were telling us what was happening and what they were seeing, and they were just not being heard.

I think we really need to make room, and make sure we have an adaptive process so that we can go back and re-evaluate those decisions, and see if there are better ways that we can, say, adjust boundaries or look at the areas themselves to see if there's a better way we can do things.