Fisheries Committee on Nov. 9th, 2017

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

But it's used by governments, in the absence of science, to make that decision, correct?

[Robert Lewis-Manning]

Well, that hasn't been my experience in Canada. My experience is that with committed stakeholders, and even some limited science, we can take smaller steps. I don't want to be negative about that. I would say, on some of the powers that are in this bill for the minister, it's the vagueness that concerns me. There are aspects to my sector. I'm sure there are aspects to commercial fishing. I'm sure there are conservationists who would say that unless we understand what we're trying to achieve, we could make some mistakes along the way, and making a mistake when you have a five-year commitment is a big mistake.

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

People are making decisions today on trade, right?

[Robert Lewis-Manning]

Absolutely, and companies are planning their investments based on the predictability of the regulatory environment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Donnelly, for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for again appearing in front of this committee for Bill C-55.

I'll start my questions with Dr. Fuller.

As you know, there's scientific evidence demonstrating that bottom trawling significantly damages sea floor ecosystems, and that no-take fishing zones are key components of effective MPAs. Research shows that “MPAs that permit varying levels of...fishing and other activities, are less effective at biodiversity...than fully protected areas”.

You previously mentioned to the committee that you believe that the core no-take zones of MPAs should encompass 75% of a given MPA. So, Canada is nowhere near reaching that high bar. The minister has the discretion to determine what activities are allowed in an MPA and how restrictive each zone in an MPA can be. So far, Canada's fisheries minister has implemented a no-take zone in only five MPAs to date, and those areas are tiny in comparison to the overall MPA. I'll add that I think Canada should follow international examples and make no-take zones the rule in core areas, or zones of marine protected areas, rather than the exception. Some core protection zones have irregular borders that require adaptive management, and this has the potential to make education and enforcement a challenge. Can you share your views on how mapping out core protection zones and adaptive management zones can increase and decrease the effectiveness of MPAs?

[Susanna Fuller]

Sure.

I will say a lot of my experience in terms of fishing has been to work closely with the fishing industry on closing down areas to all bottom fishing. I actually think some of the Fisheries Act closures that are happening, particularly on Atlantic Canada's east coast are, in some cases, more protective than our marine protected areas because there is no bottom fishing whatsoever. There are no traps, no longlines, no gillnets, no bottom trawls whatsoever, to protect areas for corals, and sponges and sea pens. That work is being done largely in collaboration with the fishing industry, and there are some areas in the eastern Arctic that are just making their way through approvals, which are truly groundbreaking in terms of progress in Canada. And that's being done with the industry, I will reiterate.

I do feel from a scientific perspective absolutely that we need large no-take areas. I also am a realist and I think that when we get to coastal communities we are either going to have incredible anger...and Bernadette will understand, she knows the south shore of Nova Scotia. We're going to cause a lot of anger in coastal communities that we don't need to do by saying it's got to be 75% no-take, because what do you do in Atlantic Canada when lobster fishing is the thing that keeps us going? It is it.

I would say on core protection zones, absolutely, when it's in marine protected areas, understanding the biodiversity we need to protect or the biodiversity processes we need to protect is very important. I also think that we can be a little adaptive.

Recently, there's an amendment on the table for the Gully marine protected area to slightly amend the zone that allows for halibut fishing because they found more deep sea corals and they want to slightly amend it. I think that's important. I think with climate change, we're going to have to have some flexibility.

I also think that as we have a network of marine protected areas, better understanding connectivity will be critical. We need to know why one area is linked to the next area in terms of connectivity of life history processes in spawning grounds.

I'm practical. I think it's very important that Canadians are involved in marine protected areas, that coastal communities and fishermen feel that these are a benefit to them ultimately and they can be fishermen. They've set aside areas for spawning. They've set aside areas that are just voluntary closed areas. This has happened in the past.

How do we make sure that we're not saying, it has to be 75% no-take or it doesn't count? We're just not going to get coastal marine protected areas in Atlantic Canada. That is the reality, or we're going to get them in areas where nothing is happening and hasn't happened for a very long time. I don't think that's acceptable, either, because I think there's a human component to this.

I hope I answered your question.

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

Thank you.

In your testimony you spoke about broader marine spatial planning. You talk about nation-to-nation consultation and then you also mention bottom-up processes, essentially engaging the community in the MPA process.

Do you feel there's adequate departmental funding and resources currently in place to address these areas that you've identified?

[Susanna Fuller]

No, I don't. I think what's happened in the last two years is more than has happened in marine protection in Canada in the last 150. It's happened very quickly. A lot of resources have gone into it, but attention to process.... We really do need to dig down into that as we lead up to 2020, both for indigenous communities and coastal communities and having a real sense of the why of marine protection. Again, I did just come from Labrador and I cannot tell you how important it is to make sure there's marine protection so there's food security for those communities. It is incredibly important.

I see what's happening on the eastern shore of Nova Scotia right now where there is a willingness to really consider how the communities engage in conservation. They've done amazing work on protecting 100 wild islands. The community is fully on board. They're ready and open, and broad stakeholders are open, to getting engaged, but right now, despite our pushing for a real meaningful bottom-up process and a bit of funding for our marine conservation working group, there hasn't been a lot of openness to that from DFO. There hasn't been not openness, but I would say that as we move to the coast and as we move toward a nation-to-nation relationship, we need to have adequate funding for that process and we will be the better for it.

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

Just very quickly, you spoke about specific prohibitions and minimum standards. Can you just elaborate very quickly on the importance of minimum standards?

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes, I can reiterate them, but in alignment with international recommendations, industrial activity should be prohibited from marine protected areas. Again, that's why we have marine spatial planning so we can understand where those industrial activities take place. They don't have to be zoned within an MPA. I think bottom trawling, oil and gas exploration.... Renewables is an increasingly fraught issue in Atlantic Canada with tidal and offshore wind. I think that needs to be addressed. Then there's deep seabed mining. We don't accept mining in our national parks, we shouldn't have mining in our marine protected areas. And open net-pen aquaculture is also something that fishermen are very concerned about.

I would say just say no to those things, and it's very clear. We don't have to have meeting after meeting about what could happen in the MPA. We're very clear that, actually, no, these things aren't going to happen. These are the industrial activities that aren't going to happen. Now let's talk about what does conservation and sustainable use mean to achieve [Inaudible—Editor]] conservation objectives.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Now we go to Mr. Hardie, for seven minutes, please.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

My colleague Mr. Morrissey has a quick question to lead off, because it connects to the conversation that has just happened.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

Dr. Fuller, you are making a very impressive presentation here. I agree with a lot of the points you made.

However, my question is for Mr. Lewis. There is a direct link between commercial shipping and the fishing industry. We saw on the east coast of Canada this summer the unacceptable high level of fatalities of whales. The United States and Europe have already put the industry on notice that if there is no acceptable plan to come up to protect the whales against this, there could be embargoes on the east coast fisheries of lobster and crab. There have to be protected regions.

Could you comment briefly on the fact that if we do not move on commercial shipping in some of these areas, it could have a very negative impact on commercial fishing and the communities it supports? Give a quick answer, please.

[Robert Lewis-Manning]

Thanks. I'll try to be quick with a complex topic. I'll leverage some of the things Dr. Fuller said.

Absolutely, there is a connection, and Oceans Act tools, including marine protected areas, can be a way of managing some of that impact from industrial activity, whether it's shipping or commercial fishing.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That's fine. Thanks.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Dr. Fuller, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Lewis-Manning were discussing process, etc., I detected that you might want to have a word in on what has been going on, and what should be going on, with respect to the consultation process. Is there anything you want to add to that discussion at this point?

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes. I was a bit worried that Mr. Doherty was intimating that only environmental groups get consulted. When I gave my number of 75 to 100 meetings, that's over 10 to 15 years, and it included a marine spatial planning process. For the most part, those meetings are multi-stakeholder meetings: multi-stakeholder advisory committee meetings, multi-stakeholder planning meetings.

I am a very strong advocate for multi-stakeholder and not bilateral meetings. I feel that we can find common ground, and we often do, when given the place for a good process. That has borne a lot of fruit in terms of our work in the eastern Arctic and the Newfoundland Shelf. We are working directly with industry on marine conservation working groups. We have achieved far more, and far more quickly, than could ever have been done through bilateral meetings or not having all the interests at the table.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

This leads to a reflection that somebody passed on to me, that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans probably has more discretion than any other minister in cabinet. He can come in, make decisions, and make things happen, so obviously process becomes very critical. Whom does that minister listen to, and how collaborative is the decision-making process?

Spinning off your earlier comment about the fact that things are always in a state of flux—the players change—I detect that what we may be suffering from is really a lack of institutional knowledge. Every cycle we go through, we are dealing with new people, perhaps even new governments, and we seem to be spending a lot of time re-covering the same sort of fundamental ground and not really moving forward very well.

Do you have any thoughts as to how we could restructure things so that we can build on what we have learned in the past instead of just repeat processes?

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes. We can't underestimate the budget cuts and the staffing cuts made to DFO over the past decade. That significantly altered the ability and the institutional memory of the department.

I think co-governance and co-management are a way forward on that, because then it's not tied to political cycles, and you download more of the decision-making power to a regional and community-based approach. I think that this can work. It's not easy, and it does require capacity at the local level, but it can provide a much more long-term view and stability that is less reactive to discretion, because there is constancy in the process and in the co-management. Yes, people will change over time. Staff changes over time—that always happens everywhere—but I think there are ways of protecting the process, the institutional history, and the trust at the table. Trust is absolutely the most important thing in all of these things. By having that co-management, you are not tied to the political cycle.

Unfortunately, what happens is that if things get changed in budgets, you no longer have the infusion of the federal government's capacity. That is important in terms of science as well. I think we saw that on the west coast, where the province and the first nations got involved in a marine planning process, but the federal government was not involved. Now, they are getting reinvolved. If they had been involved from the beginning, that planning process would have probably happened more quickly.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Lewis-Manning, I can understand the challenge facing the shipping business, like any other large commercial activity, where you're making big capital decisions and all the rest of it. You need some sort of consistency and a really clear look at what the future looks like so you can make reasonable decisions.

You used a couple of words that present the challenge. I want your comments on how you balance nimbleness with practicality. How do you balance the need for consistency with the fact that stuff happens and needs to be reacted to?

[Robert Lewis-Manning]

There's no perfect answer, but I think that a balance of predictability and advance notice and exchange of information provides that. It's not looking for an entire coastline that isn't protected. That's not the intent of my comments. It's the ability to understand where the network is going. Currently, on the west coast of Canada, there's a network planning process for the north coast. It's both an accelerated process and a very engaged process, and it's going very well. It will be completed well within a five-year timeline. That isn't a legislative requirement. It's the leadership of the people and the accountability of the people leading it and involved in it that are making it happen. To Dr. Fuller's point, it's the right people at the table engaged and accountable for the solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

We'll have Mr. Arnold for five minutes, please.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you to both of our witnesses this morning. It's good to see you both again.

It's been an interesting process. We started studying the MPAs almost a year ago, I believe. Now, with Bill C-55, it's almost a continuation, but it's somewhat different, because we're dealing with some specifics.

The first question would be for Ms. Fuller. You seem to have been able to be all over Canada, and probably outside of Canada, dealing with the MPA process. You seem to be racking up a lot of Air Miles with these meetings. Have the fishermen or the commercial sector been able to attend as many of these meetings or participate as fully as you have?