Fisheries Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2017

[Tom Smith]

This again comes back to part of the problem of the process to date, where I believe one of the MPAs that's being discussed—although not with us, and as I said, we discussed this with our DFO colleagues this week—would affect current oyster and mussel operations in one region of Nova Scotia.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

If I remember correctly, I think the Atlantic Salmon Federation would be opposed to aquaculture, especially with the salmon.

[Tom Smith]

I don't think so. We have a good relationship with the ASF and Jon Carr, and I think they support.... As a matter of fact, I talked earlier about the salmon traceability committee. ASF is on that committee in Nova Scotia to identify ways to ensure that farmed salmon and trout, if there is an escape, can be traced back to the operator and don't get into the rivers, and if they are in the rivers, they can be identified and taken out of the rivers.

Obviously, Jon would have his own comments, but I don't think the ASF is against the industry. They certainly are in favour of a really robust regulatory framework that ensures that responsible and sustainable farming practices are maintained.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you.

I have a quick question to Ms. Recchia or Lois. Is there any way to harvest scallops in a sustainable way? I think it's the MSC that certifies the fisheries. I think that's the acronym. Do they certify scallops or sea cucumbers? Is it possible to sustainably fish those species and be certified or sustainable?

[Maria Recchia]

I don't know about sea cucumbers. I don't believe they're MSC-certified. I'm not sure about this, so I hesitate to say. I know that our scallop fishery is not certified just because we don't have the money to go through MSC. The full bay scallop fishery, which is the larger-scale, slightly more industrial scallop fishery, may be certified. I'm not certain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Morrissey, you have three and a half minutes, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

My question is to Mr. Smith. It's a follow-up to my colleague Mr. Donnelly's. Who should define “sustainable” as it relates to aquaculture?

[Tom Smith]

Sorry, did you say who?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Who should define “sustainable”?

[Tom Smith]

That's an interesting question. How can I answer that question?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

There's a lot more to it.

[Tom Smith]

I think that who defines it is the user, who defines it is the stakeholder, and who should define it are the people who—in any respects—are affected.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Is there no role for DFO?

[Tom Smith]

DFO is absolutely a stakeholder.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

What science should be used in the determination of “sustainable”—the science of DFO?

[Tom Smith]

I'm not sure that I can answer. DFO has loads of science. I think that the one activity that is currently robust at DFO is the aquaculture activity regulations, the AAR, which define the use of the waters, how the industry is going to be regulated from the federal level, and try to—I say “try” because it's a continuous process—coordinate with all of the provincial bodies to ensure that the provincial regulations and the federal regulations are coordinated, if that is the right word.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

My question is to Dr. Mitchell.

A number of presenters before this committee have expressed—I believe it was you who raised this—the concern that, when an MPA is established, there can be no changes in that. How do we put in place regulations or criteria that will accommodate for changing environmental conditions and the changing, for lack of a better term, geography of the area? We're in a period of moving climate change, and what was intended to originally be protected may move.

It has been expressed in different ways by a number of presenters, and I think it's an important part. For trust in the system, there has to be a trust from the fishers that, at a set period of time, the definition of an MPA can be re-evaluated based on current science and data and on fishing experience.

Could you comment on that?

[Lois Mitchell]

That's a really important point, and I think it's one of the main points of resistance to the MPA concept in general, at least among fishermen in our area.

Fishing activity, the productivity of different fisheries, is constantly changing in this area. When I did my Ph.D. research 32 years ago, there was a lot of similarity in terms of species being harvested, but it has completely flipped. In those years, the weir fishery was doing well, and the lobster fishery and the scallop fishery simply got fishermen through from one season to the next. Now, it's so completely reversed. The lobster fishery is completely dominant and is just unbelievably lucrative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much. I'm sorry, I have to cut it off right there. I have one question left and I'm really running out of time.

Mr. Calkins, go very quickly please.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

My questions are going to be for Maria and Lois, for the most part, in the amount of time I have left.

Would you say that the MPA would be better served protecting benthic, pelagic, or the sunlit zone of the ocean?

[Maria Recchia]

I think a variety of things probably need to be protected, but right now I feel there's a much bigger emphasis on benthic than anything else. I think that needs to shift.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Would the vast majority of the fishers you represent be fishing benthic species, pelagic species, or in the sunlit zone?

[Maria Recchia]

They would be fishing benthic and pelagic species, but right now mostly benthic as well as lobster.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I would argue, personally, that the MPA would do a very good job of protecting benthic zones, but I'm not sure that it would have a very positive effect on pelagic zones or on the sunlit zone and the fish and species that live there. I think this is why the argument is being made that perhaps MPAs' boundaries should shift over time. I'm not sure we're finding that right balance.

You did mention that you're concerned about some of the locations of the marine protected areas. There's a 10% target by 2020, and if it's going to be representative, then it should represent areas of deep water and areas of shallow inshore water. Have your fishermen had the conversation about what percentage of their boats they expect will be lost, should there be a 10% target achieved by 2020?

[Maria Recchia]

It's very spotty. A 10% target, if it's not in our most fished areas, is not a problem.

However, when you're talking about an MPA in our most heavily fished area, which has a huge amount of fishermen and fishing in a small area, we really have to look at what the boundaries are to see how many vessels and families are going to be impacted by it.

We don't know what the boundaries are going to be. We're probably not going to be in the 10%. We'll probably come after that, so that's another concern. How high is the percentage going to go? We don't know. DFO bureaucrats are telling us that we're going to go beyond 10%, but we don't know how high that will be, so that's a lot of insecurity for our people.