Fisheries Committee on Nov. 27th, 2017

Thank you, Mr. Simms.

The BC Seafood Alliance is an umbrella organization whose 16 members represent about 90% of wild harvested seafood from Canada's west coast, worth about $850 million annually. Our members are associations representing virtually every major wild fishery in B.C. We are, by far, the most representative fishing organization on the west coast, and our ultimate constituents are commercial fishermen up and down the coast. These are the people who provide food to Canadians and the world.

Thank you for inviting me here today to give our perspective on Bill C-55. We believe MPAs are part of the marine management took kit, and we support the marine conservation targets. We remind you, however, that sustainable development is one of the three key principles of the Oceans Act and that MPAs are created, in part, to conserve and protect fishery resources. The purpose of the Oceans Act, and therefore MPAs, is not to eliminate commercial fishing, as some of the witnesses have essentially proposed.

One of your witnesses last week contended that the greatest threat to our oceans is the removal of billions of tonnes of biomass. That may be true globally, but it is not true for Canada. On the west coast, landings were about 160,000 tonnes annually. Pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change are far greater threats, and MPAs will do little or nothing to alleviate their effects.

Canada has already met the target of protecting 5% of its coastline by the end of this year. It will easily meet the second target of 10% by 2020.

I understand you have a copy of this map in front of you. Very quickly, the little yellow closures are rockfish conservation areas. The green ones are sponge reef closures. Then we have the Gwaii Haanas national marine conservation area and the Scott Islands national marine wildlife area just off the top end of Vancouver Island. We have the Bowie seamount, which is now fully closed to fishing. We have the huge offshore area of interest. We have, coming up, the national marine conservation area in the southern Strait of Georgia. We're also looking at an MPA network in the northern shelf bioregion, which is the most valuable area for fisheries, both economically and ecologically.

We estimate, using Environment and Climate Change Canada's international reporting, and assuming the huge offshore area is designated as planned, that we will have protected 37% of the Pacific coastline by 2020.

Conservation has driven our sector for the past 20 years, shaping the way it is developed and encouraging a pragmatic approach to stewardship that has had clear market benefits, as well. More than half our fisheries are in the Marine Stewardship Council program. That certifies only about 10% of world fisheries as sustainable. Most of our other fisheries are recognized either by the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s seafood watch or the Vancouver Aquarium’s ocean wise as good choices for consumers.

By volume, almost two-thirds of our fisheries are managed under the Canadian groundfish integration program. CGIP integrates the management of 66 different species, seven different fishery sectors, and three gear types. Under CGIP, a vessel is fully accountable for every single fish it catches, whether retained or released, through a monitoring program that includes 100% at-sea monitoring and 100% dockside monitoring.

This program has been recognized by the MSC as “one of the most rigorous in the world”. It has also been recognized by His Royal Highness Prince Charles' sustainability unit and by the David Suzuki Foundation as among the best managed fisheries on the planet.

CGIP creates incentives for long-term stewardship of the resource and the ecosystem, encouraging fishermen to be highly selective, catching the fish they want and not weak species or those with low abundance. For example, our groundfish trawl fleet, working again with the David Suzuki Foundation and other conservation groups, through a habitat conservation collaboration agreement, has frozen the trawl footprint, removing 9,000 square kilometres of the coast, protecting 50% of all habitat types, especially deepwater habitat, and instituting the world's first conservation bycatch for corals and sponges.

Fleetwide, this quota was set at 4,500 kilos. The total catch of corals has been less than one-fifth of this annually.

I'm providing this as context for my specific comments on Bill C-55. We agree that the current process for establishing MPAs is too long. It's quite simply ridiculous that it took 15 years since we voluntarily closed the Hecate Strait sponge reefs until they were designated as an MPA last year.

I want to make four points where we would like to see some changes.

First, many of the delays on both coasts have more to do with regulatory delays, often five years or more, than with the shortcomings of the science and socio-economic assessment. We propose, therefore, that the appropriate trigger point for the establishment of an interim MPA is at the conclusion of the science socio-economic review. This allows the implementation of protection before the regulatory process, but it also ensures the proposed boundaries are evidence-based and the result of thorough review with all ocean users, thereby increasing co-operation and support.

Second, we are troubled by the current concept of freezing the footprint based on the previous 12 months of activity. Many fisheries are rotational, for instance, geoduck on the west coast or scallops on the east coast. They are not fished every year for conservation reasons. Other fisheries may not take place in a particular year because of environmental conditions or harvesting limitations. They should not be excluded just because no fishing took place in the previous 12 months. We propose, therefore, that a five-year time frame is more appropriate than the rigid 12 months as currently drafted. Of course, the minister can introduce an immediate spatial closure under the Fisheries Act if there really is a conservation concern.

Third, we are concerned that the current drafting does not provide that the minister must consult with those who will be affected by permanent MPA closures. Such an approach is completely at odds with how to arrive at durable solutions that all parties can support.

Fourth, we urge you to ensure that any revisions to the Oceans Act do not preclude compensation to fish harvesters for access to the resource. If an area proposed for permanent protection contains a significant harvestable area or if that loss cannot be made up for elsewhere, then compensation should be paid.

Many of your witnesses have called for minimum standards for MPAs, including no oil and gas and no bottom trawl. We do not believe that such standards should necessarily include bottom trawl.

I spoke already of how our trawl fleet on the west coast has already reduced its footprint by more than 20% and frozen it, protecting 50% of all habitat types. I spoke of how it has pioneered a bycatch quota for corals and sponges, and I spoke of how it voluntarily closed the Hecate Strait sponge reefs long before Canada got around to formal protection. It is also highly selective in its fishing and accounts for every fish it catches. It should not be penalized for what it has already done by being automatically shut out of an MPA.

Properly managed fisheries are the most sustainable protein source on the planet. The threats to our oceans are real but they come from oil and gas exploration, the prospect of seabed mining, ocean acidification, and climate change, not fishing for food in Canada. Large no-take fishery zones will not help with these problems.

We are partners in the goals of 5% and 10%, and we're always ready to protect special features, as we have done in the past. However, closing large areas to fishing off the west coast does little for biodiversity or conservation, little for the men and women up and down the coast working in our sector who are middle class or aspire to the middle class, and little for the health of Canadians who deserve access to local sustainable seafood. On the west coast we believe we can have both biodiversity and healthy, sustainable fisheries that provide food to Canada and the world.

Thank you very much, everyone.

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Ms. Burridge.

Mr. Kariya, may we have your opening statement, please.

5:45 p.m.

Paul Kariya Senior Policy Advisor, Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative

Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you and to represent the Coastal First Nations committee. I bring greetings from our president, Chief Marilyn Slett; board chair and CEO, Mr. Patrick Kelly; and our whole board and leadership.

I'm pleased to appear before you from Vancouver on the traditional and unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples represented by the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh first nations.

I have divided my commentary into three sections: whom I speak for today, the comments and considerations under Bill C-55, and then some larger policy considerations.

The territories of the Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative, CFNGBI, member communities lie in the Great Bear rainforest, one of the largest temperate coastal rainforest systems left on earth and on the coastal shores of traditional waters of the Pacific Ocean.

CFNGBI is an alliance of first nations that include the Wuikinuxv, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo/Xai'xais, Nuxalk, Gitga'at, Metlakatla, Old Massett, Skidegate, and the Council of the Haida Nation, with approximately 15,000 members. We are a unique organization because representation includes various cultural and language groups, indeed, different nations.

CFNGBI is not the rights and title holder. The member nations hold these. We are a 17-year-old not-for-profit service organization created and directed by the nations.

I do want to be clear that in terms of Bill C-55 and reconciliation, there needs to be clear and strong provision for indigenous governance and the opportunity for proper co-governance and co-management.

Let me comment a little on Bill C-55.

CFNGBI communities have forged a rich culture in the north Pacific bioregion. The cultures, languages, and livelihood are deeply connected to the riches of the rainforest and ocean. For at least 14,000 years, the people carefully managed an abundance of resources: ancient cedars, herring, salmon, halibut, shellfish, and more. They relied upon their knowledge of seasonal cycles to harvest land and rain resources without harming or depleting them. Many believed these resources would last forever, and they were wrong. After mere decades of over-exploiting the forest and ocean resources of the Great Bear rainforest and oceans around, they have been depleted. Our region's economy has dwindled; jobs have become scarce, and the communities are challenged to survive.

The common reality of where the nations reside, obtain their identity, and need to establish a conservation-based economy has brought them together to work together through CFNGBI. We understand the standing committee is interested in first nations planning, PNCIMA, and the MaPP program, and how they contribute to the development of MPAs, in our case specifically the network of MPAs for the north Pacific shelf bioregion.

CFNGBI first nations have a long history and experience with marine area planning, most recently working with British Columbia and other partners in the bioregion.

The north Pacific bioregion process is an objective-driven and data-focused process that will conduct detailed impact assessments to understand the way sectors are affected by closures. It is designed carefully to achieve conservation of biodiversity while trying to avoid negative impacts on resource users.

First nations have spent five years in internal planning where each community has developed internal community marine plans focused on their values, interests, and opportunities. These plans have then been rolled up into subregional plans. In parallel and subsequently, these plans have been integrated into regional plans and into other initiatives such as PNCIMA, MaPP, and the northern shelf bioregion MPAs.

The early benefits of MaPP are engagement and commitment to MaPP and the MPA network. The subregional engagement model has involved local fishermen and local communities. There is a revitalized interest of first nations in commercial fisheries; e.g., a reconciliation framework agreement in fisheries resources was signed by our nations and Canada on October 11, 2017, with Minister LeBlanc and Minister Bennett signing.

A data-driven approach to identifying first nations areas of interest is another benefit of MaPP. The core principle of MaPP is ecosystem-based management, which embraces marine spatial planning with strategic focus upon human well-being, governance, and ecological systems that work. MaPP has been constructed upon a partnership model between first nations and British Columbia that is very much government to government.

The environmental community has been an active and important partner in MaPP. As an example, the Moore foundation has been an important contributor to the marine planning work. This funding, like all funding that MaPP has received, has been utilized based upon strategic, operational, and work plans. There are clear deliverables that benefit communities and community goals and objectives, such as, for example, special management zones for shellfish aquaculture and alternative energy. MaPP's engagement process has been robust and inclusive, built upon regional and sub-regional advisory committees.

Let me turn to final comments on larger policy considerations.

Bilateral engagement between CFN and Canada, based upon implementing UNDRIP and mindful of a new reconciliation priority, has CFN members and Canada engaged in two major reconciliation framework negotiations: one, in oceans management, and two, in fisheries resources. CFNGBI chiefs and ministers LeBlanc and Bennett signed a reconciliation framework agreement on fisheries resources on October 11, 2017, in Vancouver. The goal now is for cabinet to endorse a mandate with real funding investment to give meaning to reconciling and repatriating fish and fisheries to the rights and title holders.

CFNGBI chiefs and other nations in the Pacific northern shelf region are currently engaged in a joint government-to-government working group to achieve a similar oceans protection and management and reconciliation framework agreement before the new year. Protecting ocean resources, ensuring safe shipping, engaging the people who protect and maintain Canada's sovereignty on the coast, and combatting the effects and impacts of climate change are priorities.

CFNGBI is also engaged with British Columbia to build upon the existing reconciliation protocol we signed with British Columbia in 2009. I won't go through the details of all of the achievements that have been done there. It's a good government-to-government model.

Today, CFNGBI member communities employ over a hundred stewardship staff and guardians. They are on the land and seas looking out for the interests of all Canadians, as Canada and B.C. no longer have the field staff nor the data-gathering systems in place to monitor a changing environment and human use activity.

The nations need an economy that works for them whilst protecting the environment. They do so around three core principles: one, absolutely protect the environment; two, build legacy infrastructure if infrastructure is to be built; and, three, definitely enable sustainable economic development.

At the heart of the matter for CFNGBI nations is that, having made significant strides in protecting the environment, they are fashioning a sustainable economy that supports healthy communities and human well-being. The key is sustainability. Canada, B.C., and first nations need robust and healthy thriving CFN communities. They are the sentinels on the coast who are doing the monitoring that is the basis for science and data collection in a climate-changing world. This is what reconciliation looks like for CFN.

Thank you very much.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, sir.

We're short on time for questions, my dear colleagues. However, I hope I can get your unanimous consent for us to go past six o'clock. I can't say how long that will go; nevertheless, we'll use our own discretion, as we normally do.

Do you want to go for that?

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

All I'd say is to let all parties have their time.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Okay.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

We all have places where we're supposed to be, but I'm going to try to accommodate it as best as I can.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

To start, I'm going to Ms. Jordan for a few minutes.

Liberal

Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Thank you. I will keep my questions brief.

Thanks to both of you for appearing today.

Ms. Burridge, it's nice to see you again. Thank you for presenting. I have a question with regard to freezing the footprint. You're concerned about a year, but you're recommending five years. You said that was because some species aren't harvested every year. Are there some that go as long as five years or is it usually every other year? I'm wondering if five years is realistic or if two years would maybe be more—

Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance

Three is common on the west coast. It's more on the east coast. Scallops, I think, are on a longer time frame than three.

Liberal

Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Okay.

The other question I had for you was with regard to the map and the area of interest, the Pacific offshore. What is it that they're protecting? What is the area of interest for the Pacific offshore?

Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance

It's to protect a large-scale pristine area. It has specific fishery closures in the middle of it for seamounts.

Liberal

Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

For seamounts. Okay. Are you talking about a total no-take zone in part of it?

Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance

For those fishery closures, total no-take zones to protect the seabed, so at this point there could be, say, a tuna fishery on the top, because that only uses about that much at the top.

Liberal

Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

I have one last question with regard to that. What is your percentage of offshore fleet to inshore? When I look at this map, I see there's quite a bit of the offshore that's looking at protection. I'm just wondering if most of your fisheries are an inshore fishery or offshore.

Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance

Most of them would be along the continental slope, which runs down the coast. We will lose some fishing from the offshore, but it won't be a huge amount, and we will protect those seamounts, which we all think is important.

Liberal

Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Okay. Great.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Ms. Jordan.

Mr. Miller.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Thank you very much.

To our witnesses, thanks very much for your presentation and for accommodating our antics here in Ottawa with votes and what have you.

There is a kind of constant theme here. We had the Honourable Robert McLeod here prior to both of you, and there was something that he said quite clearly when he talked about the economic hit on communities that MPAs can cause. He was talking about the delaying tactics used by a lot of environmental groups and others when it comes to oil and gas approvals, which would have helped his community, and you may be able to relate to that, Mr. Kariya, to yours in the north. He says that the delays go on for so long that they make whatever the project is economically unfeasible.

Ms. Burridge, you commented on the amount of time it takes for MPA approval.

We can't have one without the other. Some rule changes were made by the previous government to make the approval process more streamlined and what have you. I think there seems to be agreement about this in a lot of areas from a lot of people on both sides of this issue in regard to helping with this. What can we do to speed up the approval process but still go through the proper channels? There's no doubt about it: this MPA thing isn't going through the same process as, say, an oil or gas well. The government is hell-bent on basically ramming this through in no time flat.

Mr. Kariya, could you comment on that and include your experience? Have your community and the Great Bear Initiative been consulted in the proper way, in your opinion?

Senior Policy Advisor, Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative

Paul Kariya

Let me begin by saying that in terms of time and timing the nine communities that I represent have been waiting a long time. In terms of timeliness to get to decisions, absolutely. I don't think first nations are in any way the blockage in terms of timeliness—