Evidence of meeting #82 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 mpa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
The overall tighter protection is somewhat here already. Is there more of an impact in those less managed countries where the fishing pressure may be less species-specific?
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, As an Individual
Absolutely, and I have worked in many of those areas, particularly in Meso-America, South America, and in other countries, and even in Mexico, to some extent. The problem is that reinforcement almost doesn't exist. You can't depend on many of the normal management-type tools, so that's the easiest way to approach it, to just to do that.
It does have a particular tool and a useful tool in places like that, where there is a lack of what we'd call “traditional fisheries management”.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
President, Fisheries Council of Canada
I would point to the reputation of our government, Fisheries and Oceans, in fisheries management and the principles that underlie that, as well as our record in third-party certification. Again, with my experience in the forest industry, third-party certification can be a piece of evidence on how you operate, above and beyond the legal requirement.
In the fisheries sector, our leadership in adopting third-party certification, I think speaks to how well we perform. Are we perfect? No. Do we have room for improvement? Yes. Do MPAs have a role to play to better protect certain aspects of our ocean ecosystem? I would say yes. The challenge is how do you balance that conservation with the economic benefit of, in my case, the commercial fisheries sector.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
Ms. Jessen, you mentioned the southern resident killer whales in the context of the MPAs. I'm just wondering how you think an MPA with linear boundaries could help protect a species that moves in and out of an area.
I met with stakeholders recently who do a lot with the southern resident killer whales. They identified areas that had been historically recognized as summer feeding areas for the southern resident killer whales as having being blocked off. Over the past couple of years, the whales simply haven't been there because the food isn't there.
What benefit would an MPA have there?
9:30 a.m.
National Director, Oceans Program, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Certainly, their food supply does need to be protected. From the research that's being done by scientists studying the southern resident killer whales, we now know their critical habitat. The scientists have defined an area that the whales rely on when they spend are in the Strait of Georgia. It could help them if we could provide better protection to some of that and try to reduce the impacts of some of the activities that are going on in that habitat that is essential to them.
Certainly they're going to be moving in and out of that, and that is part of what happens, but, but protecting elements of their habitat is really important.
We also have other species on land that move and we still use protected areas to protect them, species like bears and wolves that move great distances. We have seen that protected areas can make a big difference for those kinds of species as well.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
The marine protected areas would do almost nothing to protect the feed species, with the prime species the chinook salmon, which only spend a limited amount of time in that area. Their numbers are down because of other impacts, so I'd like you to explain how a small protected area for killer whales would make any difference if they're not going to be there because the food isn't there.
9:30 a.m.
National Director, Oceans Program, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
They can't necessarily protect all elements, and certainly a lot more needs to be done on the chinook fishery to protecting chinook stocks. A whole lot of interrelationships here need to be addressed and a number of threats to the killer whales beyond just.... There's the food, the issue of noise as well, and shipping issues too.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Okay.
For our other two witnesses who are here in the room, especially Dr. McKinney, you've noted that these large no-take zones have a lesser impact or lesser benefit if the fisheries around them are better managed. Can you elaborate on that a little?
9:30 a.m.
Executive Director, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, As an Individual
I think this is a result of my looking at the scientific literature on this, and I quoted one study my testimony, where they've looked at that type of thing.
I think the point is that if you have access to what we would call “traditional fisheries management” tools for how we manage this, and you can effectively enforce them—it would be a combination of the two, I think—you can achieve everything you want as far as restoring or maintaining those fisheries is concerned, and not allowing them to be fished or areas to be closed.
That's what the scientific information data would tell us in all the reviews that I've done.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay. I think your question was to both of them, wasn't it?
Mr. Lansbergen, do you want to weigh in on that very quickly?
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Happy new year to committee members, since I haven't had a chance to say that.
Thanks to our witnesses for being here on this important subject.
Dr. McKinney, I'll start my questions with you. In your opinion what are the biggest factors driving the negative impacts on fisheries and ocean ecosystems in Canada?
9:30 a.m.
Executive Director, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, As an Individual
Well, I'm not going to say I'm an expert on Canada, but fisheries are fisheries around the world, and the most significant one is usually overfishing. They have been overfished, or there has been habitat lost in those sectors. I am almost sure that those are the two issues that Canadians as well as U.S. biologists have to deal with.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
You mentioned developing a model of consultation. Is it possible that you could forward to the committee details of how that model would work so that we have it in writing? Do you have a link to it, or could you send us a paper?
9:30 a.m.
Executive Director, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, As an Individual
I can do that. In fact, it was a significant part of my testimony before the Senate committee in the U.S., and we talked long about it. I have written that up and I'd be glad to share that submitted testimony with you.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Yes, we've heard lots of comments from witnesses about consultation and how important it is to get that right, so getting that to us would be helpful.
My last comment is that you mentioned that under your watch, you've never closed an area to recreational fishing, but I think there was comment that you did close some areas to commercial fishing. Is that correct?
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, As an Individual
Yes, sir. I've actually closed areas in recreational fishing as well, but not because of recreational fishing impacts. For commercial areas, the MPAs were to protect nursery grounds for shrimp, primarily, which is our primary species, because that's where the eggs settle and the young larvae grow up. That's on the commercial side.
In regard to the recreational fishing side, we didn't make MPAs to stop fishing, but we did try to control access—powered craft—in shallow waters that were destroying seagrass, so we came at it from that direction. People could continue to fish there; they just couldn't drive their big, powerful boats through the seagrass and plough it up.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Okay, thank you.
Ms. Jessen, thanks for your work and your testimony.
We know—and I think you alluded to it—that the government has commented about protecting 7% of Canada's oceans, but you used the term “full protection”, saying that Canada has protected less than 0.1%. Do I have that right?
9:35 a.m.
National Director, Oceans Program, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Yes.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Can you elaborate on the difference between what you're talking about in terms of full protection, and what the government is talking about with 7% protection?
9:35 a.m.
National Director, Oceans Program, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Yes, certainly.
“Full protection” means that all fisheries would be closed and all industrial uses would be prohibited in an area. Based on the analysis we've done at this point, that's about 1% of the ocean in Canada. We think there is still some way to go to provide better protection for some of the areas the government has identified so far.
We're still going to do a more detailed analysis and issue another report this year, so we'll be in touch when we do that, but that's based on our quick look at those areas.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Okay. Could you make sure you send that detailed analysis to this committee so we get a copy of that?
9:35 a.m.
National Director, Oceans Program, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Yes, of course.