Evidence of meeting #83 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 mpas.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think the department has built in a strategy to not only implement the MPAs but to also ensure there is a monitoring and compliance component built into the planning for the future.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you.
Mr. Lambert, I'm going to go back to you because we had testimony in the past from fishers in Newfoundland who have said there is talk of MPAs where they can't drop a line but there is still drilling for oil and gas.
I just wonder if you want to comment on that, because it is a concern that one industry is being affected differently from another.
Director, Oceans Management, Newfoundland and Labrador Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think that when we use the term MPA, we're using the broad marine conservation targets as well—which, as Mr. Gilchrist described, are actually other enforcement measures—and those fall under the Fisheries Act, so those are the ones we have in place. I think the reference there is probably to those areas.
The fact of the matter is that, when we have closures under the Fisheries Act, the Fisheries Act is only designed to deal with fisheries and fish and fishers. Issues such as oil and gas aren't under the control, if you will, of the Fisheries Act. That's the case there.
February 1st, 2018 / 10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Bernadette Jordan Liberal South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
We've heard so much testimony. We've heard there needs to be more consultation. We've heard there needs to be less consultation. We've heard that people are not consulted enough. Who determines where, and when, and who is going to be involved?
I know that we've also heard that there was a meeting that was called for consultation on the first day of lobster season, so none of the fishers could get there. Who makes those decisions and how do they go about making them?
I got a lot of calls on that one in my riding. “Why are you doing this now?” How do you make sure that you get the people who need to be involved in the process?
Senior International Fisheries Advisor, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
There are obviously some national groups, like national representation from indigenous groups, industry, and ENGOs, as well as co-management partners. However, I would say that when it comes to who should be involved in engagement, we really rely on our regional offices who have the day-to-day, face-to-face discussions with our partners and stakeholders on a regular basis. Obviously, they have a better understanding than folks in Ottawa about who should be involved.
Andrew Thomson
We do have a very structured agent process with our client sectors, with licence-holders and such. Much of the consultation planning goes through regularly scheduled meetings. Within Pacific Region A, we also have a consultation secretariat that helps to maintain a calendar of ongoing consultations that occur across multiple programs.
As best as possible, we try to coordinate that type of consultation approach, so that we're not doubling up in a day or making people choose between a fishing opening and coming to a consultation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you.
Now, we're going to go to Mr. Miller, for five minutes, please.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and to our witnesses, thanks for being here.
I just wanted to expand on what Ms. Jordan just asked about consultation. With all due respect, gentlemen, you never really answered her question. We know that you consult with various groups or you're supposed to.
Mr. Lambert, a few minutes ago, you made a comment that there needs to be widespread consultation and yet, as Ms. Jordan mentioned, we hear that fishermen have complained about it occurring right in the middle of lobster season. It's like having the same kind of consultation for farmers about harvest, right in the middle of harvest.
I'm not going to ask you to respond because you didn't answer her question, but it's obviously a problem. It's one thing to say you're going to do a proper consultation, but you actually have to walk the talk.
I want to switch gears. When it comes to MPAs, do you feel your process to create an MPA is totally based on science? Or do you think they should be based on science?
Director, Oceans Management, Newfoundland and Labrador Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'll say that certainly the establishment of MPAs is largely based on science. As science has improved over the years, it's certainly more predominant now than ever. As we go out and have consultations, whether it's with fishers or academia, it always comes back to science. You can't just make these closed areas. You need science to back it up.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I appreciate that.
As we know, the government has set out 5% by 2020 and up to 10% by a certain date. I fail to remember the exact dates, but you get where I'm going on this.
Can you produce the documentation, based on science, that said it had to be 5% and 10% and with those timelines?
Can that be produced?
Director, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That's a question we'd have to take back to our science colleagues. It's not in the—
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
You don't know whether there's actually expert advice saying that you should do this as DFO? There have to be instructions someplace, or if there aren't, I guess my point is, then, that it's strictly political.
Director, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'm sure there is a rationale to the numbers. Part of it is the government's obligations under international commitments in terms of our overarching piece, and then the framework of how things are rolled out on a domestic level is determined by the government as informed by the various persons, including scientists and others.
I'm not sure if there's a specific document. That's not my area of expertise.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Well, I'd like that produced if there is. I would carry that out farther, that if they're just based on international commitments, those aren't based on science. Those are based on political reasons.
We had a witness here on Tuesday, Dr. Larry McKinney, who works out of Texas A & M. He has been involved in a lot of MPAs in the Gulf of Mexico and others, and I asked him about an approach that involved establishing MPAs just based on protecting a certain percentage of the ocean. His answer was, “To be looking at percentages, no, I think that's not an approach...I certainly would not do that, just setting a certain percentage aside.”
Here's a guy who's been involved in very successful MPAs, and I would urge you to follow up. I don't just take his word for it. They have been very good at what they're doing, and none of them have banned recreational fishing. He doesn't believe that in most cases.... They've restricted it and what have you. With regard to an earlier witness we had today from Newfoundland, it was kind of along the same lines. You protect something, but you don't necessarily totally eliminate the harvest in or around it.
Would you believe that, in general terms, recreational fishing has far less chance of overfishing or depleting stocks versus a commercial fishery? I'm not trying to attack commercial fishery. I have a lot of it in my riding as well, but in general terms, would you agree with that statement?
Director, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'm not sure I can agree with the statement without knowing the parameters of the fishery of which you speak, what the species is that is being protected, and what the elements are. If you're talking about an MPA, in the context of an MPA, MPAs are established for different reasons. Often when we talk about the fishery being restricted, although it tends to be visualized as commercial or recreational, the reality is that it's about the gear type or whether or not that fishery will have an impact.
If you're talking about sensitive benthic areas or corals and this type of stuff, as long as the fishing activity does not impact the bottom, then in theory, that should be okay.
Director, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
However, if you're talking about protecting a swimming fish, if you're engaged in a recreational, commercial, or other activity, you have equal likelihood of capturing that endangered species, and it may not—
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I've never heard of a recreational fishery that trawls the bottom. Have you?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Very quickly, Mr. Jenkins.
I have to cut you off there, Mr. Miller, you old pro, you.
Director, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Again, it would be on a case-by-case basis. If you give us an example, we could follow up. However, generally speaking, I would think that most recreational fisheries, if you're talking about rod and reel fisheries or something like that, would not impact the bottom or very infrequently would impact the bottom.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay, I have to leave it at that.
Mr. Hardie, you're next. I'm going to have to narrow you down to about three minutes or so because we have committee business to get to, and we have to clear the room as well.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Sure. I just have a quick comment.
If the setting of the percentages for the MPAs was political, it was non-partisan because I believe the previous government, in fact, set those, and we've lived up to them.
Mr. Thomson, there has been, since the start of this mandate, a fair investment in new science capacity. Has that been useful out on the west coast?
Andrew Thomson
Yes, definitely. It has been very useful in the context of MPAs in particular in terms of helping to define the environmentally sensitive areas and to provide advice to the oceans group as well as to the fisheries management group as to the boundaries and areas that should be protected or would be best protected in an MPA context. Then, of course, it also has been very useful in designing evaluation programs, so that there could be, as I said earlier, a system in place to evaluate whether the MPA is having the desired effect.
I'm not a manager in our science program, but I know of a number of new scientists and new biologists being brought on, through the funding that was provided, and have supported that program.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
We're obviously dealing with MPAs, but we know that some of the biggest issues out on the coast have to do with the more migratory species. There is always a concern about sockeye and certainly a growing and almost urgent concern about the steelhead.
Do the MPAs themselves have any beneficial effects at all on the migratory stocks?
Andrew Thomson
Depending upon where they are, of course, there are a lot of migratory stocks, from halibut to sailfish to salmon. In providing some refuge from commercial fishers in some of these areas that they may be transiting, you are providing a refuge from capture. I don't know what the measurable benefit would be, but it seems logical to me that it would provide some benefit to those migratory stocks.