Fisheries Committee on Feb. 1st, 2018

[Robert Lambert]

I could add a bit of perspective.

Over the years we've learned, and science is teaching us, that all these measures that we put in place, whether they're MPAs or management measures, and so on, are not necessarily restricted to individual boundaries. In other words, it's a more global issue. While you might have an MPA in this area, it also might impact another area farther up the coast in another region, or perhaps in another country. That's why the focus now, as we progress, is changing from some of these smaller, very targeted MPAs to what's known as an MPA network. That's exactly the reason for that, the connectivity.

As we do that, as we heard this morning, the consultation piece is very important. As we go out and are talking about putting different protections in place, it's very important that we get a cross-section from everybody—fish harvesters, ENGOs, academia, and the general public—before any decisions are made, so that we have well-informed decisions.

In answer to your question, “the people” is basically as broad as you want to make it. It has an impact on people very locally, but it also has an impact on people globally.

[Robert Lamirande]

I would add from the indigenous perspective, in terms of accommodating and addressing aboriginal and treaty rights, that we need to look at the establishment of MPAs through that lens as well. The duty to consult, the duty to work with indigenous groups also factors into the decision-making process in terms of the establishment of the objectives and the management activities within those areas.

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

In other words, if we want to protect a species—say, lobster or cod—when we know that the numbers are going down, we would have measures other than an MPA. We don't necessarily need an MPA. We could say we're going to restrict the size, restrict the gear, restrict the area. It doesn't have to be an MPA to protect one species.

With an MPA, really we're talking about protecting the whole area, the whole environment, the whole ecosystem. We say that because, again, we have tools other than MPAs to make sure that the stock of cod rebounds. I'm not a scientist, but does the bottom affect the cod? I don't know.

What I'm trying to get at is the purpose of MPAs versus good management of a resource or a specific species.

[Robert Lambert]

The management measures that you describe other than MPAs can be things such as seasons or quotas, that type of thing. With MPAs, the conservation objective can be about a specific species. That does happen. However, MPAs can be very broad as well and take in biodiversity, multispecies, that type of thing. Depending on what your objective is at the time, that would determine your best tool to use.

For fisheries management, it might simply be something under the Fisheries Act that doesn't require an MPA. However, if science dictates it, maybe the best tool is an MPA.

[Randy Jenkins]

I'd also like to point out the management measures. We had the flexibility under the Fisheries Act to do all kinds of creative management measures, whether they're closures, or size limits, or other protection mechanisms. Generally speaking, the management measures are more fluid. You have opportunities to adjust and change in more real time. I think one of the distinctions between an MPA and just general management measures is the longevity of the measure, the idea being that you have a long vision for an MPA. I would suggest that perhaps we're talking about MPAs and we're taking that word to be inclusive of all of the broader bases. My colleague Brett could probably give you a few bullets on the considerations when we decide whether we're going to close something or suggest closing something.

[Brett Gilchrist, Senior International Fisheries Advisor, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

You mentioned the different types of tools. I think my colleague Mr. Jenkins was referring to the fact that we have MPAs that cover a broader gamut of measures beyond fishing, and then we have what are called “other effective area-based conservation measures”, which are the contribution of fisheries restrictions to protect habitat features, ecosystems, species.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you both.

I want to remind colleagues that we do have Mr. Thomson from British Columbia.

Mr. Thomson, if you'd like to get in on the conversation, don't be afraid to say so.

Mr. Arnold, for seven minutes, please.

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

Thanks to the witnesses and Mr. Thomson on the other end there. We haven't forgotten about you.

My first question will be for Mr. Lamirande.

What direction have you received from government in preparation for the so-called commitments to the UNDRIP declaration? How are you managing first nations consultation, or have you received direction from government in that report for that quarter?

[Robert Lamirande]

In general, in terms of UNDRIP and the numerous recommendations in that, I think that's front and centre in informing the federal government. The 10 principles that were released by the Minister of Justice recently, guiding and informing the federal government in terms of its interactions with indigenous groups, put significant priority on engagement and consultation, and beyond that, working with groups more collaboratively in the decision-making processes, seeking their input into the establishment and the rules around MPAs.

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

On the first nations consultation, does DFO...or are there other funding programs for first nations to participate in the consultation process? Do other groups receive funding to participate in the consultation process?

[Robert Lamirande]

There is funding. We have a program called the aboriginal aquatic resources and oceans management program—it's very long and very bureaucratic—which provides funding for indigenous groups at aggregate levels to come together either along watersheds or coastal areas. That funding provides dedicated capacity for indigenous groups to obtain scientific, technical, fisheries management, oceans management types of expertise. As an example—and Andy can speak to it more than I can—a lot of the north coast groups in B.C., coastal first nations organizations like the Haida, have gained quite a bit of capacity and have utilized those resources to not only facilitate consultations between the two of us but also for them to have more of a leadership role and have their own dedicated scientific, technical, management capacity that they can rely on to get independent advice.

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

Are there other groups that receive funding?

[Robert Lamirande]

Our funding applies generally where we manage the fisheries, so on both coasts that funding is available, and then in the north—

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

To whom, outside first nations?

[Robert Lamirande]

Yes, it's—

Go ahead, Andy.

[Andrew Thomson]

I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt.

We do provide funding to organizations such as the Marine Conservation Caucus, which is a collection of environmental [Technical difficulty—Editor] in British Columbia. We do support some of their activities in terms of consultation with the department. We have funding that we use to support the sports fishery advisory board process in British Columbia. We pay for travel and accommodation costs for their meetings with us about the northern panel and the southern panel—the “main board”, they call it—which is a fairly structured consultative process for the recreational fishery in British Columbia.

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

If I could interject, I've sat on sport fishery advisory boards, and basically they barely had enough money to pay for a bit of mileage and maybe a pizza for lunch. That was about it. The funding there was quite limited, so here's what I'm getting at: is there is other funding or government funding provided for other organizations to participate in the consultation process on MPAs?

[Robert Lamirande]

Beyond indigenous, I don't know of any.

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

We've heard a lot about the coordination between the oceans branch and the fisheries branch not being the best. We heard that particularly on the east coast when we did a tour out there last fall. Can you tell us how you've coordinated that consultation, so that the fisheries sector is recognized in the oceans branch movement towards MPAs?

[Robert Lambert]

I can speak to what happened in Newfoundland and Labrador because that's obviously the region I'm familiar with. I think your question is around the co-operation between the oceans management branch and the resource management branch. Is that correct?

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

It's on the fisheries management branch and the oceans branch.

[Robert Lambert]

The last consultations we had were around the marine conservation targets. Many of those were just announced in December. As we were going out doing consultations on those, we actually did them in conjunction with each other. When we were doing consultations, there were representatives from oceans as well as resource management. We worked together very closely on that as we were going out through.... For example, when we attended any of the industry meetings, we did it together.

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

Just really quickly, if you can, with somebody from both the east and the west coasts, how do you establish goals and how do you measure them?

[Robert Lambert]

Do you mean on individual MPAs?

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

Yes.