Fisheries Committee on Feb. 6th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

Mr. MacDonald, thank you for helping us out in this study thus far.

It's now 10:15, and I'm now going to go to Mr. Donnelly for seven minutes, please.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and again, thank you to our departmental officials for being here with us and providing input on this important study.

I want to go back to protection targets for a minute. In 1992—that's over 25 years ago—the international community set the goal of 10% by 2020. There has been some question as to whether that's been science-based or based on science, setting aside 10% of the world's oceans.

I would argue right now that in the last 25 years, we've had more pressures on our oceans, not fewer, and we've had more of a problem with ocean acidification and other habitat loss and pollution issues. My colleague mentioned plastics and so on, so we have more problems, and maybe with management and other techniques there have been some successes.

Overall, would it not be safe to say that the best available science now says we need to protect more than 10% of our oceans to see our oceans flourish or be conserved into the future?

[Philippe Morel]

Thank you. I'll start and Christie, who has participated in several international fora, will follow.

I think we're still at the 10% target, given that it was credibly established at the international level and agreed upon by countries, such as Canada, and we're working towards that. You're right that some emerging issues and pressures are there. In an international forum, we heard that we should look at how to protect the ocean, not only in jurisdiction, but also outside of jurisdiction. Also the percentage should be higher and we should determine the kind of protection.

However, right now, I don't think any of these discussions has concluded. Maybe Ms. Chute wants to add something.

[Christie Chute]

We are indeed working towards the 10% target, but we view that as a floor rather than a ceiling. One of the reasons why we're pursuing marine protected area networks in our priority bioregions is to develop a long-term strategy to increase protection and the percentage of the area protected is really guided by the conservation objectives of those networks.

In other words—

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Is this target science-based or science-driven? That's what I'm after, because there has been some discussion about whether this is politically driven or whether this is based on science.

[Christie Chute]

There is a range of scientific views in scientific publications, but there's not one definitive view within the scientific community that 10% is the right number. There are certainly scientific papers that support 10%, but there are others that support different percentages. Therefore, we are working towards the 10%, but we are developing these marine protected area networks as a way to develop a long-term strategy to achieve greater protections, which are greater than the 10%.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

In your presentation, you mentioned a five-point plan. I couldn't find them in the presentation. Are they available on the website easily, or could they—

[Philippe Morel]

Yes. They are available on the website.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Could you supply the five points to the committee, so that we get them and know what they are.

[Philippe Morel]

Sure. I can maybe share a presentation summarizes our approach and provides the details of the five-point plan.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Great. Thank you.

What percentage of the 7.75% satisfies criterion 5 and is in no-take zones? The question is for both of you.

Criterion 5 refers to ecological components that must be effectively conserved with no human activities that are incompatible with conservation objectives occurring or likely to occur in the foreseeable future.

[Philippe Morel]

They all comply. All of the 7.75% comply with the five criteria, so I don't know if that was your question—

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Well, yes, but there are some that allow oil and gas and other human activities that are harmful, so they can't all be satisfying that criteria. I was wondering what percentage is strictly that. For instance, there are some areas that are no-take, in terms of fishing or any other activity—and I would assume there are no other human activities, which are defined as harmful, that are allowed in those no-take zones, but they constitute a very small percentage of our MPAs.

I'm wondering if you could shed some light on whether it's five, 10, 20—

[Philippe Morel]

I don't have the exact number, but I can say that most marine protected areas, except one, have no oil and gas activity. For national marine conservation areas, under Parks Canada legislation, there's no take, except for indigenous harvesting or fishing, and no oil and gas activities in these areas.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

So you'd say a large percent, 80%, 90%, maybe higher, satisfy this criteria, but what about no take? Are we looking at less than 25%—

[Philippe Morel]

No take will be probably between 2% and 3%, so one-third of the 7.75% is no take, because the different tools that we use are used for different purposes or meaning. For example, for fisheries closures, the conservation objectives are not at the same level as the conservation measures under a national marine conservation area or under the MPA. Our role is to find the best legislative or regulatory tool to address the protection that is needed and a no-take or a no-activity area is not necessary or not essential to every protection or conservation objective.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

You mentioned about 30% or so.

[Philippe Morel]

It's a guess. It's the best guess I can give you.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

You have two seconds.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I was going to ask about minimum standards in monitoring enforcement, but I'll do that another time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I don't know if you'll get the chance, so go ahead very quickly.

Did you hear his question?

[Philippe Morel]

On the minimum standards, the minister, when he was in Malta, announced the composition of a panel to make some recommendations to him on minimum standards. This panel will be constituted and announced shortly. The role of the panel will be to provide some advice to the minister on categories of MPAs or what the minimum standards should be for each protection objective.

The other was monitoring. For every MPA or every fishery closure or every protection measure, we have to have a management plan in place. The management plan includes monitoring activities from monitoring by satellite, by the Coast Guard, or by other boats to enforcement activities by planes, by our C and P officers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Morrissey, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

During the process of this study into MPAs, various witnesses, whether from the academic or scientific community or the fishing industry, used the term “sustainable” but did not define it or defined it weakly. What's the definition that DFO uses for sustainability? Do you have one? If so, could you provide it for the committee?