Fisheries Committee on Feb. 6th, 2018

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay. I don't probably have enough time here to get into the main guts of my questions, but again, it's about consultation, and we talked about this the last time. I know there was consultation, but we also heard many, many times from stakeholders that basically there wasn't, or it was so minimal that they were barely given lip service. Can you comment on that? Do we believe them, or do we not believe them?

[Randy Jenkins]

I guess what I would say, to repeat what I said earlier, is that consultation is in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent. I think the department and our partners have carried out adequate consultation. We've made ourselves available. Have we stopped in every little community? Perhaps not, but individuals have the opportunity to submit written comments as well as appear if there's a public hearing. I've heard from the fishing industry—as we mentioned, we get a lot of feedback from them—that sometimes lack of consultation is translated as their perhaps not having enough time to arrive at the same conclusion. It's not that they are not consulted. It's just that they'd like to have perhaps more time to carry out an activity or more time before changes are brought into play. I think it's a bit of both. I certainly can't say that the individuals who say they don't feel they were adequately consulted are not speaking the truth from their perspective, but I can say that the department has made many endeavours to consult, to the extent possible within the time frames, on each of the MPAs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Jenkins.

Mr. Donnelly, please.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mel was asking them about the economics branch, and Mr. Gilchrist indicated that there might be somebody here from the economics branch. I would just suggest that we invite them to the table, so that if another question comes up on that, at least it can be answered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

It's not a point of order, but let me look at the time. I understand your request.

I'll go to Mr. Donnelly first, and we'll deal with it.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair; and thanks to our departmental officials for being here again with us this week.

I think last week we were talking about fisheries management, tools, and practices. In that vein, about best fishery management tools, to ensure commercial fisheries flourish, I wonder if you could talk about or give some real examples on each of the three coasts about which management practices work best. In your opinion, if the goal is a flourishing fishery, what on the west coast, the Arctic, and the east coast work the best?

[Randy Jenkins]

I guess it depends on the objective of the closure.

In the case that we heard last week, the Eastport example, where the objective was to try to increase the biomass of lobster in a very finite area to benefit the communities that are alongside, a total closure or ongoing closure would allow the reproductive animals in that area to reproduce and their spawn would spread throughout the ecosystem and benefit the fishers who were alongside. At the same time, in terms of fishery management actions, and not necessarily directly related to the closure, the department took other measures so that only certain fishers could fish in the area. Those were the ones who were adjacent to the coast, so there was a double angle.

Maybe I'm not understanding your question well, but to take a west coast example of what's effective, if we look at the offshore Pacific seamounts and vents as an example of a closure, we're primarily protecting the bottom. Therefore, any bottom-type fisheries would have to be close to obtain the objective of the closure. However, at the same time, for surface fisheries such as tuna fishing, there's no reason in the world why tuna fishing can't continue.

We try to zero in on what we're trying to protect and minimize the impact that would have on the fisheries. If we're protecting bottoms and corals, then fisheries that don't impact the bottom, in theory or in reality, can still be allowed to continue, whereas those that do, won't.

When you're talking about a management measure in localized areas particularly—maybe they don't work as well in large offshore areas—if you have a fishery going on that impacts the bottom currently, and that's the activity we wish to stop, it is possible that a similar fishery could continue, or a fishery for that species, as long as there's a switch to gear that's less harmful to the environment.

Brett, do you have any other example to add?

[Brett Gilchrist]

I'll be very quick.

I think my colleague has summed it up. Start from the best available science, and then focus on the ecosystem feature, the objectives for an area that you want to protect, and then work from there on identify the gear types that have a direct impact or that don't have a direct impact.

That was the case for areas across the country, such as the area in the Pacific that my colleague mentioned where we were protecting hydrothermal vents and seamounts in deep water. Bottom-contact fishing was the focus, but allowing fishing gear that does not have a direct impact to continue, and that's based on the best available science.

That's a key part of our other effective area-based measures tool: the ecological component of interest is effectively protected.

You have the gulf coral and sponge areas as well, where a series of areas were closed to bottom-contact fishing. Again, that's based on protecting coral, so the last thing we want to do is to have fishing activity that will move through that and have a direct impact on that area, but other activities that are known not to have an impact can continue.

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

What about the Arctic? You mentioned both coasts.

[Brett Gilchrist]

The Disko Fan is actually in the Baffin Bay area. That's an example of protection that looks at both the narwhal and their food source, and coral in the area as well. It's a multifaceted protection.

There's another one in the Davis Strait that does the same, for coral and sponge. Hatton Basin, which straddles the Newfoundland area and the eastern Arctic, has a similar benefit for coral and sponges.

Again, the focus is based on the best available science, restricting fishing activity that has a direct impact on that ecosystem feature.

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

In short, it's about closures, restricting fisheries, and gear types. Those are the kinds of management tools your branch talks about—

[Brett Gilchrist]

Based on the best available science....

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

Okay.

In your opinion, just as a general question, what species' fishery is hardest to protect and conserve, from rockfish, to lobster, crabs, salmon? What is the hardest thing to protect, and why?

[Randy Jenkins]

Well, that's a good question, and I'm not sure I really know the answer.

A lot of it depends on the complexity. If you're talking about species protection, if you have a species you're trying to protect that's in very limited quantity, or is a mixed species, then it is a bit more complex to protect, in the sense that you can't allow many other fisheries because you could then have a bycatch issue or a problem such as that.

A single species in a single area is perhaps easier to protect because you can have a closure in effect that would only implicate that one fishery, as opposed to multiple fisheries.

Again, it's not necessarily the hardness; there's the complexity issue.

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

That's probably good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Hardie, for seven minutes, please.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

In your experience so far with MPAs, is there a scenario where the benthic zone doesn't need to be protected, or is that pretty much a common denominator across the MPAs that we have?

[Randy Jenkins]

It's frequently a common denominator, but it's not the sole source.

There are two in Newfoundland that I can mention. We've already discussed the Eastport example, which is really about protecting an area for lobster reproduction. In Gilbert Bay, in Labrador, it's a type of red cod that's being protected, so it's not the bottom features. Those would be two examples, and there may be others.

I think it's fair to say that quite often there is a sensitive benthic area as well.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Would that also apply to the rockfish conservation areas in B.C.?

[Brett Gilchrist]

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first question.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

The first question was, are there scenarios where a marine protected area wouldn't include protection for the benthic zone, the bottom?

[Brett Gilchrist]

Okay.

There are areas that aren't exclusively focused on bottom features, such as corals and sponges—the narwhal example in Baffin Bay.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I was actually specifically asking about the rockfish conservation areas, the relatively small in-shore areas.

[Brett Gilchrist]

This is an area that I am somewhat familiar with. It doesn't count towards our current area closures, but it is an area that was considered. It's an example of one that was more complicated for a number of reasons. Again, I'm not as familiar with the dynamics of that fishery, but it's an example of an area that we reviewed and need to do more work on to consider it as a potential candidate for marine conservation targets in the future.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

A number of people we spoke to mentioned the adaptive management framework as a preferred way of going forward. Are you familiar with that framework? Do you know if it's being employed? “No” is a good answer, but it is something that came up a few times.