Fisheries Committee on Feb. 6th, 2018

[Philippe Morel]

Do we have one? We probably have 10.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That's what the witnesses said. That's the problem. Everybody wanted to base their position on sustainability, but it meant different things to everybody.

[Philippe Morel]

In establishing protection areas, the way we incorporate sustainability in the area is to find a balance between the conservation objective, the economic activity, the ecological component of the ecosystem, and the social use of the area. When we make a recommendation at DFO to create an MPA or close a fishery, we provide that information to the minister, based on the conservation objectives or ecological objectives we're trying to reach.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

And that decides your interpretation of sustainability at that time?

[Philippe Morel]

I wouldn't say that.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay. I have some other questions. It's as unclear as it was before.

[Philippe Morel]

It's certainly contributing to the sustainable management of our oceans.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I have a question. I reviewed my notes. Of all of those who presented before this committee on MPAs, nobody presented evidence or documented facts that an MPA had a detrimental impact on a fishery or a fisher. Am I correct on that?

[Christie Chute]

It did not?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

There was concern raised, but there was no evidence presented or documented that the establishment of an MPA had a negative impact on a fishery or a fisher.

[Christie Chute]

Our approach to MPA establishment is to take it site by site. We identify our conservation objectives and we understand the human uses, and we prohibit those human uses that are posing a risk to the conservation objectives. In some cases there will be impacts to fishers. They may have to be displaced to the area outside or may not be allowed to continue to fish because that particular activity is posing a risk.

I wouldn't say there are no impacts to fishers as a result of MPA establishment.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Has there been anything documented within DFO that the establishment of an MPA has had a negative impact on a fisher or fishing community? We've had positive ones. The fisher from Newfoundland talked about very positive impacts of that MPA.

I'm not aware of any. I looked back through my notes. I did not hear any presentation. I was curious as to whether you did.

[Philippe Morel]

The only thing I can say to that briefly is that when there are fishing activities in an area we designate as an MPA, we look at other ways to compensate and to have fisheries brought elsewhere in the area. It doesn't mean that because fishermen use that specific area that they cannot fish outside of the area. It has an impact on the way they fish but not on the end result of their fishing.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay, thank you. So you are not aware of any case?

[Philippe Morel]

No.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You're in ecosystem biodiversity, so you use this term. With the establishment of MPAs, does the department have a policy on how it would react to a predatory species that may encroach on an MPA? How would you monitor it?

Everybody talks around the issue of regrowth of the seal population on the east coast. They talk all around it, but nobody seems to acknowledge that its population growth has been, and I'll use the term, “explosive”. We also have now a growing indication of sea bass in the Northumberland Strait and these areas. How does the department view predatory species within potential MPAs? If you have a no-take zone, I'm assuming you also cannot take the predatory ones.

[Christie Chute]

Again, it's on a site-by-site basis, and we look at the science in the area to understand the predatory nature of the species that are there. We're looking not only at how the ecosystem is functioning but also at how humans are impacting on the conservation priorities.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

What are you doing about it? When you establish them, what do you do about it?

[Christie Chute]

Where there are issues with predatory species, we might take additional measures to better understand the dynamics occurring within that ecosystem. We may undertake additional science to understand whether a particular species is having an impact on another, and should science support the interaction, we might curtail the harvesting of a particular species or allow for more. Again, it's really that site-by-site approach and it's dependent on the specific conservation objectives of the area.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

So you would acknowledge then that if the science indicated that a species was becoming a predatory species even within an MPA zone, with the science backing it up, the department would take a look at putting management measures in place that would utilize that predatory species?

[Philippe Morel]

I think we will acknowledge that and we have a management plan that we review for each of our MPAs, and if the science tells us that the management plan should be adjusted, we will adjust the management plan.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

Mr. Miller, go ahead for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again, Ms. Chute and Mr. Morel, for being here.

I want to touch on what Mr. Finnigan asked about, namely decisions being based on politics versus science. I would ascertain that when the decision is made to protect our oceans or whatever, of course that's a political decision. I'll use the Grand Banks as an example. When the Grand Banks were being overfished and the fishers were telling everybody, “Look, it's depleted here. Our catches are way down. There's a problem. We don't know what it is yet, but there's a problem,” a political decision was made to put, I believe, an interim moratorium on it until they figured out what to do. That is where science comes in.

I'm okay with that political part of it. There is a time for political process, but, ultimately, I am convinced, because no information I have from any witnesses has made me change my mind that when it comes to the amount or when or where we protect or implement an MPA, it's not all based on science. It's based on some number that somebody grabbed out of the air. I just want to clarify that and what have you.

I asked the previous witnesses and they said to refer my question to both of you. I saw a map that has all of the northern shores of Lake Ontario, around Toronto, and Lake Erie, between there and Windsor in the St. Clair River, pencilled in for protection. Both of those shores have fisheries that have rebounded so terrifically it's amazing. Especially in Lake Erie but also in Lake Ontario, they are catching 40 plus-pound salmon there, etc. Could one of you tell me why that area would be a possible MPA when the fishery has never been better?

[Christie Chute]

The first point I would make is that the marine conservation targets and the work we're doing with marine protected areas apply to the marine environment and not to the Great Lakes. That said, Parks Canada does pursue national marine conservation areas and they do have national marine conservation areas within these Great Lakes, but we wouldn't be in a position to comment on the extent of the protections provided.

Our focus is on the marine environment, the ocean environment, and it doesn't apply to the Great Lakes.