Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the spirit of our sesquicentennial, I will give my presentation in my mother tongue.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the Maritime Fishermen's Union.
Our organization represents inshore fishers and communities along the east coast of New Brunswick, and a significant number of owner-operators in Nova Scotia. Our 1,243 members support themselves and contribute to their respective communities.
I would like to address the main points in the mandate letter of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, as well as a few paragraphs in the mandate letter of the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I would also like to offer the inshore fishery's perspective on the objectives in the strategic framework for marine protected areas.
My presentation will also reflect the holistic approach to the fishery that the MFU has consistently taken in order to ensure the prosperity of coastal communities in the Maritimes.
As our colleagues from the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters stated last November, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is currently focused on the conservation and protection of marine species, but we feel the department's perspective is not broad enough for communities with a sustainable economy. As the stewards of the fishery, we feel a broader perspective is essential.
Each of the ministerial mandate letters talks about consulting and including communities as part of the processes concerned. However, we do not believe that this has been done so far.
To begin with, the mandate letter for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans talks about such subjects as following up with stakeholders in a spirit of collaboration. I can tell you that the industry has not seen this spirit of collaboration yet and we are skeptical about the follow-up to the processes that have been introduced.
At this point, I would like to refer to a paragraph in the mandate letter for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, which speaks of the need to “review Canada's environmental assessment processes to regain public trust.” Your government promotes the values of inclusion, honesty and hard work, and considers collaborative planning to be one of its guiding principles. That is why, at this point, I would like to raise the following concerns in the interest of improving the consultation process on marine protected areas.
The mission of this standing committee should be to conduct a committed and thorough review of the consultative process for marine protected areas. Too often we have heard the concerns of industry stakeholders and our members about what constitutes a marine protected area. What exactly does that mean to many people?
We believe the next step must be to clearly communicate the geographic boundaries of potential marine protected areas as well as the impacts on current fishing practices in these areas. People participating in the inshore fishery must have the opportunity to demonstrate the non-adverse effects of their fishing practices on the marine habitat.
During fishery advisory board discussions to date—lobster, crab, herring—, stakeholders have expressed their serious concerns about whether a marine protected area places restrictions on fishing gear, and departmental representatives could not provide clear information. Consider for example crab fishing area 19, which was raised during discussions through a supporting document.
We would also like reassurance that establishing a marine protected area will not have unexpected negative impacts on our way of life.
The industry must also be persuaded that the consultative process takes into account the economic, social and environmental impacts of identifying marine protected areas.
In closing, we believe it is important for the traditional uses of ocean resources to be respected and for consideration to be given to the values of resource users, such as the members of the Maritime Fishermen's Union, which I represent.
We strongly believe that the objectives of marine protected areas can be achieved, but there must be a true consultation process that does not consist of simply sending a few documents to associations and stakeholders, and holding a few question-and-answer periods during inshore fishery advisory board meetings.
I believe that this forum is an excellent opportunity to consider proposals for a thorough consultation process with the goal of encouraging a spirit of cooperation on the part of the inshore fishing industry.
Our focus is on process and ensuring that our membership can continue their fishing practices.
I'd like to further refer to certain elements of mandate letters. There is often talk about the consultation process, but once again as we stated earlier, it is very limited in the scope of presentation, and we have noted that it's very limited in terms of coordination between the department officers and managers. Nobody gets the same story.
There are often buzzwords in those documents that some of the members of the industry see, and talk about how it must be done quickly. This recurs very often. We understand that this concept is lacking in the gulf area. We understand that, but the creed of the MFU is to protect coastal communities and encourage fisheries that have very limited impact on the ecosystem and other species.
With this, I would like to thank you for your time.