Evidence of meeting #70 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Nancy Vohl
Paul Barnes  Director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Todd Russell  Board Member, BC Shellfish Growers' Association
Dan Edwards  Executive Director, Area A Crab Association
Dwan Street  Projects Coordinator, Fish, Food and Allied Workers

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Thank you.

Ms. Street, you also said that MPAs must have a purpose. I'm wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more. What would that purpose look like for you in a marine protected area?

10:20 a.m.

Projects Coordinator, Fish, Food and Allied Workers

Dwan Street

To us and to our membership, an MPA has to have a clear objective. We also need to make sure that by closing an area, we are going to achieve what that objective is.

Just to reflect on the current process, we have been a bit frustrated with some of the timelines we've been put under and a lot of the uncertainties that have come with some of the areas being proposed. Harvesters have sat at the table and said they don't think a certain area is what we should be looking at. For instance, if we are looking at northern cod as a species that is being protected by a closure, they may not think that closure is going to achieve that objective.

When you look at the process, which we feel is a bit rushed, we don't feel that we are being consulted and that all of the evidence is being taken into account. I think we just need to be clear on what the objective is and then make sure that by drawing lines we are protecting what we say we are protecting.

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Thank you.

Mr. Russell, you talked about enhancement, but I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the benefits of prevention and protection as a tool, and if you agree that MPAs are an effective tool.

10:20 a.m.

Board Member, BC Shellfish Growers' Association

Todd Russell

A lot of the damage that could have potentially been done to specific species or coastline or habitat has been mitigated in recent years through tougher guidelines for fishermen and bottom trawling and things like that. Our fisheries are a lot better managed, but, as Mr. Edwards says, rockfish stocks could have declined dramatically. They may take 100 or 200 years to recover. The damage has been done, and now enhancement would be the fastest viable option to rebuild those particular stocks at risk.

10:20 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Thanks.

I have a couple of minutes left.

Mr. Edwards, you talked about having terms of reference, and that is an excellent suggestion and it doesn't exist currently. Could you elaborate a little bit and give us examples of other terms of reference that you think are viable, which the government could pull from or this committee could look at...?

10:20 a.m.

Executive Director, Area A Crab Association

Dan Edwards

Terms of reference are being developed for the oceans management plan for the north coast bioregion, and they're still in the works. We have suggested very strongly that we use the kinds of terms of reference that we have with West Coast Aquatic on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which took two years to build and which included four levels of government and stakeholders in a consensus-building process.

The real concern we as fishermen have—and we have long experience in this—is basically about being consulted and the box being ticked and then the decision being made, and us no longer having any say in it and our concerns not being met.

If you look at Australia's example, they did not develop a conflict resolution structural adjustment framework for the Great Barrier Reef until well after the process had started, and then they put money into it because they realized they had to, and the implementation side of it was very poorly done. You're much better off, as government, to put in those kinds of terms of reference up front. Doing that gives you a much better process that people can feel safe engaging in and then the shared decision-making framework is much more acceptable at the end of the day. When you do that, you have to recognize that you never do take away ultimately from ministerial discretion and the decision-making of government but you do your utmost to develop consensus around the best way to build these kinds of things like MPAs.

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

I have a short question.

No? That's it. Okay.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Todd Doherty

Mr. Hardie, go ahead for seven minutes.

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Mr. Chair, a constant theme that comes up is consultation with people, hearing other people, absorbing what they hear, playing it back, and then those folks who give their input see it reflected in decisions that are made.

All of you have had, it would appear, some long-standing experience in dealing with governments and with DFO over the years. Is there a lack of continuity here? Does the ground keep shifting a little too much to give a lot of confidence that in fact the right decisions are coming about the right way?

We'll start with you, Mr. Edwards.

10:25 a.m.

Executive Director, Area A Crab Association

Dan Edwards

It can change every four years.

The important thing is to develop governance structures—and this is really well known in the world of marine planning—that will go past election cycles, that will be rooted in principles and rooted in ecosystem-based science and the development of future marine plans for the Canadian marine space. There are mechanisms that government can put in place that will go beyond election cycles, and those are needed. Otherwise you end up with shifting grounds that occur around the. There need to be ways to deal with those, and there are ways we can do that.

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Very briefly, does anybody else want to chime in on this? No.

We'll move on.

Mr. Russell, this is a technical question on your industry. My friend Mr. Donnelly and I share a lot of concerns about aquaculture, mainly fish farming, and the impact on the bottom and other species. In your industry, do you introduce things like nutrients and antibiotics? Are there conflicts between growing what you grow and the other species that naturally inhabit those waters?

10:25 a.m.

Board Member, BC Shellfish Growers' Association

Todd Russell

No.

We do not introduce anything into the water. It's technically illegal for us to broadcast any nutrients or anything in the water. All of our species rely on filtering natural algal blooms out of the water column. The biggest negative perception with our activities is loss of gear, as I mentioned, in storm events, loss of trays or things like that. A lot of that has been mitigated with better designed equipment and the banning of polystyrene and things like that in our rafts.

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Thank you for that.

Mr. Edwards, I want to come back to you and perhaps ask others to comment if there's time.

Over time in the studies we've done, Tides Canada's name comes up and the Moore Foundation comes up. We certainly do hear references to the international investment community come up. The agenda of the international investment community seems to be pretty clear. They want to come in, develop something, and make some money. I think everybody who's involved in a commercial activity wants to do that. But I'm still a little in the dark about what Tides Canada and the Moore Foundation are all about. It's obvious that the previous government did feel some sensitivity there.

Mr. Edwards, can you explain what their sensitivity is and comment generally about who these people are and why they're so active in our industry here?

10:25 a.m.

Executive Director, Area A Crab Association

Dan Edwards

I don't know a lot about Tides Canada other than that it's connected as a delivery agent for Moore Foundation money. Foundation funding is very rich and there are several wealthy foundations in the world, many of them in the United States. There are also international industry companies that also do investment around the world, and these foundations do similar things.

In the development of the partnership between the Tides Foundation and the Moore Foundation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans back in 2010 and 2011, there was a lot of work done by the department to basically create that as a private-public funding process. It was to make sure the money was at arm's length and that it did not influence public policy. There was a huge amount of work done on that by the department. I had to commend them at that time for what they were doing in order to make sure there was no undue influence. What we found useful from that perspective was that for small-boat independent owner-operators with not a lot of resources for engagement, that money would have been very useful for us to engage properly and that disappeared.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Why did it disappear?

September 28th, 2017 / 10:30 a.m.

Executive Director, Area A Crab Association

Dan Edwards

I've laid it out in here.

There were lobbying efforts to stop the money being used because of the concerns around American money influencing Canadian public policy. Considering the fact that I live in an industry where a huge amount of foreign investment is now buying up quotas in B.C., I find it to be an ironic situation. I think DFO at the time did a very good job as an agency to make sure it safeguarded the use of that money so that it was focused on building Canadian public policy and not being overly influenced by American concerns.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Ms. Street, on the storied experience and getting that information into the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we've heard various versions of this story over time.

What's it going to take? What kind of structure, attitude, and environment will it take to actually bring the DFO a little bit closer to the people who know what they're talking about?

10:30 a.m.

Projects Coordinator, Fish, Food and Allied Workers

Dwan Street

I think we have a big opportunity right now with government's investment in the department. We're seeing a lot of policy and economic investment. I think one of the biggest opportunities we have is to bring in social science. For decades there's been a disregard for the importance of social science when we look at the data and we look at what needs to be taken into account. We've stressed for a long time that socio-economic analysis and actually speaking with people on the ground are what's going to achieve the results.

Natural science has a huge role in all of this, but I think it needs to be coupled with social science as well. We need to get people on the ground actually speaking to fish harvesters, getting the experience, and mapping that out. With first nations, as well, there's such a wealth of knowledge there that sometimes it doesn't get taken into account because a lot of times we focus too much on the numbers. If we can come up with a holistic approach and bring in the right people with the right attitudes who want to get this done and get it done properly, I think we have a bright opportunity ahead of us to change some attitudes and get that done.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Thank you.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you very much. We appreciate that.

We will now go to a five-minute round.

Mr. Arnold.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our four guests today. It's great to hear your testimony. A lot of it is in line with what we're heard already in this study, and it's certainly been an interesting study.

We've been to the north coast and to the west coast, and we're now going to be travelling to the east coast, and what we're finding is that there are certainly different situations on all coasts and in different areas, but we seem to be held to the IUCN targets and some of those designate no-take and so on. Do you think Canada should be held to a no-take standard or those IUCN targets in order for a marine protected area to be effective for what we in Canada feel it should be effective for?

I would like to hear from all four of you on that.

10:30 a.m.

Executive Director, Area A Crab Association

Dan Edwards

I would say no, from my perspective. We don't have to deal with just the IUCN. There are lots of ways to assess whether or not what's happening is a worthwhile framework. IUCN is not necessarily the standard to be developed.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Thank you.

Ms. Street.

10:30 a.m.

Projects Coordinator, Fish, Food and Allied Workers

Dwan Street

I would have to agree with Mr. Edwards. I think it's important that in Canada we have our own set of standards and that we not feel pressure from something that's external. We're already very strong leaders when it comes to conservation and protection of our oceans, and I think we do a good job at that. We should focus more internally on looking at what we're doing here rather than being boxed in by an external set of guidelines.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Thank you.

Mr. Barnes.