Fisheries Committee on Nov. 21st, 2017

[Paul Crowley]

I think it can be done correctly in a timely way. The speed at which it's being done means that the consultations need to be meaningful right off the bat, but it's not impossible to do. It should not take five to seven years to create a marine protected area. In my region, for instance, the Tallurutiup Imanga/Lancaster Sound national marine conservation area, the community has been asking for it for over 30 years. It's finally coming toward a conclusion, and that shouldn't be the case where communities have a strong desire for protection, for instance. It shouldn't take so long.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

What would you say is the reason for those long delays? Bureaucracy, policy, community consultation are just a few of the ideas I'm throwing out there.

[Paul Crowley]

I would say some of it in that case.... The community desire was to protect against oil and gas exploration. There was exploration in the region in the seventies that literally traumatized people. I would say it was a continuous belief in other parts of the country that surely they couldn't want protection there, yet they did, and so steadfastly they continued asking for protection. It's a combination of a number of things. It's also that there were some oil and gas permits there that had not been acted on that were blocking the creation of the larger boundary, which the local communities wanted, to protect the integrity of the ecosystem. There are a number of issues.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Helin, I'll go back to my first question. Do you feel we're going to be too rushed? Is there enough time for consultation to get the additional 5% in place?

[John Helin]

I think you have to understand the different programs out there. We talked about the oceans protection plan. How does this fit into that and marine protected areas and everything else? What overlaps with what? I know in the past we spent a lot of money on land use plans and marine use plans in our territory, so we have all that information there locally. We've been studied to death. There's a lot of money that has gone into these plans.

Meet with us and let's understand it going forward. It shouldn't be difficult. You talk about bureaucracy. Sure, it's there. Politics are there. However, I think if we sit down and be up front and honest about what we want out of things, we'll get there much quicker.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

I haven't met you before, but I have met your brother in my previous role with the wildlife federation. Your brother, Calvin Helin, wrote the book Dances with Dependency and I understand he has another book coming out. I look forward to reading that as well.

It seems your community has been able to, or is maybe looking to, strike the balance between ecological requirements and economical requirements. I applaud your organization, your band, your community for going down that path.

You said earlier in your testimony that you see NGOs coming into your territory and spreading false information or dividing you. Could you elaborate on that a little bit further, please?

[John Helin]

Again, I'll point to Lelu Island, which was the flashpoint of a lot of controversy for the PNW LNG project up there, because they infiltrated some of our community members, and not the right ones, by going onto the island and building a house there without consideration of the right people for that territory. We know who funded them, and they're still being paid today. They lost a court case, but they're still appealing that. It's coming in and dividing people with false information.

After the election I had to go to our membership with the real information. I wasn't pulling one way or the other for the project, but I had to get information to my members so they could make an informed decision on what was really happening there. After doing that, we went to a vote, just like voting for my position, and we got a two-thirds vote to agree with the project. It's real. There are people coming into communities to stop development. That's coming to light and we're tired of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mayor Helin and Mr. Arnold.

Ms. Jordan, please, you have five minutes.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Crowley, one of the things we've heard time and time again is that you wouldn't expect to see this type of work happening in a national park, or you wouldn't expect this in a national park. We've heard that a lot. My question is, can you name any national park where the surrounding communities were reliant on what was happening in the park before it was a national park?

When you're looking at an MPA, you have communities that are reliant on the fishing industry and possibly reliant on oil and gas. I get concerned when we're comparing national parks, because I personally.... I guess that's why I'm asking you if they've ever shut down an industry in a national park, an industry that had sustained a community. Can you give me any examples of where that may have happened?

[Paul Crowley]

I don't doubt that it has been the case when national parks have been created that communities have been affected, but I can't bring a specific example to your attention, I'm afraid.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thanks.

I also want to comment on Mr. Donnelly's point that we have five meetings for this study. I would like to point out that for this one as well we have agreed to take into effect all the testimony we heard when we did MPA studies, and we actually travelled to the coasts to do that. I wanted to put that on the record since Mr. Donnelly thought it was important to put his point on the record.

There's another question I would have for you, Mr. Crowley, I guess, or for World Wildlife. You said not to include “low-impact fishing”. Could you give me your examples of low-impact fishing?

[Paul Crowley]

Low-impact fishing is fishing that would not—

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Specific examples: which fishing industry? Lobsters, gillnet, longline...?

[Paul Crowley]

In some cases, for instance, lobster, depending on.... You would have to look at it very specifically in each case, but I would give lobster fishing as an example, where the impacts on the ocean bottom could be minimal.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Okay. When we were in, I think, Shippagan, on the east coast, one of the concerns people had when they talked about an MPA was that you can't bottom-trawl there because it destroys the ocean bottom, but literally right next to the MPA, you could, because it doesn't obviously take in that area. There is concern as to why that invisible line should be allowed to separate what is allowed to be done on the ocean floor and what is not.

[Paul Crowley]

The creation of MPAs would then also create refugia and also areas where the ecosystem can regenerate. It's imperfect, and a line will get drawn. I would also put out that around a strict line, there needs to be management beyond that line as well.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

One of the things that I think we've heard in every testimony is about the consultation process, and what real consultation looks like.

Susanna Fuller, from the Ecology Action Centre, testified that seven years is too long. You would do a consultation and it would sit on someone's desk, and then whenever the MPA was going to be designated, the people would have changed. They wouldn't think that they had been consulted, but they had, so shutting it to a lesser time would be advantageous. Then there are people who feel that the consultation process isn't happening at all.

I'm wondering how we find that balance. How do you define what meaningful consultation is?

[Paul Crowley]

You know it when you see it. That's for sure.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

If the people change in the interim and they haven't seen it, then they feel they haven't been consulted.

[Paul Crowley]

Absolutely, hence, as Susanna Fuller suggested, bringing it into a shorter time frame makes sense. It's about ensuring that whoever is representing the broader public interest—the government that's there—is also there to listen and to take back and meaningfully adjust from what they've heard.

Also, we have to take into account the national interests. For instance, we do need to decarbonize our economy. If we go above 1.5°C in terms of global warming, our Arctic is going to change quite considerably. There are some things that are maybe less negotiable than others, but overall when you go into a community, you know. Thirty years ago, the community of Pond Inlet wanted protection up in their area, and I just don't think they were believed—or people thought they knew better.

It's as much about the attitude with which you present it. You can set it out in law, but you can't guarantee it in an individual.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much, everybody, for this hour.

I want to say thank you to our witnesses, as well. Some of you have come a great distance to be here, and we appreciate that. Mayor Helin from Lax Kw'alaams Band, thank you again; and of course, Mr. Crowley and Mr. Brooks, from the World Wildlife Fund, we also thank you as well.

Colleagues, this is going to be a very short break

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Welcome back, everybody. I have a couple of things before we get to our witnesses.

It has been brought to my attention that there may be a vote at 11:10 eastern time, which of course means that the 30-minute bells may start ringing at 10:40.

Do I have the permission of the committee to continue until 10:45 a.m., missing out on five minutes? Are we okay with that, everybody?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, let me just go back to an earlier point that was made about referencing people in the gallery. We've done some checking here.

I appreciate the point made by Ms. Jordan about the fact that we are an extension of the House of Commons. However, according to the Standing Orders—and really it's O'Brien and Bosc that I'm referring to—it is the right of the Speaker to identify people in the gallery. It's more for decorum, for diplomatic reasons, and so on and so forth. When people from within debate in the House of Commons point out people in the gallery, they would be overruled.

However, there's no precedent or ruling per se—a hard ruling—about pointing out people in the gallery. I have done it in the past, but I suppose you could argue that I am an extension of the Speaker and able to do so. Some of us have also done it in the past with some contention. Therefore, we will refer to the clerk in the House to see what the rule has been, because we can't seem to find a precedent for it.

In the meantime, my personal opinion, as chair, is that I'll use my own discretion to do that. Colleagues, if you wish to point out somebody's presence in the audience, it's your seven minutes or five minutes, and you can do that if you wish, as long as it doesn't disrupt the debate. Okay?

In the meantime, we will refer to the Clerk of the House of Commons, and I'll come back with that.

Meanwhile, let us return to our regularly scheduled program.

Ms. Macdonald, nice to see you. Nikki Macdonald is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Victoria who wrote us directly, and with the permission of committee, we are glad you could make it here today.

We also have, joining us by video conference, Mr. Bill Wareham, who is a science projects manager for the western region of the David Suzuki Foundation.

That being said, Ms. Macdonald, we're going to go with you first. You have up to 10 minutes for your opening statement.