Fisheries Committee on Nov. 21st, 2017

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you.

To both of you, would you say the use of the—

[Bill Wareham]

Could I just...?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Perhaps in this next question you can follow up with that, Mr. Wareham.

Is the use of the precautionary principle one that you're glad to see in this legislation or one that causes concern?

[Nikki Macdonald]

I think it's a basic international standard today.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay.

Mr. Wareham?

[Bill Wareham]

Yes, I think the precautionary principle is essential. There's so much we don't know about ocean science. I wanted to raise the issue of adaptive management. We need this act to engage the opportunities for adaptive management from the process point of view, so that people can revisit this and look at this. We also need to understand that we have to try things, learn more, and do more science to understand the effects. As I said earlier, some of the global effects on our oceans are unprecedented. We don't know what's going to happen.

I also wanted to briefly speak to your previous question. In all the processes I have been in around this act, the industry sectors and communities have been involved through representation. Granted, that has its flaws, but they have been there. When you look at the lobby records in government on who's been talking to government about these issues, the industry and communities of all sorts have been in to government many, many times to raise issues.

I think the opportunity is there. I think we have to find ways to accommodate it in a more transparent process.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Your testimony today would be, then, that when those coming before us, whether it's Mr. Helin or the Fisheries Council of Canada or others we're meeting with, are saying that they haven't been fully engaged, and that rather than being engaged they're actually being told what's going to happen, that's not true?

[Bill Wareham]

That's, again, something that we could all claim at some level, that things happen to all of us from government announcements and that we weren't involved in that exact conversation, but through representation, those sectors have been invited to every table I've been at.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

I'm sorry to cut you guys off. I'm trying to get in as many questions as possible.

Would you both agree that Canada has the longest, most geographically diverse shoreline in the world?

[Nikki Macdonald]

Technically, in geographic terms, yes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Your testimony, Mr. Wareham, was that we need to make sure we're meeting our international timelines, and I would rather say that we need to make sure that we're looking after our home and those in the communities, the Canadian stakeholders, rather than trying to push forward something that's looking after international timelines.

Did I misunderstand you when you said that?

[Bill Wareham]

No, it's a factor. If we as a country have objectives that we've signed on to that we are going to try to maintain biodiversity and meet other global objectives that nation—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

How do we balance local versus international?

[Bill Wareham]

I think the two play off. As an example, where I live on the south coast of British Columbia, I can't go fishing. I can't catch a lingcod. I can't catch a rockfish. I can't catch a salmon. There's no more salmon charter businesses on the Sunshine Coast where I live. They're all gone. In my lifetime I've seen fishing disappear from where I live, and I think my community suffers from that. I think it's because we didn't take good care of the ocean and didn't manage it properly, so there's a reverse onus, I think, on industry and everyone to make sure that we maintain those resources for communities.

We haven't protected enough, we haven't managed well enough, and I think that's where the act gives us the power to do better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Doherty.

Mr. Donnelly you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both our witnesses for being here and providing your testimony on Bill C-55.

I think both of our witnesses have referenced Canada's international commitments. There's been some comment at this committee that this has been a rushed process, but Ms. Macdonald, you point out now, and rightly so, that Canada committed to our international agreement back in 1992, so Canada, essentially, has had 25 years to get to 5%, not a couple of years. We're looking at 28 years to get to 10%. Some would now argue that these targets are actually quite low, when you look at other countries around the world and what they've been achieving in terms of protecting their oceans.

I want to talk about two things, the consultation process and the idea of sectoral versus holistic. Starting with Mr. Wareham, on the consultation process, you've outlined what that process might look like. You talked about defined timelines, defined targets, and a defined planning process.

First of all, can you or have you written or provided those recommendations or your testimony in writing, or could you provide this committee with those recommendations or suggestions in writing?

[Bill Wareham]

I have not at this point. We have done some post-mortem analysis on the previous PNCIMA process and the MaPP process on the B.C. coast, but I'd be happy to write down our thoughts on best practices and positive elements of the process that we learned from those initiatives and provide that to you.

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

I think it would be very helpful. I think you've outlined quite specifically defined timelines, defined targets, and the consultation process, and you also referenced minimum standards. Having those outlined in writing and providing them to this committee, I think, would be helpful in terms of informing any kind of amendments when we review the legislation clause by clause.

[Bill Wareham]

I'll be happy to do that.

In the context of minimum standards and protection, I think one of the key things to ensure in these processes and through the act is that objectives are set. This is where it relates back to our CBD targets or biodiversity targets, or other things where the minimum standards are affected by what you're actually trying to protect. It's a case-by-case initiative on many levels, but I think when you put people together logic will prevail on what you're trying to protect and how to best do that and to maintain accommodation for other sectors to continue to do business that don't affect those objectives.

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

I'll look forward to the written submission. Thanks, Mr. Wareham.

My second question is to both Ms. Macdonald and Mr. Wareham. In terms of the sectoral versus holistic approach—I hear, Ms. Macdonald, your comments about holistic is not necessarily capturing integrated management processes or plans—IMPs—but do you see evidence...? I mean, you also talked about a lack of resources, a lack of political will and other things, and Mr. Wareham, you referenced a need for investment, which is similar to resources, and commitment, which is political in nature as well as to the process.

I'm more familiar.... I'll cite, for instance, wild salmon policy. I'm familiar with aquaculture where we're actually not achieving the integrated processes. Even under the wild salmon policy there was reference and evidence that the government is not achieving what its intended statements are. You've referenced the Oceans Act and this Bill C-55 is enabling and is not as specific, so it's....

Can you comment about how we can achieve or move toward IMPs or a holistic approach versus this sectoral...? How do we have that significant commitment and put those resources to it to succeed?

[Nikki Macdonald]

The reason I make the distinction between holistic and integration is from the work of Joanna Vince from Australia. She's taken a look at the Australian example around their success, or not in their case, with regional integrated management plans. She's asking the question of what is integration and whether that's what we should be looking forward to. From my point of view, the reason I use “holistic” is that it encourages us to take a broader view of what we mean by ecological systems and bringing in human systems, ecological environmental systems, socio-cultural as well as economic systems, so we're broadening the framework, if you will, through which we're making our decisions.

I think in the past, certainly if you talk to folks over at DFO, a large part of their methodology has really been confined to the environmental and the economic aspect and putting those two systems together. Whereas, more and more we're seeing in the literature an encouragement to expand that so decision-makers are getting a better and broader perspective, whether it's in how you make decisions around MPAs or regional plans.

I want to make a distinction as well between what we're asking of federal departments. Fourteen federal departments have ocean-related activities in their portfolios. Getting them to work together versus the work that needs to take place at a regional level, recognizing the diversity of our three coastlines, and then within those three coastlines, as well as at a local level, again recognizing the diversity of the various communities....

Much of my work has been thinking more on the federal level and how you get the federal family working together. As noted, in the past interdepartmental committees have been chaired by the deputy minister. I would like to see those committees having more force. I'd like to see whether there should be some kind of mechanism where, if a decision is going to cabinet and it has an ocean-related impact, some kind of assessment is carried out to understand that impact on oceans.

Again today, as this committee is probably aware, environmental assessments around oceans are divided between the Minister of the Environment and DFO. There's a split jurisdiction there, if you will. Perhaps there's a need to really look at that split and ask if we are doing the oceans and ourselves any favours by keeping them in two separate jurisdictions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.

Mr. Morrissey, you have seven minutes, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to the last time the Fisheries Act was changed. It was changed as part of the omnibus legislation in 2012, and I believe two witnesses were called and there was one meeting with the committee to review that. This committee is doing substantially more analysis of the current act. I fully support science-based decision-making. We cannot allow the activities that we have been doing in our oceans to continue if we're going to sustain those oceans going forward. The people who take the brunt of inaction by government are those in coastal communities and the fishers who depend on the ocean.

I have a question for each of the witnesses.

Of the two, is land-based activity or ocean-based activity more detrimental to the health of the oceans, just in general?

[Nikki Macdonald]

According to the literature, yes, human activity on land has a greater impact on the ocean today.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

Mr. Wareham.