Evidence of meeting #84 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 consultation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Acting Assistant Director, Fisheries National Programs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'm sure my other colleagues are probably more familiar with that. Off the top of my head, I'm....
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
All right. We'll ask them when our time comes. It gives them a chance to look it up.
What's the state of the fish stock assessment process at the DFO? How are we doing?
In other hearings on other studies, we've heard that we're far behind and certainly not up to date. Are we making progress there?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Senior Director, Integrated Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
That's a question best directed to our science branch, regarding the status of any particular stock. As a general statement, I can say that science has done a lot of hiring in the past few years, so there is a lot more effort being directed into various fisheries. Depending on which particular fishery you're concerned about, we'd have to specify and we can take it back.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Good.
Let's go back to consultation because when we were out speaking with people, we heard a lot about that. That was the process we were undertaking at the time. You mentioned that adequate consultation is in the eye of the beholders, so what have the beholders been telling you?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Assistant Director, Fisheries National Programs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I've had a lot opportunities to hear directly from NGOs and industry. Some of the decisions were challenging from an industry perspective, but I've also heard and participated in discussions where industry was aware of need to do this. At the Boston seafood show, some of them actually mentioned that they see MPAs, and their involvement in MPAs, as an opportunity to promote how they're also managing their stocks responsibly from a commercial perspective. I've heard from several ENGOs that were very supportive of the area closures, for example, in the north and some in the Newfoundland area. There are others that have had challenges with our proposed approach. I think that's probably to be expected in all scenarios, especially when such a large undertaking happens, as we had last year.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I wonder if we've learned a few things along the way as we've gone through these processes. When our committee went up to the Far North, for instance, we went to Paulatuk, because we wanted to talk to the community, only to find out that it was the time of year when they were out on the land, so we missed connecting with people. We've heard similar stories. In fact, my colleague, Ms. Jordan, was mentioning that there have been times when we wanted to talk to them, but they were out. They were doing things. Is this one of the things we've learned: to choose the appropriate time when the people are actually available?
9:40 a.m.
Acting Senior Director, Integrated Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think it's fair to say that availability of the core group is important. I think it was raised last week, as well, with regard to the fishing industry. If the crab fishery is open and you're trying to target crab fishers, there's a greater likelihood that some or all of the crab fishers will be at sea, so I think that is a consideration. As I mentioned before, there are targeted consultations, but there are also other opportunities for groups or representatives of groups to make their views known through written submissions or by attending other meetings.
February 6th, 2018 / 9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I think there's at least a perception that the approach to consultation is a “once and done” thing, whereas perhaps an ongoing dialogue is going to be more important. Similarly, it seems that it's not necessarily going to be just about buying a box of doughnuts and some coffee, opening the hall, and seeing who shows up. It's going to be about making more of an effort to proactively go out and speak to the people who are actually trying to make a living. The NGOs have an agenda—good for them. That's why the process is there, but it's the balance that counts. It's hearing the people—and in some cases chasing them down at the right time when we can actually get to them—that will give us a fuller sense of what is going on out there. It will also contribute to the whole issue of fair process so that more people will understand that they've had their say. Even if they don't like the outcome totally, or at all, they at least know that somebody has gone out and looked for their opinion.
That was just a comment, not a question.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Hardie.
Mr. Miller, before we start, you mentioned that you wanted someone from the economics branch who is here. It's my understanding that nobody is here from the economics branch, per se. However, our next round of questioning deals with the oceans crew, and they can speak to some of the issues because they deal quite frequently with the economics branch.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Very good. I was under the understanding that they were here, and I thought they might as well be at the table, but that's fair.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thanks again, gentlemen, for being here.
Last week, some of my questioning was about science-based selection of MPAs. You've indicated, Mr. Jenkins, that, yes, it is science-based—meaning how, why, and where MPAs are established—and I asked you for some information. What I'm trying to get at here is the 5% and the 10%. I think you'd have to agree that, from a logical standpoint, it would be very doubtful if some kind of study or science came out and said that the two targets should be 5% and 10%. I'm trying to establish if those targets were based on science—somebody said that, hey, this is the exact amount—or if they were based on a political decision.
Can you respond to that?
9:40 a.m.
Acting Senior Director, Integrated Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The overall target of 10% is an international target that was established and accepted by the members who are party to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Acting Senior Director, Integrated Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It was established in 2010.
Perhaps my colleagues in the oceans' group can shed more light on the background in 2010 as to how they arrived at the target. Was it purely political, or a combination of political choices and science, or whatever?
It's my understanding that the 5% target was a Canadian commitment to help us benchmark our progress to achieving the 10%. I can't say with any certainty that 5% by 2017 was the target for all countries that are party to the convention. I do know that 10% is the target for all of the countries that were party—
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Then let's concentrate on the 10%. That 10% sounds like it was a decision made somewhere, and by whom you haven't said. Was it the UN? Was it NATO? Was it some other group? It was a target not based on science, but delivered to us from external organizations. Is that correct?
9:45 a.m.
Acting Senior Director, Integrated Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I can't concur with what you said. I can confirm that it is the UN that set the target, and I was remiss not to mention that at the beginning. To say that just because the UN established a target, it's not based on science, I think would be folly.
9:45 a.m.
Acting Senior Director, Integrated Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
What I said is I'm not sure how they arrived at the 10%, if it was a negotiated process or partially science, or partially considerations of the longer term gain. Again, my colleagues from oceans are likely much more familiar with the activities that led to the 10% being established back in 2010.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Okay. I think it's pretty clear that if it were done by the UN it wasn't based on science, and it certainly wasn't done by Canada, so I'm not going to dwell anymore on that.
We talked a bit about the economic consequences, and maybe we'll find out a little more from the next witnesses on that.
On the consultations, I do want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Hardie and Ms. Jordan, for bringing up the point that in many of the consultations we heard from the fishermen and other stakeholders that they were out doing what they do—fishing—instead of consultations in the off-season. I do hope that we learned something from that because it's a pattern, and it doesn't seem to matter what department we're dealing with in government.
There's one last thing I want to mention. On the Great Lakes, there's a strip of land on a map that I've seen, and basically all of the north shores of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario pencilled in as potential MPAs. The reason I find that absurd is that the fisheries in both of those have never been better. If you remember back in the seventies and eighties, the fishery in Lake Ontario was pretty near gone because of chemicals or what have you, whether it was from Hamilton, Toronto, wherever. However, they've cleaned that up and the fishery in Lake Erie is actually second to none now. Compare it to the south Georgian Bay area where I'm from, and the fishery there is almost ruined. The aboriginal fishers have basically fished it out, and I think that's their intent. Why would there be plans or even thoughts to put in MPAs on the north shores of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie when the fishery is obviously very healthy and actually improving?
Have you seen those maps that I've seen?
9:45 a.m.
Acting Senior Director, Integrated Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'm going to have to defer your question to the next group, oceans. I'm not familiar with any plans for the Great Lakes. Sorry.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Acting Assistant Director, Fisheries National Programs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
In our resource management branch, our areas of jurisdiction have been marine and coastal fisheries, so we haven't dealt with the inland lakes and water bodies. Again, my colleagues may be able to answer that.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Okay, folks, that concludes this part. We have to move very quickly to the next panel, so I'm going to break for a very short time to bring in our next guests.
Thank you.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Welcome back, everyone. This is going to be our very last round of witnesses for this study.
I want to thank, for coming here again, Jeff MacDonald, director general, oceans and fisheries policy; and Mr. Philippe Morel, assistant deputy minister, the aquatic ecosystems sector.
Mr. MacDonald, I understand that you have to leave at around 10:15, and so Christine Chute will also be here.
Ms. Chute, I'm sorry, but I don't have your title here. What is your title?