Evidence of meeting #134 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was enforcement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Skipper Otto Community Supported Fishery
It's correct that the fisheries on the east coast and the west coast are very different. What is consistent, though, is that without protections for active harvesters, the dollars flow away from them.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
I agree. You articulated that well. Quite frankly, it should be unacceptable to a G7 country like Canada that the resource is going away, but if we don't begin, we will never get there. That leads to the lack of confidence among B.C. fishers that you are articulating here. It didn't occur on the east coast overnight.
What preliminary steps would you recommend that you would like to see in the Fisheries Act to begin the journey towards owner-operator?
Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Skipper Otto Community Supported Fishery
I would argue that the Fisheries Act already provides the authority to the minister, with a stroke of a pen in a ministerial order, to say that west coast fisheries are moving toward a made-in-B.C., owner-operator policy. I think a bit of vagueness in the act makes that a grey area. When there's a grey area, people don't act.
If the language in the Fisheries Act would change to say that the minister “must” consider socio-economics in her decisions, that would give her the confidence to act immediately. As soon as that's done, as soon as that direction is indicated.... As you said, it's going to take time, but the time should start from the moment we say that British Columbia or the Pacific region will move toward owner-operator and fleet separation policies. Then we can begin the seven-year clock, as we did on the east coast, and figure out how to do that based on each fishery. Without the initial statement, that's what's holding us up.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you for your candidness and clear direction on one recommendation.
I want to go to Mr. Zeman.
I believe it was you who referenced that the department is not “structured for success”. Could you elaborate on that?
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
There are a few pieces to that. I appreciate the discussion with Dr. Mordecai, because we experienced this with steelhead.
We would call it a separation between state and church. Instead of having people who identify what's available and people who identify regulations running into the same stream, the science piece, the fishery stock assessment piece and the species at risk piece should be a separate channel from the manager's piece. You would have people on one side who lift up the science and the harvest that's available. That would then go over to people who can identify how the harvest is carried out.
Currently, those two things run into each other and we end up with externalities. We end up with the case of steelhead, where we had ATIPs that showed the deputy's office was interfering in what's supposed to be an independent process. How do you create independence? You give them lines of authority that are separate. That's the best choice or the best approach.
The other thing that really concerns us is that we're moving into a world where—
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Excuse me, Mr. Zeman.
Those lines of authority, ultimately, must go to the top, which is the minister. Is that correct?
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
Yes. You may have structures that go to two separate places. As long as the minister isn't reaching in....
What we're trying to identify is that Canadians need to see a place where the science is carried out without being fettered by someone from above. That's the concern. It's well documented as well.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
There's been a history in the department. We've seen it over the years. When the science recommendation went to the minister, it ran afoul of the political expedience of the day and was being pushed.... Generally, the opposition of the day cries foul when a department rolls back quotas based on science, or overturns them, and the fishers are always right. How would you advise or recommend that this not occur?
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
That's a great question.
You could go to an independent model. I believe that's what the other witness referred to when she talked about how people are engaged and more nimble in the States. That's because they have commissions down there. That's one solution.
As it relates to the high end, you can always have policy- and decision-makers making decisions. The big thing for Canadians is to see transparency around the scientific advice that happens. I think that's part of it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Morrissey. You've gone a couple of seconds over.
That concludes our round of questioning in the second panel.
I want to say a huge thank you to Ms. Strobel, Mr. Zeman and Mr. Mordecai for being here today, both in person and on screen, to provide their knowledge to the committee as we go through this report.
Hearing nothing else, the meeting is adjourned.