Evidence of meeting #24 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Scientitic Director of the ArcticNet Network, As an Individual
I completely agree with the idea of compensation. We do it for a number of other industries, and I don't see why we wouldn't do it for fishers.
I think we have to stop having a short-term mentality and vision. Marine protected areas don't start working the day after they're created. There's a delay. As an example, it takes six or seven years for lobster to reach commercial size. Therefore it's normal for fishers to be compensated until things improve.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Cormier.
Mr. Beaulieu, you now have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Archambault, as my colleague said, pretty much all the witnesses today said there's no consultation and their recommendations are not being taken into consideration. Why do you think that is?
Scientitic Director of the ArcticNet Network, As an Individual
I just think it's because there are a lot of associations and consultations. Organizations need time to prepare. I think that's what DFO's trying to do, but I think there's definitely a lack of transparency and there needs to be more communication.
I also believe that there needs to be an organization devoted to gathering information from fishers, not just at one point in the year, but also a few months before the fishing season, as is currently done, and that organization needs to be involved from the get-go. The fishing season will begin in a few weeks in some regions of the country. Consultations would have to start well in advance. Consultations in preparation for the coming summer should've started last September. I think consultations take some time and there's a time lag.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
You're suggesting an arm's length government organization should conduct consultations to make proposals regarding protected areas.
Scientitic Director of the ArcticNet Network, As an Individual
I would even go so far as to say it should be a body independent of government.
I listened to the first panel of witnesses, and I think everyone agreed that a government organization could be both judge and jury. If we had an independent organization, as in some European countries that cast a much wider net, or in Norway, perhaps fishing organizations would have more confidence in the system. That's my opinion.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
At least one witness told us that lobbyists who were at the consultations appeared to have been consulted prior to the meetings with the fishers. We were also told that former government officials who attended these meetings were working for those lobbyists. What do you think of that situation? Did you observe the same thing?
Scientitic Director of the ArcticNet Network, As an Individual
While there are lobbyists for ocean protection organizations, there are just as many for the fishing industry. I'm no expert on lobbying, but I've always seen lobbyists on both sides. I would therefore prefer to exclude this criterion, because the side that pays the most will have the best lobbyists. Personally, I would exclude that from the equation.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
You would exclude environmental organizations as well as lobbyists.
Scientitic Director of the ArcticNet Network, As an Individual
Exactly. In both cases, that would be ideal.
As previously mentioned, we need scientific data and we need to consult with various stakeholders, whether they're fishers' associations or any organization that would be affected by a marine protected area. We need to consult with those who will be affected, whether they're in the tourism industry—I am thinking of the other witnesses here today—fishers, residents, indigenous communities, and, of course, scientists. We need evidence-based data and adequate decision-making in this case.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Earlier, we talked about compensation. The fishers who came to testify didn't seem to be in favour of this measure at all, but they also said that no one had received any compensation.
To your knowledge, has there ever been compensation for fishers who are penalized and losing income because of protected areas? Do you think they might accept it?
Scientitic Director of the ArcticNet Network, As an Individual
I've never received any information on that, and I'm not qualified to answer the question about compensation. I'm very sorry.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
All right.
In your opinion, how could we garner more support among fishers for establishing protected areas?
Scientitic Director of the ArcticNet Network, As an Individual
I think we should take them out to sea with us, on the same boat as scientists and various stakeholders. When I'm out at sea with lobster harvesters in a no-fishing zone, and we show them that the lobsters are all bigger and the females have more eggs, I guarantee you that they suddenly find this option quite interesting.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
You seem to be suggesting that they don't fully understand the impact of protected areas and that's why they react negatively.
Scientitic Director of the ArcticNet Network, As an Individual
I think everyone knows that the purpose of a marine protected area is to protect and preserve resources. We need to raise awareness and demonstrate the benefits of these areas more effectively. There are countless international studies that demonstrate them, but, as the saying goes, the grass is always greener elsewhere.
We therefore need to conduct more specific studies in our own Canadian waters to convince our people. Everyone wants the study to take place in their own backyard. People always say that things are different at home. International studies that compile data on everything have value because they allow us to compare ourselves to others, but if we conduct our own studies here, it is much easier to believe what is happening in our own waters, in our own backyard, than if we look at studies conducted in Norway, Australia, or elsewhere. Often, what those studies show is much harder to believe. We tell ourselves that it's far away, that it's warm, and that it's different from our own waters.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Thank you.
Ms. Rigg, have you ever attended consultations? What do you think of the relationship between the department and the fishers?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Ms. Rigg, please give a very brief answer because we are at time here.
Director and Owner, Atlas Ocean Tours
In Gwaii Haanas, for example, the fishing community was the most singularly consulted group when the marine zoning was decided. There were fisheries liaisons, commercial fisheries liaisons, and an advisory committee that had different sectoral representation, including fisheries. There were bilateral meetings with different sectors and then there was also the DFO IFMP process that engaged fisheries. It was an exceptionally consulted sector when the zoning for Gwaii Haanas was done, much more so than marine tourism tour operators, for example.
That said, I want to be clear. I support that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much.
That will finish our first round.
We're going to go into an abridged second round for four minutes, four minutes and two minutes, because of the time.
With that, I'll pass the floor to Mr. Small for four minutes.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I welcome the witnesses.
Mr. Archambault, first nations in the north are in numerous joint venture arrangements for harvesting Greenland halibut, also known as turbot, and prawns. This is an important part of their interaction with the ecosystem, to earn a living by harvesting the oceans of the north. It's an important part of reconciliation with our first nations in the north.
Why do you want to prohibit their fishing, their earning a living and the reconciliation process that's been undertaken by giving them more access to fishing in partnership with other groups in the north?
Scientitic Director of the ArcticNet Network, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
First of all, I never said “prohibit”. I want to correct you. I just said we need to protect some areas. That's quite different from prohibiting someone fishing. I think it's really important in this case that we evaluate, especially for the Arctic, where everything is changing at a pace.... Then we don't have the data. We have some information but not enough to make some decisions. Presently in the north, we're going to measure some of these variables, some of the changes, once a year.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
You just said that you don't have the data, that you don't have the necessary parameters outlined to make these decisions. Why do you want to continue on the path you're on when you just said that, basically, it doesn't make sense?
Scientitic Director of the ArcticNet Network, As an Individual
I'm trying to find the right term. When it comes to protection consultations, we don't want to destroy something from the outset before even knowing what can be excluded. I'm sure you'd rather see your doctor once a week to check on your health than go once a year.
In this case, we currently don't have the information we need to say that we can continue to harvest the resource at a very sustained pace, but I never said that there should be no harvesting at all. We want adequate parameters to be established before we dip into our capital, as I mentioned earlier.
