Skip to content
POFO - Standing Committee

Fisheries and Oceans

 

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on 
Fisheries and Oceans

Issue No. 37 - Evidence - February 21, 2019


OTTAWA, Thursday, February 21, 2019

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to which was referred Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, met this day at 8:02 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. My name is Fabian Manning, a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I’m pleased to chair this morning’s meeting. Before I give the floor to our witnesses, I would like to invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves.

Senator Francis: Brian Francis, from Prince Edward Island.

Senator Busson: Beverley Busson, from British Columbia. Welcome.

[Translation]

Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from Saint-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick. Welcome.

[English]

Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas, from Nova Scotia.

Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, from Manitoba.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: Good morning. Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Gold: Good morning. Marc Gold, from Quebec.

The Chair: Thank you, members of the committee.

The committee is continuing its study of Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. This morning we have two panels. In our first panel we are pleased to welcome representatives of the Assembly of First Nations: Director of Fisheries, Mr. Ken Paul; and Chief of the Sumas First Nation, Dalton Silver.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for taking the time to join us here this morning. I understand both of you have opening remarks and we’ll give you the opportunity to give those in a few moments. Following your remarks, we’ll have questions from senators. Whichever one of you drew the short straw can go ahead.

Ken Paul, Director of Fisheries, Assembly of First Nations: Good morning, senators.

Before we begin our submission, I want to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Anishnabek people. We thank you for the invitation to speak on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations on Bill C-55, amending the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

Dalton Silver, Chief, Sumas First Nation, Assembly of First Nations: Good morning. I am Chief Dalton Silver, Sumas First Nation, British Columbia, of the Stó:lō people on the Lower Fraser. We’re members of the Coast Salish Nation, which covers southwestern British Columbia and northwestern Washington State. Traditionally in ceremonies I’m known as Lemxyaltexw, passed to me by my grandfather.

I just want to say that I’m honoured to be here. I want to acknowledge, as well, the unceded territories of the Anishnabek people. I want to thank you for providing us the opportunity to be here to address the issues that are very important to our people. Thank you.

The Chair: We look forward to your presentation and our deliberations.

Mr. Paul: Ntoliwis sakalikatpuwit muwin, naka nuceyow Wolastoqwey Neqotkuk.

My English name is Ken Paul. I’m a member of the Maliseet First Nations at Tobique, New Brunswick, and the Director of Fisheries with the Assembly of First Nations here in Ottawa.

I would like to make my oral submission with our five-minute allotment time. I’ve taken notes and I’ll be reading from the page. Our submission will consider what the legislation actually says and requires and not what the current government describes as the spirit of the act, which will be implemented through policy.

In the bill’s current form, the act relies on a broad number of discretionary powers. For First Nations, laws must be written in anticipation of future governments that may misunderstand our rights, jurisdiction and authority.

In this context, legislation must contain and/or require these governments to respect what has been written in the legislation. So the AFN acknowledges the importance of the work and the legislative amendments phase of the Oceans Act. However, the implications of getting it right to create the space necessary to properly address First Nations’ rights in accompanying regulations and policies in the act is of the utmost importance to us.

Our submission will focus on five key areas in the following order: jurisdiction, Indigenous protected and conserved marine areas, designation, interim protection for marine protected areas, and monitoring and surveillance.

Under jurisdiction, First Nations have to be recognized as rights holders who hold inherent and constitutionally protected rights set out in their own governance and legal systems, as well as under section 35 of the Constitution.

In practice, this means that First Nation rights cannot be undermined by colonial interpretation of our rights. Instead, First Nations must first interpret and describe their inherent rights grounded in Indigenous law, Indigenous legal traditions and customary law. These legal orders, which lay the foundation for First Nation concepts of self-determination and sovereignty, are essential to starting true nation-to-nation dialogues and expressing the respect of our rights and title.

Incorporation of, or reference to, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, means that the principles and obligations within should be woven throughout the fabric of the acts such as Bill C-55 and accompanying regulations and policy.

From recognizing Indigenous peoples as another order of government to including Indigenous peoples in decision-making in accordance with their own laws and customs and to imposing the requirement that Indigenous peoples consent must be sought before a designation of a marine protected area that could impact section 35 rights, an affiliation of the recognition and affirmation of inherent Indigenous jurisdiction over Indigenous marine spaces opens up the opportunity to consider additional processes such as Indigenous-led or co-governed Indigenous protected and conserved marine areas.

That leads us into section 2, Indigenous protected and conserved marine areas. The inclusion of Indigenous-led processes and marine protected areas or Indigenous protected and conserved marine areas, or IPCMAs, is an opportunity to designate marine areas in a manner that addresses conservation and protection while encouraging sustainable use of marine areas that respect the Indigenous governance and the use of marine areas.

IPCMA shall include a process similar to that demonstrated in existing terrestrial IPCAs. There was a process for that that took place through the Indigenous Circle of Experts.

These may include Indigenous-led IPCMAs and a process where First Nations can suggest priority areas for protection and consideration. A key flaw in the MPA process, as presented in the bill, is the lack of recognition for Indigenous governments to develop, establish and manage marine areas.

Indigenous-lead or joint processes that include Indigenous governments and representatives may mitigate flawed consultation processes and allow for opportunities for co-governance of MPAs while respecting investment in the capacity development of Indigenous people.

Number 3, interim protection for marine protected areas. Moving on to marine protected areas as outlined in the bill, the freeze the footprint approach proposed as part of an interim protection for marine areas would allow for ongoing activities to continue while prohibiting new activities and add restrictions for ongoing activities. The implication of this approach may significantly or adversely impact First Nations’ fishing activities. The approach would freeze the First Nations fishing activity at the level documented in the interim protected MPA designation stage, and Bill C-55 can impact First Nation inherent rights and their ability to expand their fishing activities in coastal waters.

For these reasons, AFN recommends the approach to interim protection MPAs, including the obligation to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples of Canada, recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution.

Number 4, designation. With regard to the designations, we find that there is a value in ministerial flexibility for the designation of MPAs. First Nations are concerned that the extremely broad discretion of a minister may enable the avoidance of the protection of inherent and constitutionally protected rights. In order to ensure protection for First Nations, laws must be written with a view towards potential future governments that may misunderstand our rights, jurisdictions and authority. In this context, legislation must constrain and/or require these governments to respect what has been written in the legislation.

The draft bill does not provide any requirement to consider Indigenous knowledge with respect to section 35 rights. In addition to concerns about the lack of protection for section 35 rights generally in Bill C-55, the proposed bill does not require or consider Indigenous knowledge or the protection of section 35 rights when making designations.

This is very problematic, especially given the breadth of some of the proposed legislation and order-making provisions. The AFN proposes the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in the language of the bill. For instance, a proposed amendment in the section of the designation of marine protected areas by minister’s order may include language to provide for consideration of designated Indigenous protected and conserved marine areas.

An additional amendment may incorporate language such as “the minister shall give consideration to areas of protected and conserved as identified by Indigenous governments or representatives.”

Number 5, monitoring and surveillance. Lastly, in regard to the monitoring and surveillance of MPAs and IPCMAs, there ought to be an inclusion of Indigenous peoples or Indigenous guardian programs. However, the inclusion of explicit language identifying the role of Indigenous peoples and the co-governance of MPA was rejected at the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. A proposed amendment in the administration enforcement section of the bill should include language that includes Indigenous peoples or perhaps Indigenous guardian programs for Indigenous territorial marine areas.

For my closing remarks, we’d like to thank the committee and senators for inviting the AFN to appear here today to make remarks on Bill C-55. We urge you to take into consideration the submission we have presented here today and we look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paul. Very interesting points. I’m sure you’ve generated some questions for later.

The floor is yours, Mr. Silver.

Mr. Silver: I want to thank you. It’s an honour and a privilege for us to be here today. It’s a very important issue for a lot of our people. I mentioned that I’m of Coast Salish descent. I sit with a Coast Salish steering committee that consists of leadership. We have 52 communities in southwestern B.C. and 21 tribes in Washington state. One of our main objectives is protection of the Salish Sea. We work mainly in the environment, and I’m honoured to be here as a member of the AFN National Fisheries Committee. Regrets from our co-chairs, Chief Roger Augustine, Regional Chief for New Brunswick and Prince Edwards Island, and Chief Terry Teegee, our Regional Chief for British Columbia. Both could not be here today, so it’s an honour for me to be here representing our committee.

As Ken was saying, we have a lot of concerns. When the federal government is talking about nation-to-nation relationships with Indigenous peoples, it’s important that we be involved in changes to legislation that will have a direct effect on our way of life.

I was talking with one of my elders before I came. He said we need to mention the life of our peoples before and the relationship we had with everything around us. We talked about the harvest, and I mentioned I’m of the Stó:lō people, the river people, but yearly, I was on the coast with our relatives near Vancouver and other places to harvest crabs and clams, though I’m living 50 miles upriver. We try to maintain a close relationship with all the Coast Salish people on Vancouver Island and in other areas. The inclusion of our inherent rights, sections of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, all need to be taken into account when we’re moving forward together.

I shared with Ken last night that I’ve talked with other groups in British Columbia and say that we need to move together. I’ll use the Coast Salish steering committee as an example. We sit with scientists and we combine the traditional knowledge of our elders and of our people in working together to try to protect the environment. There is talk of marine protected areas in Washington state, but the tribes there are reluctant to move forward unless their concerns are included in the proposed legislation. The proposed changes that they are looking at there are inclusive of our people and respectful of our way of life. There are cultural practices and the fishing practices of our people that are hard to describe in English, but we’re connected to everything that lives in our territories. There are stories that go with that which would further describe what I was talking about. Our elders told me to remind people that it’s not just the salmon or the herring or clams. It’s inclusive of everything that came from the water, everything marine that our people have relied on over millennia.

We talk about time immemorial. As Ken mentioned, co-management is something we seek. Our elders have reminded us that we coexisted with everything on the land, in the waters, and our people look at the protection of the oceans as beginning in the snowcapped mountains where our people live because of how everything is connected.

From our perspective, if we can work together to combine the Indigenous knowledge of our peoples with the science that your people bring, we would be in a better place to move forward together in protecting these areas. Thank you for hearing us.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Silver.

Great presentations.

Senator Gold: Thank you for being here this morning. You’ve raised a lot of issues. I’m going to start with the most general question. I won’t take too much time because I don’t want to take away from my colleagues’ ability to ask their questions.

You mentioned, on a number of occasions, changes or shortcomings that you see in the current bill and alluded to amendments and things that had been proposed but not accepted in the other place. Can you provide us with a list of your recommended amendments or changes? Unless I’m mistaken, we don’t have anything in writing yet from you. That would be helpful to us as we look forward to it.

Perhaps I might ask you to give us your priority list of the changes that you would recommend we consider in Bill C-55. Might I ask you to do that to start?

Mr. Paul: We will be providing a written submission of the overview comments that I made. We wanted to make sure that we included the context of the questions that are going to be asked today. At this point, we have three recommended amendments that would support what we’re putting forward.

One of them would be that the minister shall give consideration for the designation of Indigenous protected and conserved marine areas. Another amendment could be that the minister shall give consideration to areas of protection and conservation as identified by Indigenous governments and representatives. A third would be enforcement shall include Indigenous peoples or Indigenous guardian programs in Indigenous territorial marine areas.

Those things would encapsulate and support what we’re trying to establish here.

Senator Gold: Thank you very much. That’s very helpful.

Can you describe for us the degree of involvement you’ve had with the department in the various stages? I know that you’re not the only witnesses who have registered disappointment with the level of engagement and consultation. I know that you have met with DFO. Can you share with us the extent and your experience with that involvement?

Mr. Paul: With respect to the Assembly of First Nations, we do have an agreement with DFO to work on Oceans Act-related activities in marine spatial planning. We do have a working group and a national chiefs committee. Some of this preliminary discussion has happened.

In my previous role with the Atlantic Policy Congress, I had worked on a submission and presented on behalf of the Atlantic Policy Congress with respect to the development of the act. The AFN doesn’t do consultation. That wasn’t my role in my previous position either; so I can’t speak to the consultation process. I would encourage every government to fulfill the local consultation protocols.

We’ve been paying attention to the other submissions that have been happening here at the Senate level because they’re available through the website. I don’t think we’ve had deep involvement with development of this act.

Mr. Silver: Ken touched on something as far as consultation. We have different fisheries organizations within the province of British Columbia as well and up to the national level. It seems that the organizations more or less operate from a technical level, and the consultation requirements go deeper to the community level, where we do have representatives of different communities but not all are of a political nature.

I sit as a chief on some committees in British Columbia and with the AFN, but often community representatives at those tables are technical representatives, and regional sectors of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are lacking a bit, even in manpower.

The ability to get to the communities and get the message to those people on the water or on the ground that are active in the fisheries areas is something that’s lacking.

We’ve asked on occasion for funding for our fisheries organizations from the First Nations side to actively engage in the development of these proposed changes in legislation. That goes with the idea of government-to-government, nation-to-nation relationship building.

As far as the DFO and others, there needs to be an increase in funding overall for the engagement of our technicians and politicians, along with yourselves and others in DFO, to really have a hand in developing the changes.

Senator Poirier: Thank you both for being here and for your comments. I did take note in your speech that you had recommended three amendments. Some of the amendments you mentioned are similar to what other witnesses have shared.

Major concerns we’ve heard from other witnesses are the lack of consultation as well as the socio-economic consequences for communities, when something is put forward or done in a community without proper consultation. I’m sure you’re aware of the issues we had in New Brunswick last summer with the whales and the closure of zones in the Acadian Peninsula of New Brunswick. The economic and social ripple-down of what happened affected the whole community, not only the fisherman.

If I understood correctly, I don’t think you were consulted prior to Bill C-55 being drafted. Am I right in understanding that there was no consultation with your groups?

Mr. Paul: The consultation process was not as well-defined as some of the other consultation activities in some of the regions that I’m familiar with. I don’t work for a consultation organization. We want to encourage and support that they follow local consultation protocols.

Senator Poirier: With the lack of consultation for First Nations communities, could it ripple down to socio-economic consequences if there was not the proper consultations put in place?

Mr. Silver: I think there could be negative effects, yes. Not just socio-economic effects. Our people also have concerns about a lack of access to traditional food sources. Not just economically, but for sustenance. I shared with some others that I have relatives from the Coast Salish community that actually did a study at Swinomish in Washington state about the health effects overall on our people from lack of access to traditional food sources. The change in diet, for my people — we had repatriated some of our ancestors from museums, to take them home, to put them in proper resting places. Over a lot of deliberation with our elders, we allowed some tests to be done and 80 to 85 per cent of the diet of ancestors from about 2,700 to 5,000 years ago was marine. So the changes in diet to our people have resulted in almost epidemic proportions of diabetes and other diseases that were never in our communities before. These are some of the things we need to try to get back.

There is a community in the West Coast that reverted to a traditional diet and some of their members eliminated the diabetes that they had been diagnosed with. They had a lot of success. So, the lack of access to traditional food sources is something we are really concerned about.

Senator Poirier: The average time frame for designating an Oceans Act MPA is between seven and ten years. This is significantly longer than the interim protection MPA which has a five-year time line. Do you think it is feasible for DFO to establish an Ocean Act MPA. within the proposed five-year time line? Or would doing it in that amount compromise the consultation and its output?

Mr. Paul: It depends on the supports provided to the First Nation consultation tables. Until the capacities of First Nations are built up it is detrimental for First Nations to speed up that process.

There is also a cultural aspect. I am from the Atlantic region. We don’t really have healthy salmon stocks anymore. For example, I have pictures of my grandfather with 30-pound Atlantic salmon. I’ve never seen that in my lifetime. What I’m missing in my lifetime and what my kids are missing is that transference of traditional activities and the ability to provide for the community and to provide for elders.

If we get into co-governance, to allow for recognition of First Nations jurisdiction to protect areas, then I think that First Nations will be able to better articulate and mitigate the impacts of some of these restrictions fisheries in a culturally appropriate manner.

It is really hard to say whether five years is too quick. It depends on the readiness of the First Nations communities and the willingness to allow them to participate in the process of designations.

Senator Poirier: Thank you.

Senator Christmas: Chief Silver, I know you came a long distance so thank you for being here. And thank you, Mr. Paul. It is always a pleasure to speak to you and I look forward to studying the amendments that the assembly will bring forward.

Both of you have given us a wealth of information that I think will set the context of those amendments. I just want to explore a bit of that background and context. I may be putting words in your mouth, Mr. Paul, so forgive me if I do that, but what I heard is that this proposed bill, Bill C-55, has the impact of infringing on our section 35 rights. You didn’t use those words, but throughout your comment you repeated over and over again that there were certain exclusions and certain opportunities that were not being provided. Would you characterize Bill C-55 as an infringement of section 35 rights?

Mr. Paul: In its current form — without the recognition of section 35, an explicit acknowledgment of that, or tools in there to say it respects that — it probably will infringe upon section 35 rights in the future. We don’t know what future governments are going to prioritize. We want to make sure that the language in the bill makes sure that the section 35 rights are respected. Because even if it is left loosely, even if the intent is a positive thing, we don’t know what the interpretations would be.

Senator Christmas: One aspect that caught my ear was when the other place had considered Bill C-55, that they had rejected the co-governance model of working with MPAs. I haven’t had the opportunity to look at why the other place rejected the co-governance model. Could you explain what the intent was of the co-governance model so that we understand it correctly, so that we don’t misunderstand? Just any insight you could give us about why they rejected the co-governance model.

Mr. Paul: What is the other place?

Senator Christmas: It is a term we use for the House of Commons.

Mr. Paul: Oh, the other place.

Senator Bovey: And they call us the other place.

Mr. Paul: I will speak on behalf of the Atlantic region and allow Chief Silver to speak on behalf of the Pacific region.

In the Atlantic region we have treaties from the 1700s, the Peace and Friendship Treaties. Even though there is a covenant chain of these treaties, two of them are recognized by Canada, the treaties of 1752 and 1761. The treaty of 1761 was used to defend Donald Marshall Jr. in the Marshall decision of 1999. The treaties were put in place between nations — only nation can sign treaties — to allow for the peaceful coexistence between the British Crown and the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy. Nowhere in those treaties did it talk about any cessation of land or waters. In the Atlantic region, the chiefs and the elders will often speak about the area being unceded territory. Considering that the Marshall decision recognizes a right to fish, that concept of traditional unceded territory would arguably be expanded into the marine environment. There is an agreement in the Atlantic region to peacefully coexist. We recognize that the term “co-governance” means shared authority.

One of the problems we see happening is a reluctance by the Government of Canada to fetter the authority of the minister or the Crown. You will hear terms like “co-management, collaborative management, cooperative management,” but our understanding of co-governance is that it is a shared authority. To have shared authority you must have decision-making authority to enact regulations, acts of law and policies also. We suspect that’s probably at the root of why there is resistance from the other place.

Mr. Silver: There are a lot of similarities except as far as treaties over on the Salish Sea and on the Pacific coast. We, for the most part, don’t have any agreements on paper with the governments. We maintain that our rights and title are still there in British Columbia. It has been proven by Supreme Court decisions. We look to move into co-governance and shared decision-making on all resources. The words are used by government representatives at the political level, provincially and federally, but there seems to be a reluctance to put them into practice. As First Nations, it is only natural that we move into co-governance with our neighbours.

As I mentioned earlier, the combination of knowledge, scientifically and traditionally, would be a benefit to all of us if we could only find the space to move together in those areas. There is a reluctance more or less from the bureaucratic level than from the political level. That’s the trickle-down we see from the words shared by political representatives is taking a little while to happen. It is a little slow for our people, but this day of recognition of our rights is something that we really need to move forward with. There is a reluctance there.

Senator Gold: I want to be clear about the record. Thank you for that. I’m not assuming or asserting that this is sufficient. The record needs to show that the existing Oceans Act in section 2.1 does contain a non-derogation clause. The whole scope and efficacy of non-derogation clauses is much discussed.

This would apply to MPAs and interim MPAs that nothing in the act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing Aboriginal or treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35.

Whether that’s good enough or not is a fair question. There is at least a recognition in the act that the existing Aboriginal treaty rights are to be respected in all aspects of the application of the act, including the exercise of ministerial discretion. I wanted the record to show that.

The Chair: Do you care to comment on that?

Mr. Paul: That’s good to point that out. I had alluded to the possibility that more Aboriginal or treaty or Indigenous rights could get recognized? We want to make sure that there are accommodations in the act that allows for that expansion or extension of rights.

Senator Christmas: You’ve mentioned having Indigenous people involved in the monitoring of MPAs and enforcement of MPAs. You also mentioned the possibility that Indigenous guardians could be part of that process.

I know, Mr. Paul, that you are very familiar with the guardian program. For the record, could you describe how long the guardian program has been in place, some of their activities and their capability of being involved in the monitoring of MPAs?

Mr. Paul: The guardian program is part of the Aboriginal fisheries strategy. It is a DFO program, and has been in place since 1990. Individual First Nations communities have signed onto agreements with DFO to invoke the guardian program.

Whatever you negotiated back in 1990 is exactly the same as what you have today. There has been no increase in funding and no change in the terms of the guardian agreements, even though much has changed since then including: populations in First Nations communities have increased; complexity of ocean space and fisheries management have grown; and safety regulations have changed. The spaces that guardians are assigned to protect have changed as well.

There are somewhere around 130 guardian agreements in place with Canada. DFO has hired the National Indigenous Fisheries Institute to do a review of the guardian program this fiscal year. There are preliminary reports being developed right now, and there will be recommendations to the minister on how to change and adapt the guardian program based on workshops and engagement sessions they’ve had with communities.

One of the things that would be necessary is training guardians so they can work in ocean spaces. This would require investments in equipment so they have appropriate gear and training. There will be a desire among First Nations to increase authorities of these guardians. Right now they are technically peace officers under section 5, I believe, of the Fisheries Act. The desire among the communities is for them to have more authority. There is some crossover with the role of the guardians with the conservation protection program, fisheries officers and DFO, but guardians are certainly not on an equal level with these entities.

That’s where it sits now. There is a possibility of increasing that, but we will see how the department responds to the reports.

Senator Christmas: One of the things that baffles me — and maybe Senator Francis has a better insight — is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has X amount of fisheries officers, and they are always saying that they don’t have enough resources to do all the enforcement and monitoring they need to do; yet, on the other hand, you have 130 Indigenous guardian agreements.

It seems to me that it would not take a great effort to mobilize those 130 fishery guardian agreements to assist DFO officers and take the lead in some areas where fisheries officers don’t have the time, space and wherewithal to do it.

I appreciate your comments. There is an underutilized resource of Indigenous guardians who are very well experienced — this has been in place for almost 30 years — so it is not as if they are not experienced. I agree with you; there may be additional training needed.

I was puzzled about your comments that these amendments that we are looking at in Bill C-55 may be misunderstood by future governments. Can you elaborate on why you think what we are looking at may lead to a misunderstanding between the government and Indigenous peoples?

Mr. Paul: Right now we have a federal government that has stated that they want to work with Indigenous peoples. We are working in an era of reconciliation and there have been investments through various programs. Languages in some of the other acts that are coming through Parliament, such as the fisheries act, Bill C-68, Bill C-69, which makes specific reference to things like Indigenous knowledge and things like that.

Future federal governments that may not be as open. We’ve had hostile governments that really did not want to respect First Nations governance. So we want to make sure that within the act the language allows for future federal governments and First Nations governance to continue on the path of empowering our communities so they can have a rightful place in the protection of ocean space. Basically, we are trying to make sure that the language in the acts reflects that.

Senator Petitclerc: This bill is calling for a precautionary approach, stating that sometimes the science is not quite there yet and not having all the data is not a reason not to protect. If I can say it simply: It is better to be safe than sorry. We had some comments from some commercial fish harvesters that were critical of that approach. After hearing your opening comments, I’m interested to know how you feel about this cautionary approach. Also you mentioned that you were worried about some adverse impacts on the freeze the footprint section. Can you expand on that?

Mr. Silver: Thank you, senator. Regarding the cautionary approach, First Nations, the Indigenous harvesters, want to be assured that the marine protected areas will not restrict our movements to harvest fish and other species. Also, we are hoping that it won’t be restrictive on the cultural practices of our people, which may be inclusive of harvesting fish. Our people talk about the need to be on the water and the land for cultural practices. We are just concerned that the protected areas will restrict these activities. This is one of our major concerns. Thank you.

Mr. Paul: With respect to freeze the footprint, to further articulate on what Chief Silver said, we recognize that climate changes have an impact on migratory species. So if there is a freeze the footprint which says that your licences and fishing activity is what it is today, five years from now that species may not be there and other species may move in. We recognize there is a need on the economic side to prioritize conservation, but within the food-social-ceremonial part of the fisheries, in order to feed ourselves from the bounty of the sea, we may need to change the way we fish or the type of species we want to fish to feed ourselves. Freeze the footprint seems not to support that. That touches on Aboriginal rights. That’s why there is a concern. That is why we want to refer back to section 35.

With respect to the precautionary approach, generally, First Nations do this inherently. I’ve been to meetings where we had First Nations and non-First Nations fishers in the same room talking to DFO. DFO will come to say this is what we think will be the total allowable catch this year and here is the confidence interval. A lot of times, anecdotally, a lot of non-First Nation fishers will argue with DFO to work at the higher end of the confidence interval, questioning the science, whereas the First Nations fishers will, ironically, tell DFO to listen to their scientists and work on the bottom end of the confidence interval because of the inherent value they have of saving some for next year.

In general, First Nations people are going to support the precautionary approach. The way it is applied and developed by the department is confusing, to be honest, with the graphs and things like that. It was not done in co-operation with the First Nations people. This goes to the governance part of it. If we are able to sort that out then we can have a cooperative co-governance approach towards precautionary.

Senator Bovey: I want to thank you. This has been very insightful. I just want to clarify a couple of things. Am I hearing you correctly that the need for the ocean protected areas is agreed to? Maybe you can address this when you send in the amendments because I don’t want to take time.

MP Tootoo and MP McLeod made an amendment that was accepted in the other place to recognize Indigenous rights and the need for negotiations and consultations. As you bring suggested amendments forward, can you let us know where you think this amendment may fall short, or whether it goes some way to address the concerns that you’ve given us? That would be really very helpful.

My final question is, what needs to be in the legislation itself and what needs to be enshrined in the implementation of the legislation to ensure that consultation will occur both in advance of and throughout the process? So, again, as you craft the amendments, if you can give some consideration as to where some of these best fit. That would be very helpful to our deliberations.

Mr. Paul: We will try to reflect those in our physical submission, for clarity.

The Chair: We appreciate that.

Senator Francis: Good morning, Chief Silver, Mr. Paul. Nice to see you again.

Chief Silver, you mentioned the importance of respectable nation-to-nation relationships and meaningful consultation at the forefront as being the pillars of moving forward in a respectable way. I could not agree with you more. As a former chief, I see that too. If you don’t get those basics down, it will be very hard to move forward. I also notice that you mentioned involvement in UNDRIP and how that would play out. Can you elaborate more on how UNDRIP can get into this aspect?

Mr. Silver: Canada has endorsed UNDRIP and there are many chapters in UNDRIP that pertain to what we are talking about today. The implementation of UNDRIP would go a long way in addressing some of the concerns we expressed today such as the practices of co-governance, shared decision-making and coexistence and working together with our neighbours and other governments.

We would be in a lot better place if we could move forward together. The true recognition of UNDRIP would go a long way in assuring our people of a better place in society in the future. Thank you for the question.

The Chair: I want to thank our committee and our witnesses. In prior testimony from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, they noted that the non-derogation clause in Bill C-55 does not constitute instruction to consult. I want you to be aware of that and to follow up on what Senator Gold said because I want to get clarity on that. A question that should be asked: Should Bill C-55 include further guarantees respecting Indigenous and treaty rights? If you could encompass those answers into what you’re bringing forward to us, it will make our job easier. There were very valid questions by Senator Gold and others this morning.

I want to thank you for your testimony. I have to say, coming from a rock in the Atlantic Ocean on the other side of the country, understanding the passion that you bring to your people is understandable, and to respect the land and the sea is very important to me as an individual. One thing I’m amazed at since I came to Ottawa is meeting people who share that passion.

The wealth of information you brought to us this morning is very helpful in our work on this bill. We want to get it right. It’s people like yourselves that bring us ideas and suggestions.

Welcome, Senator Patterson, who is sitting in for Senator Plett. A kinder and gentler side he’s going to try to represent here.

Senator Patterson: That was a private comment.

The Chair: We’ll see what happens. We all live in hope. Thank you very much.

Welcome, Mr. Jerry Ward. I’ll ask Mr. Ward to introduce himself and explain his positions. I understand you have some opening remarks. Once we get those finished, I’m sure we’ll have questions from senators.

Jerry Ward, Director of Fisheries, Qikiqtaaluk Corporation: Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. It’s a pleasure to be here. Before I start, you’ll notice I don’t have a tie on. There’s a good reason for that. Of course, I seldom wear one these days. As you get older, maybe that happens. I don’t know. In any case, I did bring along a tie with me, and a suit and a white shirt. When I put it on this morning in the hotel, my collar wouldn’t close, so I came to the conclusion my shirt had shrunk and it was not a problem with my neck.

It’s a pleasure to be here. I should set the stage by saying I’m here representing a private company in Nunavut. I’m not here representing any of the Aboriginal groups in Nunavut, in particular the NTI and the regional Inuit associations and the government as well. My comments will be from a private operator perspective. Certainly, on behalf of the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here today.

A little background. I grew up in the fishing industry and came from that rock that the good chair mentioned earlier in the North Atlantic. I’ve been in the business since 1979, both in the private sector and as a senior bureaucrat, both here and in the United States. In the last 20 years I’ve been instrumental in working with the Government of Nunavut and the participants in Nunavut to develop, in particular, the offshore fishery, which is a great success story which I’ll comment on a little later.

I provided a backgrounder to everybody and will provide further details and comments here, of course.

I’d like to give you a little background on Qikiqtaaluk Corporation, or what we call the Inuit Birthright Corporation. It was established in 1983 and we represent the 13 communities in the Qikiqtani region. In short, we’re a wholly owned subsidiary of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and we’re responsible for the development of business in that area. We’re a for-profit company.

We’re a diversified entity involved in many facets of business, in particular in transportation, trade, retail, construction projects and, of course, the backbone of the business has been from the beginning the fisheries division itself.

It’s important to note that over 400 employees are in direct employment in our company. We’re proud we’ve achieved 82 per cent Inuit employment. I don’t think any other organization across the country can boast of these types of figures or their governments. We’re a major player in the Atlantic Canadian seafood industry, being 1.5 of the 17 offshore licences, as well as significant quantities of quotas from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in Nunavut itself. We’re pleased with that. We utilize our profits, of course, to generate businesses in the Qikiqtani region.

In addition, we support the training consortium, probably the most recognized in Canada. We put millions of dollars collectively into that program per year. We’re committed to inshore fishery development in Nunavut. We will utilize the funds and resources from the offshore, which we’ve been very successful in developing, and now our focus will be the development of the inshore and the job creation that will come as a result of that.

Profits are utilized to support other corporate activities in order to maximize the benefits for the Qikiqtani region, including employment.

We’re pleased to report that last year alone we provided a $4.6-million dividend to the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, and with that they do many of the social programs within the communities. We are also quite involved in the youth development initiatives in various communities in the Qikiqtani region.

This brings me to the purpose of the meeting today, and it’s Bill C-55. I thoroughly enjoyed the presentations of the earlier gentlemen. My focus is a little different. As I indicated, our issues and concern relate largely to its potential impact on maintaining and growing socio-economic benefits from Nunavut. We’ll comment on these later. For our communities in the future, we’re concerned about what, without a bill, may be implemented and its potential impact on the fishery growth and development in Nunavut.

For everyone’s benefit, we are, for lack of a better term, the new kids on the block when it comes to the fishing industry, despite the fact that Inuit have been fishing for thousands of years. The commercial side of the business has been developed within the last 30 years, and more importantly within the last 15 years. It’s been identified as one of the four major growth areas for economic development in Nunavut in general. You can see the importance of this developing industry.

We’ve witnessed an extreme focus on meeting the initial 5 per cent green conservation targets in 2017 and a continued push towards 10 per cent by 2020. Of course, this push seems to be focused on meeting these target levels, this may rise to higher levels in the future rather than the science to identify the real areas that need protection or the potential impacts on communities.

For Nunavut, our industry participated in a collaborative approach with DFO and the NGOs that resulted in three new fisheries closures, which, when combined with the MPAs and other protected areas in the Eastern Arctic, has brought us to a high level of conservation which we believe at present is more than our fair share.

As you all know, it was made clear by the minister and the government of the day that all regions would be treated fairly. We certainly don’t mind pointing out at this point that we have contributed more than our fair share of the 7.75 per cent that’s currently been carved out. It was to be 5 per cent but ended up being 7.75 per cent. Given that we’re already limited in the area we have available for fishing in the North by geography, ice and weather conditions, a further push on additional areas for protection has the potential to impact directly on our fishery and its potential for both offshore and inshore.

I’m sure we’ll get the chance to talk a little about freezing the footprint and the caution that we will look at on that issue specifically in the developing fishery.

Conservation approaches include a variety of options, including MPAs and marine refuges being two of them, of course. There should be flexibility to use the best option in each area of interest. All areas should also meet international recognized standards, such as International Union for Conservation of Nature standards and we are concerned that much of the work we have done in establishing the new marine refuges in the Eastern Arctic may not meet standards if exemptions are in place for activities such as oil and gas, of course, and exploration.

At QC specifically, we look forward to working with DFO and other stakeholders on marine conservation into the future with an approach mindful of the socio-economic implications and utilizes science-based decision-making. I hope we get a chance to talk about science-based decision-making.

Of course, we will make a quick comment on the interim Marine Protected Areas and the time frames. We will talk perhaps about the precautionary principle, and the other one being, from our perspective, industry compensation. In this bill it’s made very clear that the oil and gas would be compensated if they had to move out, but there’s absolutely no indication of any compensation for the fishing industry in general.

Of course, the other one of great concern to us is regional proportionality. Yes, we have a very large coastline. Forty per cent of the coastline in Canada is in the Arctic, in particular Nunavut.

The Eastern Arctic already has about 20 per cent of its water protected. Twenty per cent is a significant portion. In the last year, meeting the 2017 standards, we’ve contributed significantly with three major closures in Nunavut station waters. I must say it was a collaborative effort by the territorial government and particularly the industry associations which we are part of.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ward. I look forward to our conversation.

Senator Gold: Mr. Ward, welcome, and thank you for your comments and outlining the issues you want to elaborate on. It makes our job as senators and questioners more efficient.

I want to give you the opportunity to talk about how you see the relationship between the science-based decision-making that you underlined and the precautionary principle. As I understand it, the lack of scientific certainty should not be grounds for not proceeding with trying to conserve or protect an area from further damage, given that scientific certainty is rarely achievable even over time.

Can you comment on how you see the importance of science-based decision-making and how it melds with the precautionary principle?

Mr. Ward: I’m glad you made that comment and question. You have to keep in mind, as I indicated earlier, we are new to the industry. It’s a huge geographic area in the North, and we are faced with some challenging environmental conditions at times, but we persevere and we’ve survived.

By being new entrants in the fishery, in the offshore in particular, in the last 30 years we find there has not been a significant amount of science carried out, in the Eastern Arctic specifically, despite the fact we’re growing our business. The reality is we have a lack of science today in the North. It’s a challenge for us, and we’re addressing it and putting significant dollars into it.

I must say upfront we are supportive of the precautionary approach. We were involved in developing it and working with the agencies and government and industry. We, of course, want to protect sensitive benthic areas, but you have to look at the socio-economic impact of where we’re going with this and the jobs we create in the offshore, and now we’re going to the inshore.

If you were to adopt just a precautionary approach, it would clearly limit our ability to grow our industry. There’s no question about that. We think there are other areas in the toolbox, for lack of better terminology — I’m sure you’ve heard this from others in the industry — because I should have mentioned that I’m here speaking from Qikiqtani Corporation’s perspective today, but I’m also a Director of the Nunavut Fisheries Association, the Northern Coalition and current Chair of the Fisheries Council of Canada. As you can tell by the colour of my head, I’ve been around for more than two or three years. Hopefully we can learn from the past.

While we believe in the precautionary approach, it can dampen the growth of our business in the North. We would like to see the science that goes into making these decisions.

Senator Gold: There are so many challenges in the North. Many of us have had the opportunity to visit the North, some more extensively than others. Are the challenges a function of geography, lack of resources, lack of commitment? What needs to be done to enhance our scientific knowledge of the area as well as to properly assess the socio-economic impact of any of these potential designations?

Mr. Ward: There’s been a lack of research and dollars to carry it out. Clearly, the role of science historically has been a role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In many cases, that role has been abdicated. In the North, we’ve had to contribute significant dollars ourselves to work with DFO to carry out science.

It’s been good to work with DFO in the North, but it’s such a huge area that you probably need seven or eight significant large vessels to carry out the research. We have been doing a fair amount of research, and we’re now getting to research annually in the areas where we fish — shrimp and turbot. These are now annual surveys with reports, and that’s worked very well. We’ve done very little in the other offshore areas, and in the inshore we’ve done practically nothing. There needs to be more effort in vessels and dollars made available.

In the case of Qikiqtaaluk Corporation’s example, we’ve made the decision to build our own small research vessel, and that will be starting this year. We’ll be carrying out extensive research ourselves, in consultation with DFO and other agencies, in the inshore sector. We’ve taken the bull by the horns and made the decision to look at and develop the science and the inshore area of Nunavut.

Senator Poirier: Thank you, Mr. Ward, for being here and for your presentation.

My first question goes back to comments you made in your presentation. You mentioned the continued push towards the 10 per cent of the marine conservation target by 2020. I think everyone agrees that goal is to achieve the right balance between sustainable access into the resource for the communities who depend on it and the conservation efforts.

In your opinion, is Bill C-55 more about attaining the 10 per cent instead of the proper conservation efforts?

Mr. Ward: I’ll be quite frank. From my perspective, it’s more about attaining the 10 per cent. One would assume as well that conservation efforts are important; there’s no question about that. There was such a push for that. But it could have been done over a different time frame and still achieve what was required.

We’re concerned about the rumour that once we get to 10 per cent in 2020 that pressure will be exerted to go significantly beyond that to 2030. Us being in the North, it being such a large pristine area, the sexy thing to do will be to say that we’re going to freeze everything in the North. Keep in mind that when you do that, you create major problems for us to develop our inshore and offshore fishery.

In an economy such as Nunavut, with 25 communities, 37,000 people, the ability to create good, high-paying jobs is very difficult. Of course, that’s why we don’t particularly want to freeze the footprint per se without good science behind it.

Senator Poirier: In your opening remarks you mentioned a few times about the socio-economic benefits and concerns over that. I share that because I’ve seen things like that in New Brunswick that has been affected also. We have also heard from other people in different meetings concern about the mistrust between various stakeholders and DFO, especially when it comes to the socio-economic and the cultural impact during the consultation process.

Could you comment on DFO’s capability or capacity to evaluate the socio-economic and cultural impact in their decision-making? Do you think they are able to do that?

Mr. Ward: That would be a challenge for them because they need people to do it. Somebody has to be assigned to carry this out. They have to realize that and this needs to be addressed to move forward.

If you look at Nunavut from a socio-economic perspective, in the seafood sector in the offshore in particular, that fishery today has grown from practically nothing 30 years ago to the fishery today in Nunavut, which employs over 300 people, inshore and offshore, and the plant in Pangnirtung specifically. There are good high-paying jobs in the offshore, of course.

At one point, in the offshore fishery as an example, you might have had one or two Inuits working on the boats. Today, we have anywhere from 50 to 85 per cent of the factory workers are now Inuit on the boats. In our company specifically, there are 12 to 14 Inuit out of 28 people in total on the vessel. From a socio-economic perspective, it is a real driver in the economy. But to answer your question, I don’t think that DFO has the ability to do that today, not from what I’ve seen.

Senator Poirier: Are you aware whether there has been any sort of consultation in your area from DFO before Bill C-55 was brought forward? Do you know if there was any consultation at all?

Mr. Ward: Yes, there has been some consultation. The Inuit groups would be consulting with the DFO and so on, and they can better answer that than I can.

Through the various industry associations I mentioned earlier — Nunavut Fisheries Association, Northern Coalition and the Fisheries Council of Canada — a fair amount of consultation is going on. There needs to be more, of course, as I’m sure you have heard from the presentation of the Fisheries Council of Canada and others in the private sector.

I don’t want to evade the issue. This bill is very important. I will give you an example of the closures that occurred in Nunavut. The DFO came out and said they will close these areas. We, of course, objected very strongly in the beginning. Where we ended versus where we started was significantly different. There was a significant amount of consultation in that area between the DFO, the various associations that we are a part of and the NGOs. It was a consolidated effort to come up with these three major closures, which, of course, played very prominently in reaching that 5 per cent target.

As I indicated earlier, we are certainly committing more than our fair share to that 5 per cent or that 7.75 per cent as it is today.

Senator Busson: Thank you for being here, Mr. Ward.

Senator Poirier asked a lot of the questions I wanted to ask about the targets. You made a comment in your presentation that you felt that you had done your fair share in attaining the 7.5 out of the 10 per cent target for 2020. I took from that you have a concern that in the future some of the selections for MPAs might be more arbitrary than necessary to meet these targets. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth.

I wanted to ask how much consultation you had with DFO, and that was covered by Senator Poirier. I’m wondering, however, whether there are other approaches that you think would help but are not being contemplated? For instance, is there a plan so that the science and knowledge discovered from your research vessel can be shared? Are there other ways of doing the coordination beyond just what is called “consultation”?

Mr. Ward: Certainly, when it comes to science, regardless of which vessel it is done on, it would certainly be somewhat under the guidance of DFO and what they require from a scientific perspective to doing exploratory fisheries and the time frame to do that before it becomes commercialized.

So we do consult significantly on that. There is no question about it.

Yes, we are concerned in the next go-around of going to 10 per cent and how much will come from the North or, more specifically, from Nunavut.

We have significant environmental changes occurring in Nunavut. We are fishing earlier,fishing later, seeing salinity changes in the water, and seeing warmer water conditions. With that what we are seeing are other species coming into the North that traditionally have just been in the South. From our perspective, that’s good, but we need to do more science. As an example, who would have thought that capelin would be spawning on the beaches in the northern Qikiqtani region as they have been in the past couple of years? That’s an indication of how the environment is changing. So before more major closures come into Nunavut, we need more science to be done.

With regard to protecting sensitive areas, benthic areas in particular, a lot of things can be done in various situations. In particular, we have an integrated fisheries management plan which clearly itemizes that if you find so much corral, so much sponge — we have a “move-on protocol” we call it — you have to move away from there. There are other things within the Fisheries Act and the regulations that we could utilize a lot better than putting in permanent closures.

Senator Busson: Thank you very much.

Senator Bovey: Thank you, Mr. Ward, for your perspective. It is very helpful to us. I know there is a feeling about the push for the 10 per cent. As we all know, the agreement to reach the 10 per cent was made by the former government and upheld by this government because of conservation sustainability, socio-economic reasons, conservation economy — and the list goes on. I think everybody has been very respectful of the reasons behind it.

I am intrigued and appreciate your comments on science-based evidence and that you are doing your own scientific investigations and we have many people working on the science of climate change. I trust all of that is coming together.

How would you balance that with Indigenous knowledge? What is the right balance between science-based evidence and Indigenous knowledge? As you say, you are a young industry in a territory with a huge history behind it. So how, in coming to these delineations, do those two elements come together?

Mr. Ward: It is absolutely essential that there be considerable consultation with the Inuit elders. That specifically is more related to what we would call within the Nunavut settlement area or within the 12-mile limit. Our fishery is offshore. As you know, traditionally the Inuit culture is predominantly food fishery and subsistence levels on the inshore and not large offshore fishing. Certainly, there is a fair amount of consultation going on with various communities, Inuit organizations and elders within the communities.

Again, I won’t comment much, but the MPA in the Lancaster Sound, there is a significant amount of consultation going on with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI, and its regional Inuit organization, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association.

To answer your question, it is absolutely essential that they be consulted. They are being consulted, from what we are seeing — from our perspective.

Senator Bovey: Are the scientists working on your ship incorporating the evidence from Indigenous knowledge?

Mr. Ward: Yes. I should clarify, we have approved building a science vessel. It will take a year or so to get that ready. Having said that, we are focusing on inshore. What we will be doing with the vessel is utilizing workers from each community. We will go in with our vessel, but we will also use local Inuit knowledge and put them onto other boats and probably do two to three times the amount of work we would do ourselves, in particular through Inuit knowledge.

The first thing we will do in these communities is to sit down with the various elders in the community, hold meetings and see what resources are there now. What have they seen? There is a lot to be learned about in talking to the elders. Whether it is a walrus or a seal, you cut only the stomach open and you can see clearly what species are in the area. You would be surprised. Seals do eat fish, by the way, and a lot of it. You can learn a lot from traditional knowledge. It’s essential. You can save a considerable amount of time and investment money by working with the local communities.

Senator Bovey: Two more questions. You mentioned proportionality and you are feeling that your region has contributed more than your fair share of the 10 per cent. The Arctic Ocean is, of course, 40 per cent of the ocean base. How would you define proportionality?

Mr. Ward: I’m glad you asked that question. We were all led to believe by DFO, the minister today and the senior people within the department, that proportionality would not necessarily be based on the size of the area but on the region. It would be regional proportionality. Just because you have 40 per cent of the ocean or the coastline, it doesn’t mean you will have 40 per cent of the marine protected areas in Nunavut. It has to be a fair balance among all regions in the country.

Senator Bovey: I hear and respect what you are saying and I am pleased to hear that there has been consultation. This is the same question I asked the earlier group: What part of this should be in legislation? What part of this are we talking about implementation? I think sometimes we try to put rules, regulations and implementation into legislation, and sometimes we don’t have enough in the legislation to be the basis for implementation. So where is the dividing line between what needs to be enshrined in legislation and what needs to be in the implementation and the rules and regulations which in the long run are easier to change as needs and/or the environment around it change? Where is that defining line?

Mr. Ward: Well, it is a very difficult defining line. Clearly it is important to get it right the first time. It is important to get what you want into the legislation because it is not easy to change legislation, as you know. A lot of what we want to accomplish can be addressed in the rules, and in the policies and the rules as we go through. It is not an easy one to answer.

Senator Bovey: It is not. Thank you.

Senator Patterson: Mr. Ward, this is a great story, the developing Arctic fishery, and I know you have had a major role in it. You mentioned, in response to Senator Busson’s question, global warming or climate change having some positive impact on developing fisheries in the Arctic. Other trends. You mentioned capelin. Are there other species on which you would make observations?

Mr. Ward: Well, as I mentioned with global warming, we are fishing earlier and finishing later, on average, compared to 20 years ago when we started in the offshore fishery. That’s changed significantly, of course.

We don’t have the science to understand what else is moving. Would he know the capelin are moving to everyone’s benefit? Capelin is a food fishery and is a major food supply for cod, turbot and redfish. We know there is a fair amount of redfish in the North. Regarding shrimp, there have also been significant downturns in the southern shrimp-fishing areas, numbers four, five, six and seven. Based on the science from last year in areas five and six, the biomass is down significantly. Again, for everyone’s benefit.

Senator Patterson: And that’s in the south?

Mr. Ward: Yes, from Labrador on down. From Labrador to the Grand Banks to Flemish Cap.

If you go back, the shrimp fishery started in the North — in what we call shrimp fishing areas one, two and three — back in the late 1970s and into the 1980s. As cod stocks started to decline, we saw the shrimp habitat expand significantly. That is why we had a big boom in the 1970s onwards in shrimp fishing areas six and seven and that area. What we are seeing now with the cod is that the biomass is increasing. Not as fast as anyone would like, to be sure, but at least there seems to be an upward trend now. We are now seeing a downward trend in the shellfish in the area, particularly in shrimp.

What we are seeing in last year’s surveys is that the stocks in the North are particularly healthy and continuing to grow in the last three or four years. The shrimp are moving back to the natural habitat in the North in the conditions in which they survive. We are excited about the biomass in the shrimp-fishing areas north of shrimp fishing area four. They are quite good. There are significant increases in biomass. It is very good for us in Nunavut, and as the season gets longer it allows our factory boats to fish longer. I don’t know if that answers your question or not, but we are definitely seeing more species moving north.

Senator Patterson: That leads me to my next question. You talked about the importance of science — don’t freeze the footprint without the science behind it — yet the new minister under Bill C-55 will have the power to unilaterally freeze large areas of the Arctic without the requirement to obtain consent of the Inuit, provincial or territorial governments. I’m wondering how you think that the freezing of potentially large areas, even though we’ve already done our share in the Arctic, could impact the opportunity for science-based work to further develop our fishery?

Mr. Ward: Fish know no boundaries. A couple of these stocks, in shrimp and turbot, we share with Greenland and they tend to swim back and forth. With the changing environmental conditions, we are concerned about freezing the footprint without adequate science, because these fish move around based on water temperatures and salinity. So where we are fishing today, in five years’ time, you may not be able to fish there. They may not have moved north or south, or even east or west. We are seeing it on a regular basis, of course. That’s a real problem for us in that area.

I will read something to you here: The concept of establishing the interim protection, MPAs offer the means of ensuring biodiversity and protecting sensitive habitat on an interim basis pending public industry consultation and the conduct of further science work to evaluate the case for permanent MPAs. It is important to consider the consequences if resources are not allocated to conduct the necessary science work — I know I am diverging a little here — with the five-year period in which the minister must move forward with a permanent MPA. Related to this concern is the application of the precautionary principle, which we talked about earlier, wherein the minister and cabinet do not use a lack of scientific certainty regarding risks posed by activities as a reason to postpone or refrain from exercising their powers or performing their duties and functions to make regulations for the interim or permanent MPAs.

I’m not anticipating the next question, but there is a real issue with the interim and the five-year period. If you don’t have the science, the manpower, the boats and the financial commitment, it will not happen. In our fishery, where our fish are moving from one area to the other, by freezing that footprint, we could be frozen out of the business. It could be a significant problem for us.

Senator Gold: I would like to follow up on the very important question that Senator Patterson asked and the important answer you gave. Depending on your point of view, God or the devil is in the details, but in so many cases it is also in the implementation of laws and even regulations. Were this committee to so conclude, would you support a series of recommendations that would accompany our report on this bill for increased resources — whether it is manpower, person power, financial resources — to support the necessary scientific work and the collaboration in that work, whether it is with private industry, local governments, territorial governments, or Indigenous communities? Would that be helpful in order to make sure that whatever further action is taken under this bill is properly supported, both with the required resources within the department and also with all those who can complement, support and collaborate with the department in doing the necessary scientific work?

Mr. Ward: Yes, we would certainly recommend and support the implementation of that; to increase the resources. Today we have a lack of vessels, manpower and resources generally.

There are millions of dollars per year that need to be spent in the North because so little has been done in the past. Now with the MPAs and the freezing of footprints, our science to date has primarily been in the areas in which we are fishing. We carry out annual surveys every year. We thank DFO for their support in leading that charge.

As we want to develop a larger part of our offshore, we need a number of boats and the manpower and financial commitment to ensure it is done annually.

It is not just the fact of doing it occasionally. In the science world, you have to create what we call a timeline, which means you have to have four or five years before you can predict a trend. It is not just one year and then you come back in five or six years. You have to do it on an annual basis.

From our perspective, it should be a major responsibility of DFO to ensure that science continues. They have been supportive of us in the surveys in the North, but we do contribute to it significantly. Clearly, we need more in other areas in addition to what we are doing for the fishery which we have today.

The Chair: There was a story on CBC news this morning concerning research people in Atlantic Canada who have to hitch rides on ships from other countries to do research in our waters on behalf of Dalhousie University, as an example, and it would be worth checking out what you said. It was always interesting.

Senator Christmas: Thank you, Mr. Ward, for coming here. Congratulations to you and the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation for the amazing transformation of the area in terms of development and economic success.

You mentioned that the Eastern Arctic has had a high level of conservation. I am looking at a map in one of the handouts, and I can see quite a few areas that are protected off the Eastern Arctic.

In your testimony, you mentioned that when it came to the three fishery closure areas that there was a high degree of collaboration between yourselves, DFO and the environmental NGOs. I hear some apprehension in your voice about the creation of more conservation areas in the Eastern Arctic, in particular MPAs.

Since the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation is owned 100 per cent by the Inuit, does it make sense that the Inuit should consent to the establishment of any future MPAs in the area?

Mr. Ward: I would rather leave that to the Inuit organizations to answer; I am in the private sector.

Senator Christmas: We have seen a letter addressed to our chair from the premier of Nunavut, and he expressed concern that the MPAs would be established without the consent of the territories. I was trying to highlight that given Indigenous rights in the area, and the Indigenous people, and given the current standard of consultation and a duty to consult by the Crown, it makes sense that, in this MPA, the Inuit should also be able to exercise those rights and privileges, and that the standards should be that they should consent if any areas are going to be protected, especially MPAs.

Mr. Ward: I will change my comment in light of your rebuttal, but clearly the Inuit had to be consulted, and there is no question they had to be in agreement with it. That’s a foregone conclusion from our perspective, especially being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Qikiqtaaluk Inuit Association. But these closures, there are other ways. You don’t always have to put in the marine protected areas. There are other ways of protecting sensitive benthic areas through regulation and the licencing system. We have small fish protocols. If you encounter a certain amount of sponge or corral, you had to move away two nautical miles. There are other ways to protect the environment without a permanent closure.

The problem with the MPAs, when you put them in place — and/or the interim MPAs — is they really become permanent MPAs. It is almost like an interim licence. They somehow become permanent licences at some point.

The Chair: No one wants to give them back.

Thank you, Mr. Ward. I echo the comments of my colleagues here in congratulating the success of the QC. That 82 per cent Inuit employment is a Canadian success story in itself. We wish you all the best in the future and thank you for taking the time to join us this morning with your perspective on Bill C-55. It adds to our deliberations and consultations.

Mr. Ward: I am speaking on behalf of Qikiqtaaluk Corporation. In fairness, there are others involved in our organizations in Nunavut. There are other companies involved in the fishery. We have a Nunavut fisheries association and the executive director is in the back here as well, Mr. Brian Burke. It’s been a collaborative effort.

The one thing I can say about the North, we have been successful in the last 20 years because we’ve been united. When we have gone to Ottawa, we have gone as a group, and we increased our quota significantly. We have gone from a point where we only had 27 per cent of the quotas in our adjacent waters in turbot to 75 per cent today. In the case of shrimp, we have gone from less than 20 per cent to almost 50 per cent in that short period. We have done that by working together as a group. We don’t always agree on things, but we do that in Nunavut. When we get out dealing with the DFO on the federal level, we do it united.

The Chair: I’m sure that plays a big part in your success to date.

Just to let colleagues know, and Senator Christmas, to follow up on your question, we will have the Premier of Nunavut by video conference on Tuesday evening, so you can put the question to him.

(The committee adjourned.)

Back to top