On page 101 of the thesis by Sean Leroy ,  Public Process and the Creation of a MArine protected Area at Race Rocks British Coumbia,  ( http://www3.telus.net/LeRoy/Sean/Research_archive_files/racerocks.pdf) the exerpt that follows provides a good summary of the problems concerning the DFO led Race Rocks Advisory Board Process:

Whatever the reasons, these sections in the Statement are a significant departure from the
consensus recommendations provided by the RRAB. Of even greater concern, the Statement claims that these provisions were recommended by the RRAB. Forester (1989, p. 38) would call this the management of public consent through misinformation, reaching decisions “without legitimate representation of public interests but appealing to public consent as if this were not the case” (see Table 4.2, p. 23). Foucault would further call this an example of ‘governmentality’, of the exertion of power through discourse (Layder 1994)42.
It is inappropriate to lay the blame for this on the RRAB, the facilitator, or even DFO,
which had no experience with the preparation of regulations for MPAs. The issue at hand is that DFO (Headquarters) was clearly unprepared for the recommendations proposed by the RRAB and approved by DFO (Pacific Region). This suggests the following:
• Consensus processes for the creation of MPAs should include representatives from
DFO (Headquarters), who are able to provide immediate feedback on the acceptability
of proposals on the table. In other words, DFO (Headquarters) should be treated as a
separate government agency; and
• If recommendations are to be rejected —by DFO, the Privy Council Office or the
Department of Justice— they should be openly rejected and returned to the consensus
table, where alternatives can be negotiated by the participants.