Evidence of meeting #91 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 fishery.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, both, for being available today for this important study.
I'll start out with Mr. McIsaac.
Can you briefly describe what the situation was with the alleged illegal sale of Fraser River sockeye during a time when there was no commercial season? That's so we have a brief testimony of what took place.
12:45 p.m.
Coordinator, BC Commercial Fishing Caucus
Last year, 2022, was a cycle year for sockeye. That means it's one of the larger returns expected. There was no commercial fishery anticipated on the Fraser River, but there was fishing going on, all the way up the lower part of the Fraser River. There were pickup trucks selling sockeye salmon. There were Facebook advertisements of where to purchase sockeye salmon along the Fraser. Then, unexpectedly, the department opened the commercial fishery—a six-hour opening. That gave some legitimacy to the illegal sale of fish along the river.
That's the picture I would paint of it.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
The amount of fish being advertised for sale prior to the opening.... Was it a few fish? Was it totes full of fish, or truckloads of fish? Can you describe, roughly, how much fish you think might have been involved?
12:45 p.m.
Coordinator, BC Commercial Fishing Caucus
I just heard reports that there was dumping of thousands of fish along different points of the Fraser River. When fish go off.... They go off fairly quickly if they're not iced.
I'm not sure how much of that illegally caught fish got into markets, but I would say it was significant.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
A six-hour opening is pretty short. Has there ever been that short of an opening, previously?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Has it only been on a one-day basis, or has it been for hours on different days of the week, or at different times? Is it six hours for an entire season?
12:45 p.m.
Coordinator, BC Commercial Fishing Caucus
It's not six hours for an entire season, no.
We've been getting gradually less and less time. Between 30 years ago and now.... It's almost nothing that we're getting, in terms of time on the river.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
I'll switch up now to Mr. Sproul.
Mr. Sproul, what is needed to address illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing for the conservation of sustainable fisheries, whether it's lobster or any fishery? What are a few key recommendations that you see are needed to address the concerns?
12:45 p.m.
President, Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance
I think the first one centres on communications. There needs to be clear communication to the fishing communities of Atlantic Canada about what FSC rights constitute and what they don't constitute. That needs to come from the very top. It's a responsibility of the government and the minister. In the absence of that, our communities are left in this vacuum where people are exploring what they can and can't do and figuring it out on their own. That's what, certainly, has led to the conflict. That's priority one.
Priority two is for the government to put reasonable levels of resources into places like St. Peter's Bay and St. Marys Bay and directly target the problem. Board and seize vessels that are clearly fishing outside of DFO-issued food, social and ceremonial licenses. It's also important to point out that there are other losers here, too. There are many first nations operating food, social and ceremonial fisheries within the rules. They are certainly just as much a loser in this situation as our members are.
Thirdly, I think there needs to be a recognition among first nations communities that this is food intended for first nations mouths, not for diversion to profits for people. They should demand better from their own governments engaging in that type of activity.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
I want to get one more quick question in with Mr. McIsaac.
I'm recalling the prawn-tubbing issue. I think you know what I mean by that. There seemed to be an inordinate amount of effort and number of resources put into what appeared to be a very irrelevant or minor situation.
Can you elaborate a bit on that, Mr. McIsaac?
12:45 p.m.
Coordinator, BC Commercial Fishing Caucus
I totally agree. Why C and P was focused on prawn tubbing never came to light. I would say it goes back to some kind of civilian oversight of C and P.
It needs to be held accountable and answerable for what it's actually focusing its limited resources on. That, I think, was a complete waste of time. It was a complete waste of the House's time, the committee's time and everybody else's time involved in it. I don't think it did anything to reduce IUU fishing. I don't think it did anything but impact legal harvesters.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
We'll now go to Mr. Hanley for five minutes or less.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
I thank you both for appearing today.
Mr. Sproul, I wanted to start with you. You talked about how the legal landings are now alarmingly low.
Can you comment on whether that's a seasonal effect, or you're seeing a cumulative effect in these areas where the landings are low?
12:50 p.m.
President, Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance
Certainly, the lobster resource is cyclical. The catches go up and down throughout the years. Catches are affected by environmental factors and lots of other things, but we believe that there is beginning to be a cumulative effect, especially in places like southwest Nova Scotia and eastern Cape Breton, where a lot of the fishery is taking place.
I think the important thing to point out is not the amount of lobster, but the location where the fisheries are being operated. They're very important, shallow, warm fishery spawning grounds that haven't had fishing in them, by a self-imposed rule from lobster fishermen, for more than 100 years, because we've understood the importance of those places.
We believe the cumulative effect is not only related to the lobster that's coming ashore, but also to the damage to breeding females when they're in such a vulnerable stage around their moult in the summertime.
I think that's why it's so important to deal with the issue.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Linking that back to your previous testimony, you were just talking about some of the recommendations. I think you mentioned the need for engagement with first nations, but also for first nations to be elevating this issue. Surely, when it comes to the actual conservation of the species, this is incredibly important for first nations as well.
What are you hearing so far from first nations individuals or leaders in their concerns about the impact on stocks?
12:50 p.m.
President, Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance
Sadly, there's a huge lack of communication between fishery leadership right now and first nations leadership in the Maritimes, because of the unfortunate situation that unfolded in 2020.
What I'll say about it is this. Every fisher in Atlantic Canada recognizes that there's a direct link between people who are fishing out of season and first nations who lease their access delivered in the Marshall implementation strategy with non-indigenous fishing companies.
What I mean by that is a lot of the people who are fishing out of season in places like St. Marys Bay are citizens of nations who have been dispossessed of the entirety of their fishery access that's been delivered over the last 23 years. It's leased by first nations governments for a direct economic benefit for the nation, but it really misses the real value of the Marshall implementation, which in our view is not about lobsters on a wharf or dollars in a bank account. It's about creating a lasting legacy of prosperity for coastal first nations and creating fishing families like our members.
That is what we view as the real benefit that should be delivered to first nations, and they're continually losing that through the government's refusal to put caveats on the access that require participation by only indigenous people.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
Briefly, to Mr. McIsaac, in your opening comments you were referring to some international practices. You mentioned Japan. I think you were there at a meeting and you observed some practices.
Could you elaborate on what we might be able to learn from other global examples?
12:50 p.m.
Coordinator, BC Commercial Fishing Caucus
That could take a couple of days.
In brief, their fishing act has one similarity to ours. It came out in 1868, the same year. That's where the similarity ends.
They download the responsibility for fisheries management onto the prefecture, which would be equivalent to our provinces or regional governments, rather than doing it centrally. All of the licensing for small-scale fisheries goes through that prefecture. The prefecture ensures that licensing is local. With local ownership and participation, all of the benefits are in that local area.
DFO was just doing a beneficial ownership study of who gets the benefit of our fishing licences. DFO was really happy to report that one in five licence-holders wouldn't even respond to that, but they thought that only 2% were foreign-owned. That is disrespectful of the question and disrespectful of our communities.
We need to know who is benefiting. It's only the local communities that are really going to care about that.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Hanley.
We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes, please.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sproul, we don't have a lot of time.
In a school zone, certain conditions must be met. If someone speeds or doesn't behave properly, the penalty can be very severe. If they pass a school bus, it can cost them dearly, because the consequences can be dramatic. It can cost lives.
I'm comparing school zones and fishing zones so that you understand the essence of my question.
We know that there are areas where fisheries can undermine the reproduction and sustainability of the resource. In your opinion, should we consider the possibility of enhancing surveillance in those areas and increasing the penalties? Do you think that could have a beneficial effect for the future? In doing so, could we educate people and influence their behaviour?
12:55 p.m.
President, Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance
I don't think it's as simple as an increase to the penalties.
I heard a member of this committee suggest two weeks ago, as the committee was meeting on IUU, that he had heard from local C and P officers in his community that they “close their eyes” for certain groups of fisherman.
I would harken back to my previous comments that it's more about the intent and the willingness of this government to equally enforce existing fisheries policy in the interim until the rights reconciliation process can move forward to a successful conclusion. I think it's incumbent on the government to do that, for two reasons: to protect the base of the economy of Atlantic Canada, but also protect the future of the resource for those very rights holders they are attempting to help while inadvertently potentially damaging the ability for them to access their rights forever.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
In short, we could conclude that a fair balance and the fact that no one feels infringed upon would improve the social climate and communications. When people don't feel infringed upon, they engage less often in prohibited behaviour. That's why you want us to make our recommendations. It's a matter of improving the relationships between the various groups so that everyone has a better understanding of the situation.
Is that what you're saying?
12:55 p.m.
President, Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance
I think that's a reasonable path forward. I think it can also lead to the resolution of another key problem that I haven't mentioned. It's that Nanos polling has revealed that a majority of fishermen in the Maritimes feel that the biggest threat to their fisheries is indigenous out-of-season fishing. Ten years ago, those same people viewed their indigenous partners in the fishery as their greatest allies, especially in the fight to prevent encroachment on our important fishing grounds by other offshore developers.
I think it's really sad that there's been a fracture of the two communities. It's incumbent on the government to bring us back together in the spirit of conservation and reconciliation.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal