Evidence of meeting #95 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 data.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Executive Director, International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (IMCS) Network
Our organization does not do that. We help support the fisheries officers of our members to more effectively use technology to do that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Perfect.
In terms of helping fisheries officers, can you give us—just for the people watching at home, maybe—a simple example of what your group is doing? I think it's important for people to understand what you're doing.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (IMCS) Network
The IMCS Network operates under the principles of facilitating greater co-operation, coordination and communication between the national fisheries administrations of the different countries around the globe.
Our focus is on the people—the fisheries officers at the forefront of conducting enforcement—to ensure that they have the right tools to be able to do their jobs effectively. We're providing opportunities for capacity building and providing them with the knowledge and expertise to use technology or use different tools and methods to be able to detect and uncover potential illegal activity.
We try to provide that support primarily to our developing country members in all regions around the globe, but also to many countries in Africa and the Indo-Pacific region.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
That's great. It's very interesting.
If I asked you whether you thought IUU fishing was well managed in Canada, how would you respond to that?
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (IMCS) Network
I think that I am probably not the right person to ask specifically about Canada's domestic non-compliance issues. There are probably other witnesses who would be better able to do that.
I would be more involved on the level of international or regional potential activities that would affect Canada or that Canada would be involved in.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Okay. Thanks.
I'll go to Mr. Hawkins now, because we're kind of in the same sector.
You were talking about logbooks, Mr. Hawkins, having more data or accurate data. Are you talking about the same logbook that some of the fishermen are using now, which your people are working with them on? Is it the same thing?
4:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Vericatch
It could be. The answer is that, currently, there's a little bit of a patchwork. Some people are using paper logbooks. Some people are using e-logs. Some of those e-logs are compliant with the national standard. However, as the national standard would imply, DFO is trying to move everybody towards a common standard, because that's going to reduce cost and so forth.
Today, it's a patchwork.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Vericatch
That's always a great question. Obviously, somebody is submitting that information to DFO. If it's not accurate, they should expect somebody to be potentially knocking on their door. The answer is that, if you're bringing in data, even if it is not 100% accurate and can't be proven to be 100% accurate, which at times is the case, at least you're bringing in data, and you can you start to look at trends on that.
Again, self-reporting isn't terrific, but where you have dockside monitoring and at-sea observer programs, it becomes more accurate or at least correlated. The accuracy, I think, is improving.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Metallic, thanks for being with us. I think you're only two hours away from where I am right now in Caraquet.
Sometimes it's very difficult to ask questions when it comes to first nations in the fishery sector, as you know. There was a lot that happened in my region, especially in the year 2000.
When it comes to food, social and ceremonial fishery and when it comes to giving more access to first nations regarding Marshall or whatever, the government tried their best, and there is certainly room for improvement there. I have a perfect example in my area of a fish plant owned by two first nations now.
That being said, I just want to ask you this. When you say negotiation nation to nation, don't you think it would be better to all sit around the table—first nations, government and commercial fishers—and see what will be beneficial to all those groups, and by coming together make this reconciliation piece a lot better than what people think it is right now?
I'm not sure if you understand what I mean. Don't you think we should all sit around the table and try to figure out what the best way to do this is?
4:10 p.m.
Prof. Naiomi Metallic
It's perhaps both. I think that there are examples of systemic racism against fishers. There needs to be reconciliation. That needs to happen and be worked on. There also needs to be work between the first nations and the government to recognize the role that the communities can play in the fisheries. I think both have to happen. It's not an either-or. You can't just say to treat indigenous peoples like all the other stakeholders.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Cormier.
We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for six minutes or less, please.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the witnesses for joining us. This discussion has been very informative.
I'm going to pick up on what my colleague Mr. Cormier was saying earlier. As we can all see, there are laws and the Marshall decisions. Some say that these decisions do not work; others say that they should be changed. Personally, I am a strong enough supporter of the consensus to establish some trust between the government, first nations and non-indigenous fishers.
In your opinion, Mr. Roman, what would be the starting point so that a kind of consensus emerges and everyone ends up trusting each other as we move forward?
It is often said that a climate of trust encourages the interlocutor not to break trust. Confidence that is established in the context of a consensus, where everyone stands together and understands one another, generally limits obfuscation, wrongdoing or the tendency to engage in illegal fishing, for example.
If you agree with what I'm saying, obviously, could you tell me what the first steps would be, in your opinion?
4:10 p.m.
Retired Lawyer, As an Individual
I see a problem, short term, where if there are discussions being had—as there should be—with indigenous people alone and others are left out, then if you have a committee of everyone coming together at some point, those who were left out of the first discussions are going to be suspicious about whether there isn't a hidden agenda for the second discussions. I think that is what has to be dispelled in the course of the second discussions. Otherwise, the whole thing falls apart.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
That's very interesting.
I would now like to hear Ms. Metallic's comments on this.
4:10 p.m.
Prof. Naiomi Metallic
I think that education is a really important piece of this, as well as understanding the protection of constitutionally protected rights. They're not a bogeyman. They're not a bad thing. They are part of who we are as Canadians. We have francophones on the panel whom we protect through minority language rights in New Brunswick and other minority language rights in other parts of the country.
I sometimes say that there can be, perhaps, some seeing of parallels so that people can understand what we're talking about: our constitutionally protected rights and understanding how those work.
As I was trying to respond to Mr. Cormier, I worry sometimes that if we try to bring it all together and say to treat the indigenous folks as just another stakeholder, then we're not getting at those constitutional rights. Because of the systemic exclusion of indigenous folks, you're not starting at the same level or starting on the same playing field.
As I said in my remarks, there are special obligations that the Government of Canada and provincial governments have to indigenous peoples that need to be followed and worked through. You can't just ignore Supreme Court of Canada decisions.
However, I think there is a big education piece. Opportunities to have discourse and discussion and to build bridges are important. There have been some good examples in the Maritimes. In the area of Bear River First Nation, they had a really great project with local fishermen in Digby back in the early 2000s. They were able to make some good connections. This work can be done, but I think there's a huge education piece.
Thank you.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
That's very interesting.
My next question is for Mr. Roman and is a little more technical in nature.
You raised a form of obsolescence in the existing legislation on indigenous rights. What do you think this means for the fisheries sector in concrete terms?
4:15 p.m.
Retired Lawyer, As an Individual
I think the misapprehension in the Marshall case is that it created treaty rights to catch almost any species of fish. In the written document I've submitted in the brief, I say that the case actually decided only about eels. It decided what was necessary to decide the case of Mr. Marshall. He was fishing for eels. That's what they said they decided. They made that very clear in Marshall II.
I think the way that this has affected the industry is that some fishers believe that it gave treaty rights to catch anything anywhere, and others believe that it was very narrow. That's why we're looking at the future through the rear-view mirror. That's why I think we should stop doing that, forget about the Marshall cases and start looking at what we want to do with the Fisheries Act.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Madame Desbiens.
We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less.
February 1st, 2024 / 4:15 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses who are here.
I have questions for Ms. Metallic.
My first question builds off the questions that my colleague Caroline Desbiens was asking just now. We heard from a witness talking about the Marshall decision as being limited to eels and about some of the potential confusion around that, which we were hearing from the previous witness. I'm wondering if you have any reflections or additional thoughts on that.
4:15 p.m.
Prof. Naiomi Metallic
I do. In fact, I litigated a case on this a couple of years ago and spent the better part of a morning taking the trial judge through both Marshall I and II, stopping at every point where the court said that it is a treaty right to fish and hunt for a moderate livelihood.
In Marshall II it's actually really helpful if you read it all the way through. There is a reference to species specificity, but it is in relation to the justification of the right. The process that I had explained earlier—the process of justification—may change depending on whether you're talking about lobster or eel or shrimp or what have you, but the main Marshall I decision itself is about a right to fish for a moderate livelihood, as well as to hunt.
There is a 2005 Marshall case where the court said that it doesn't include the right to harvest logs, for example, so it's very clear, when you look at all three, that species specificity is in relation to justification and not to the right itself.
However, there is huge miscommunication and misunderstanding around that too, and I think that is part of my recommendation for why there needs to be greater education around what the decision means, what it says and what it means for governments to respect and honour treaty rights, as well as respect by citizens more generally.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you.
Are you seeing that happening? Do you see opportunities for increased education happening in the community around what those decisions mean and what the treaty rights are?
4:15 p.m.
Prof. Naiomi Metallic
I teach at a law school, so I do in my classroom and with my students. More broadly I think there is greater education. Of course, what happened on the water in 2020, I think, has led to more discourse.
In Halifax I have certainly seen different members of the public have questions and want to learn more. It's just a better understanding of the issue.
These are complicated issues, but I do think there is an appetite. I think, especially after seeing some of the stuff that happened in 2020, it's just what's going on. Also, people are hearing about the fact that there are 50 ongoing prosecutions currently happening in Nova Scotia and that these matters are not resolved. They're being treated simply as enforcement issues when they could be treated more as matters for discussion and negotiation, and I think for working. I think there is such an opportunity for governments to actually sit down and work with the communities.
We have interest in protecting the different species as well, and we have Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqey values and laws that help us in that. I think that by working together and collaborating, a lot more could be done, but currently we're not seeing that. We're not seen as having a say or a role in the management of these resources as it relates to our fisheries rights. We are being treated simply as another stakeholder, which I think is not working and hasn't worked for the last 20 years.