Fisheries Committee on Nov. 30th, 2020

[Melanie Sonnenberg]

I would have to say, Mr. Bragdon, that the consultation has been very weak on our side. We are told repeatedly that we really don't have a place, that this is government to government. My members continue to ask where we will fit into this dialogue. I think that's what is most important for us to establish: With the department and with other government agencies that are in the reconciliation discussions, we have to know where we will fit.

I think Gary's comments were very appropriate in terms of the fear that's come from the fishing industry being driven by this lack of communication. We must find a way forward to inform the people who have such big investments in this industry.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

Mr. Hutchins and Mr. Dadswell, do you have a quick comment?

[Gary Hutchins]

Certainly. I guess the creation of another fishery seems to me to be somewhat redundant. The federal government has provided $600 million in licences to cover off the moderate livelihood. The fact sheet of the 1999 Supreme Court Donald Marshall decision clearly says that the first nations communities have been provided with “licences, vessels and gear in order to increase and diversify their participation in the commercial fisheries and to contribute to the pursuit of a moderate livelihood.”

That's already been established by the Marshall decision and the actions taken by the federal government to meet those obligations. Here we are today talking about the creation of another commercial fishery when already one exists.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Dadswell.

[Dr. Michael Dadswell]

I agree completely with the statements just made, not so much from the side of the humans involved but from the side of the lobsters. Over-exploitation of female lobsters by one means or another in the long-term fishery whereby soft-shell lobsters are caught, females that have not extruded eggs are caught, is going to collapse the fishery sooner or later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Dadswell.

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

We will now go to Mr. Morrissey, for six minutes or less.

Go ahead, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Dr. Dadswell, I want to follow up on your comments. You would provide testimony to this committee that if we don't conserve the stocks accurately, if we don't protect the female soft-shell lobsters, there will be a negative impact on both the commercial fishery and any moderate livelihood fishery for first nations?

[Dr. Michael Dadswell]

That is correct. Everybody would suffer.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Could you explain that to the committee, from your perspective, because you introduced yourself as a defence counsel for the lobster. I believe that was the terminology you used.

[Dr. Michael Dadswell]

That's right. I did.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You stated that you were unbiased in your approach. I take that, and so your testimony is important.

One of the issues being studied by the committee is whether the Government of Canada through DFO can put limitations on a moderate fishery without infringing on treaty rights. So if you were to leave it wide open, then you could interpret that as having a negative impact on the long-term [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[Dr. Michael Dadswell]

Mr. Morrissey, you're—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We're losing you, Bobbie. Your question didn't come through.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Morrissey, this is the clerk.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I can hear you now. Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Dr. Dadswell.

[Dr. Michael Dadswell]

Yes, I'm listening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I don't believe the witness heard your question.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Can you hear me? Okay.

Dr. Dadswell, from your expertise as a biologist, if the Government of Canada does not impose restrictions on seasons and times when lobster is harvested, it could very well have a negative impact on not only the moderate livelihood fishery, but the commercial fishery as well. Would I be correct in that interpretation?

[Dr. Michael Dadswell]

I would say you are completely correct. Both fisheries would suffer, and the lobster stock would suffer.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

From that context, you very clearly explained the reasons why you should have seasons: because of the vulnerable state of lobster at certain times. You used a reference. Could you expand a bit more on the “exploitation window”?

[Dr. Michael Dadswell]

What I meant by the exploitation window is that.... Most lobster traps have a ring. The ring is set to be a certain size to get the largest number of lobsters of the right size for marketing. Most lobster fishermen don't particularly want to catch the biggest ones, because when they go in the trap, they can kill everybody. They try to keep it to a certain size.

With the lobster life history, the fact that the females only moult every second year means that they grow slower than the males. You have vulnerable females, which you absolutely need to keep the stock in good shape, staying longer in that exploitation window, which the trap can then catch. That means your actual catch rate of females would be higher than of males over a long-term period.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay. Good regulations, good policy and good seasons are important to the moderate livelihood fishery as well as the commercial fishery.

I want to go to Ms. Sonnenberg. Melanie, could you elaborate a bit more on where your very credible organization—which I've known for some time—would see a meaningful role in the negotiations for the commercial industry?

[Melanie Sonnenberg]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey, for the question.

We need to find a place where we can understand what is being discussed about us, yet without us. We need to have an opportunity to have some input about what the impacts may be over the course of time and, as we've heard from Mr. Dadswell, what the impacts on stocks will be in different fisheries.

Presently, because we don't know any of this, we don't understand what the future holds for us. For us, a table needs to have some detail and some substance. It isn't about denying any rights. It isn't about not acknowledging what has been established by the Supreme Court. It is about making sure that we have a better understanding and that we have some protection. We have an industry that has heavily invested in fishing. We have thousands of fishermen across this country. They've established our coastal communities, as we know them, and we know that the prosperity in these communities has grown as of late.

We need to recognize that and figure out a way, collectively, to ensure that everybody is protected, and that we have some sense of community together. This isn't about dividing and conquering; this is about working together for the best of everybody.