Fisheries Committee on Nov. 30th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 11 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, October 19, the committee is resuming its study of the implementation of Mi'kmaq treaty fishing rights to support a moderate livelihood.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of September 23. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So that you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entire committee. To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, or English or French.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room. Keep in mind the directives from the Board of Internal Economy regarding masking and health protocols.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. I will remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses. Today, we have, as individuals, Michael Dadswell, professor of biology, retired, and Gary Hutchins, retired detachment supervisor for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Representing the Canadian Independent Fish Harvester's Federation, we have Melanie Sonnenberg, president, and Jim McIsaac, vice-president, Pacific.

We will now proceed with opening remarks for—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, Mr. Bragdon.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This should be fairly brief, as I'm looking forward to hearing the testimony tonight.

I wanted to make sure of the following as we get ready for the conclusion of the study coming up. There are a few documents that we wanted to have included as evidence for the current study. I have a motion that's in both languages and will send it to you and the clerk right away for translation. It's just to make sure of the inclusion of certain documents for the report of this study.

I'll read the motion if you're okay with that. It's being sent to you and the clerk to be circulated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Has it been translated, Mr. Bragdon?

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

Yes, it has.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

Before we get into any discussion on the motion, of course, I'll have to make sure that all members have received it in both official languages.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

I have not received it.

Can you send it to me so I can distribute it, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

The clerk hasn't received it, Mr. Bragdon, so I guess we'll have to wait until that's done, and then wait to make sure everybody has it, before we proceed.

[The Clerk]

I've got it, and am about to distribute it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay.

Has everybody received it?

Okay.

Do I hear any discussion on the motion as proposed by Mr. Bragdon?

Hearing no discussion, Nancy, I'll ask you to do a recorded vote, please.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

We'll now go to our witnesses for five minutes or less, please. We'll start with Mr. Dadswell.

[Dr. Michael Dadswell, Professor of Biology (Retired), As an Individual]

Good afternoon, committee members.

My name is Dr. Michael Dadswell.

I began my fisheries career in 1965 working on salmon in the Miramichi. I graduated with my Ph.D. in 1973. I went to the Huntsman Marine laboratory and worked as a fisheries biologist on the Saint John River. In 1977 I joined DFO and worked on lobsters, scallops and tidal power environmental impacts. Then in 1987 I moved to Acadia University, where I taught marine biology and fisheries biology for 33 years.

I see my role here today basically as that of a defence attorney for the lobsters.

Scientific fisheries research over the last hundred years has established what is known as the scientific concept of biological management for the conservation of fish stocks.

Fish stocks are extremely susceptible to the effects of exploitation and environmental change upon the recruitment of the young to the stock. Fisheries stocks are fragile and sensitive. To survive exploitation, recruitment must be good. The biology of the stock, then, is critical to survival.

Last Monday, the witnesses did not explain very well the importance of lobster seasons for the conservation of lobster stocks, so that is where I'll begin.

To provide a little history, the Canadian lobster fishery began in 1880. There were no regulations; it was the Wild West. But in 1920, the stock was collapsing. A number of regulations were introduced, with little effect.

Then during the 1930s Dr. Wilfred Templeman of the Canadian fisheries department undertook research on lobster life history around the Maritimes.

There are some lobster biology facts that you should all hear first. Mature females only moult and reproduce once every two years. This slows their growth, and when they are not berried—i.e. carrying eggs—they stay longer in the exploitation window. It is therefore extremely important to protect them.

Male lobsters can only pass sperm to females just after moult, when they are in the soft-shell condition. Females then store the sperm, but they do not release and fertilize the eggs until one to three months later, depending on the temperature and so forth.

At the right time as the female chooses, she fertilizes the eggs with sperm and releases the eggs, and then she glues them to the underside of her abdomen. The females then carry the eggs for 10 to 11 months.

Delayed release of eggs means that the take of a female before she releases her eggs and becomes berried is basically the same as the take of a berried female: her production then is lost to recruitment.

What Dr. Templeman found back in the 1930s was that the growth, maturity, moult and egg release periods of the lobster varied around the Maritimes, based on the local environment.

In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, because of warm summer temperatures females matured at a younger age, about five to six years. They were soft-shelled by late June—that meant they could be inseminated at that time—and they usually released the eggs by August.

In southwest Nova Scotia—lobster district 34, about which we're talking a lot—the females mature much later, at seven to eight years. They're soft-shelled in July and August, and egg release does not occur until October or November.

The seasons, then, were established based on these findings and the considerations of marketing and desirability of lobster. Soft-shell lobsters such as you talked about in the last meeting are not only susceptible to high mortality while they're being handled; they are also at a high risk of being attacked, killed and eaten by other lobsters when they're in the lobster trap.

Lobsters are cannibalistic. That's why they have those rubber bands on their claws when we buy them in the market. Essentially, the seasons are closed in most areas until after the soft-shell condition is over.

Also, soft-shell lobsters have poor meat quality, and consumer appreciation is lower. Because of seasons, Canada has established a superior quality of our product. Taking lobster outside the season leads to recruitment over-exploitation through the loss of females to the stock, the higher mortality of soft-shell animals and less consumer appreciation.

Now, the problem with all of this is that the effects of the lobster exploitation out of season will take anywhere from seven to 10 years to be evidenced. I will give you all an example that you probably know quite well.

In Newfoundland the cod fishery collapsed in 1992. The onshore cod trap-fishers in Newfoundland were warning DFO that there were no juvenile cod evident in their traps for five years before the Newfoundland cod collapse. Essentially, their warnings were ignored.

So based on these lobster biology facts, and the present very healthy state of the lobster fishery, in my opinion, Mi’kmaq fishers can make a good, moderate livelihood by fishing in season, like all the other lobster fishermen.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Dadswell. That was a little bit over time.

We'll now go to Mr. Hutchins for five minutes or less, please.

You're on mute, Mr. Hutchins.

[Gary Hutchins, Detachment Supervisor (Retired), Department of Fisheries and Oceans, As an Individual]

Is that better? Can you hear me now?

[The Clerk]

Yes, we can. Go ahead.

[Gary Hutchins]

Great. Thank you.

My name is Gary Hutchins. I was a fishery officer and detachment supervisor with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans for almost 32 years. As a fishery officer, I took a sworn oath to enforce the Fisheries Act and regulations pursuant to the act.

My personal experiences are many. I have been involved in enforcement of all fish species on the east coast as well as the Fraser River salmon on the west coast of our great country in 1992, after the Sparrow decision ruling came down from the Supreme Court of Canada. I had the privilege of sitting with indigenous elders who were drying salmon on the banks of the river on endless wooden racks. They would tell stories about their rich, fascinating culture and spiritual beliefs, and I was fascinated.

However, the majority of my career was spent enforcing the many commercial fisheries as well as the indigenous fisheries on the east coast. I can tell you that commercial fishermen are a unique breed. They are the hardest-working, most driven, toughest, proudest and principled group of people I know, and further, they have earned every penny they have through hard work and determination. Yes, we butted heads, but they knew I had a job to do, and as one fisherman said to me, “Gary, I don't like you one little bit, but I respect you for what you are doing”, and then I charged him.

We can all agree that the terrible and tragic events that have transpired since September 17 are unacceptable, and I don't condone them. These actions are fear-based, and not racist. Let me ask you all this question: How would you react if you felt powerless and abandoned by the Minister of Fisheries and your elected government? At this point, you'd feel backed into a corner, believing that your livelihood could be threatened. Whether or not this is fact-based, the simple truth is that one person's perception could also be their reality. Perhaps the reason for this behaviour is that fishermen were already aware that there were approximately 3,000 indigenous lobster traps in St. Marys Bay. They witnessed the destruction of a resource they had paid huge money to be a part of, all under the guise of a food, social and ceremonial fishery.

In the summer of 2017, my detachment, Digby C&P, learned that a large quantity of lobster was discovered in a ditch alongside a secondary road. We initiated an investigation, through which we located thousands of pounds of discarded lobster in the woods near the town of Weymouth, Nova Scotia. This is also adjacent to an area where several indigenous vessels landed their daily catch. Through our investigation, we could not conclude on reasonable and probable grounds that the lobsters were dumped by lobster buyers, or possibly indigenous fishers. Lobster buyers would have discarded them because, shortly after taking possession of the lobsters, the lobsters would have died. Similarly, indigenous fishers would have discarded them from their holding traps. Nonetheless, this showed a blatant and total disrespect for a valuable resource that provides income for thousands of people.

Mr. Dadswell has already talked about the lobsters and their survival rates, so I'll just move on.

This commercial fishery that Sipekne'katic wants to establish will cause a massive destruction of lobster. We have witnessed this type of destruction associated with the FSC fishery for years. Fishery officers have conducted thousands of patrols and regular checks in St. Marys Bay, and through these efforts, we have seen juvenile lobster used as bait, many with eggs attached. Fishery officers have witnessed untold numbers of dead lobsters in traps as well. This is a major conservation issue.

Allow me to speak to the facts for a moment. There is no indigenous treaty right associated with harvesting lobster. The FSC fishery was established by policy by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to allow indigenous people to access the harvesting of lobster. Now we have a self-imposed attempt to create a commercial fishery by Chief Sack and others using licences and tags created by themselves. Access to the fishery is lawfully regulated in the following manner. A licence is created by the minister, tags are issued by the minister, and these tags are affixed to the traps in the manner for which they were designed.

I am perplexed as to why we are here discussing the creation of another indigenous commercial fishery when one already exists. Actually, there are two, if we include the FSC fishery. The federal government purchased and provided to all bands a variety of commercial licences, including licences for lobster fishing, as well as for vessels. The purpose of this undertaking was to provide a moderate livelihood for indigenous people, thereby fulfilling the obligations set down by the Supreme Court of Canada under the Marshall decision.

Perhaps a better question to ask is why are indigenous people not getting access to these licences to pursue a moderate livelihood? Perhaps the reason is that these licences have been leased back to white business owners, thereby taking opportunities away from the indigenous people. I have spoken with indigenous people who have expressed the desire to pursue a moderate livelihood from fishing, but have not been given the opportunities.

The Fisheries Act is the supreme law in Canada that governs our fishery resources, and no one—not the Minister of Fisheries nor the Prime Minister—can violate this law or any law. The fisheries minister should step down. Further, if anyone else had done that, they would have been charged by now. The Minister of Fisheries—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hutchins. Your time has gone over. Hopefully anything else that's left in your testimony will come out in the line of questioning.

We'll now go to Ms. Sonnenberg for five minutes or less, please.

[Melanie Sonnenberg, President, Canadian Independent Fish Harvester's Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon to the committee members.

The Canadian Independent Fish Harvester's Federation represents more than 14,000 independent owner-operators across Canada. Our primary species are lobster, crab, wild salmon, shrimp and groundfish. We produce over $3 billion in landed value, which translates into $10 billion at retail, and much more to over a thousand coastal communities in our country. Including crew members, we employ over 40,000 workers, and we are the largest private employer in coastal communities in Canada.

My name is Melanie Sonnenberg, and I'm the president of the fish harvester's federation. Today I'm joined by our federation's Pacific vice-president, Jim McIsaac. Our wheelhouse is the Canadian fishery. We are here today to discuss independent harvesters' role in the future of the fishery, and why it is important for us to be part of the consultation processes regarding the fishery.

We are not here to challenge treaty rights, but to discuss sustainable fisheries as we see them.

The three core components of sustainable fisheries are legal access, rights or privileges; harvesters with their knowledge; and our technologies with vessels and gear. Harvesters as an important component of sustainable fisheries have formed important relationships with the ecosystem, our communities, our economy and our governance systems. All these relationships are important if we are to protect the resource and ensure benefits to our communities for future generations of harvesters.

The work to protect independent harvesters dates back over 100 years. On governance, we work closely with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in a symbiotic relationship that includes fisheries management, stock rebuilding, advisory committees, licensing issues, setting harvesting levels, and establishing harvesting as our controls. Our relationship is not perfect. Too often, the department is fixated on ecological objectives and has no resources to pay attention to socio-economic objectives. Over the last decade we have been working to drive this into the new Fisheries Act, and to ensure equitable distribution of benefits from our fisheries so that all harvesters in coastal communities are primary beneficiaries of our resource.

Without our driving socio-economic objectives, our fisheries would all be controlled by corporate and foreign entities. Our investment of putting knowledge into sustainable fisheries is significant. The net effect is tens of thousands of middle-class jobs that sustain over 1,000 coastal communities.

We are not part of any direct dialogue between the federal government and first nations around the term “moderate livelihood”. In the absence of that discussion, we would pose the following questions.

With multiple definitions and multiple parties, will limited entry be destroyed? If so, will fishing as a serious livelihood be destroyed? All legal fisheries are currently licensed, regulated, monitored by the federal government. Is this cornerstone to be replaced? How do we protect the resource when harvesters' plans are not consistent across all sectors of the industry.

Is it not important to monitor the catch to prevent overfishing in any fishery, including FSC, commercial or recreational fisheries? Won't the illegal sale of fish from any fishery undermine the sustainability of our legal fisheries?

Is it no longer important to protect our [Technical difficulty—Editor] our fisheries seasons and have conservation and protection rules that apply to all? As licence leasing reduces the net proceeds that go directly back to local communities, is this new objective in our Fisheries Act now irrelevant? Doesn't leasing to corporate entities undermine local ownership and erode net reach to all coastal communities?

We have been advised that we could see up to 35 separate management plans in Atlantic Canada alone. Is this workable? Will this make DFO's job of protecting our common resource more challenging and further complicate understaffing in many areas of the department?

We must find a way to manage the sector that doesn't cost more than the income from the sector. Can we afford both standards and enforcement? Should regulations apply to all harvesters equally in each fishery? If not, will we not have chaos?

Our members want positive working relationships with first nations in their geographic areas. Presently, we work with many in training, mentoring, marketing, species advisory committees, science and research; but by not being at fisheries consultation tables, we are left to speculate that we, the fishing industry, are on the menu.

In summation, we have proactive and productive options that could work in solving some of the current obvious concerns that our harvesters have. To achieve positive outcomes, we need a meaningful role for independent harvester organizations in fisheries' reconciliation negotiation. Existing consultation models that are used for international fisheries' negotiations like NAFTA and NAFO, where stakeholders provide advice and are sounding boards for the government, need to be adopted.

A common goal is that all harvesters participating in our fisheries be treated equally, so that enforcement applies to all. Alignment of seasons, regulations and fishing zones is [Technical difficulty--Editor] avoiding multiple management plans for one fishery.

In closing, on behalf of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvester's Federation, we would like to thank the standing committee for this opportunity to present. Mr. McIsaac and I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Sonnenberg. You were just a couple of seconds over time.

We'll now go to questions from committee members. I would remind people that, if you're not speaking, please put your microphone on mute. To the questioner, please identify who the question is for. That will make it a little easier to get the answer more quickly and make more productive use of your time.

For six minutes or less, Mr. Bragdon, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know, Mr. Hutchins, that you were in the midst of your testimony when you ended. You may have about a minute or so to wrap up. I'll give you a bit of my time for you to wrap up, if you want to take a minute to finish your statement, and then I have some questions I'd like to ask.

Go ahead, Mr. Hutchins, and just finish off your statement.

[Gary Hutchins]

Thank you very much; I appreciate that.

I would like to finish off by saying that the term “white racist fisherman” has spread like wildfire, especially in the media and across Canada. This greatly upsets me because it is simply untrue, based on my 32 years of experience and knowledge.

Commercial fishermen have been vilified by our government leaders and our media. Our federal leaders have categorized fishermen as racists and terrorists. Because of these comments, Canadians believe what our elected leaders are saying. Now Canadians believe this to be so, thereby labelling commercial fishermen in southwest Nova Scotia as racists and terrorists.

If this is the case, we must assume that their wives, children, grandparents, parents, friends and perhaps the whole community is racist. After all, racism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Everyone wants to focus on the acts of the commercial fishers, so it seems everyone else involved in this incident gets a free pass.

The first thing you learn as an investigator is to investigate both sides of the story and collect all the facts and the evidence before making a decision. This opportunity was never afforded to the commercial fishers. They were instantly tarred and feathered by our elected leaders and media and, as a result, the citizens of Canada.

Remember, this incident was caused by an illegal fishery, an illegally fishery, and is the cause without which this incident would not have occurred. Guilt before innocence is what has happened, and without doubt our leaders in Ottawa are not entitled to a free pass. They must act with integrity and dignity and carry themselves in a manner that is above reproach and disrepute. They have fallen short. It's time for our leaders to apologize to the commercial fishers, their families and the community. Canadians look to our leaders to bring us together in pursuit of our Canadian dream, not to divide us with harmful, hurtful, divisive and destructive comments.

As a Canadian and a former DFO officer, I have always supported indigenous rights and always will, but this is simply an illegal fishery that should not have occurred, and I do not support it.

Thank you, sir, so much.

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

Thank you, Mr. Hutchins.

Now I want to move into some questions. Obviously, we've heard testimony, and I want to thank each of the witnesses for taking the time to be here tonight to bring your perspective to the table.

I'd like to start with Ms. Sonnenberg. There has been a lot of discussion around the possibility of establishing a separate or second independent fishing authority. What would be the feeling of your association about that? Have you been consulted in regard to this talk of an independent, second, separate fishing authority, Ms. Sonnenberg?

[Melanie Sonnenberg]

The federation members, as the federation goes, have not been consulted on this matter. As I said in my presentation, having a separate table would be devastating to the fishery and the management of it. Our membership has been clear across the board to the Department of Fisheries and to anybody who will listen that it simply will not function. It sets us up for certain disaster.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Sonnenberg—and I'll go to the others as well—do you feel that there has been adequate consultation with all stakeholders by the minister in regard to this as we were leading up to this point and the escalations that have happened? Do you feel there has been proper consultation, or is that improving at this point?

I'll start with you, Ms. Sonnenberg, and then head over to the other witnesses as well, Mr. Hutchins and Mr. Dadswell.