Fisheries Committee on Oct. 29th, 2020

[Chief Wilbert Marshall]

Justin, you'll have to get that. I can't figure this out. I'm sorry about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Remember to put the mike close to your mouth, Chief Marshall, and try not to muffle it too much if you could, please, just for another 10 to 15 seconds.

[Chief Wilbert Marshall]

I will get Justin to answer that.

[Justin Martin]

I think you provided an adequate answer.

Essentially, Ms. Gill, he spoke about the traditional ways of the Mi'kmaq people where they had traditional governance systems, traditional seven districts that were governed by grand council members, hereditary members. That played an important part in distinguishing the areas for understanding within the Potlotek plan.

It will be important moving forward, as I mentioned earlier, to develop relationships among communities at that nation-to-nation level. I think that's where the question came from. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Gill. With that, our first hour of testimony expires.

We'll suspend for a moment now to allow the witnesses to depart. I want to thank them for their testimony here at committee this evening and wish them all the best.

[Justin Martin]

Wela'lioq.

[Chief Wilbert Marshall]

Thank you. Wela'lin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll go for the next hour. We'll suspend for a couple of minutes while we change out our witnesses and get to the second hour of our committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We will now resume the second part. Welcome back.

I would like to repeat a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are ready to speak, you can click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. Interpretation in this video conference will work very much like in a regular committee meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses in the second panel. From the Eastern Shore Fisherman's Protective Association, we have Peter Connors, president. From the Maritime Fishermen's Union, we have Martin Mallet, executive director; and Kevin Squires, president, Local 6.

We will now proceed to opening remarks.

Mr. Connors, it's over to you for five minutes or less, please.

[Peter Connors, President, Eastern Shore Fisherman's Protective Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Eastern Shore Fisherman's Protective Association this evening.

I'm Peter Connors. I'm the president of the Eastern Shore Fisherman's Protective Association, an association of approximately 200 harvesters of a small-scale, multispecies fishery that has sustained the eastern shore communities for generations.

I would like to address what I would describe as the misunderstanding of the position and the concerns of the fishing industry on the eastern shore especially, east of Halifax.

I am sure the majority of the fishing industry, the Canadian public and indigenous people seek truth and reconciliation. We regret that those taking provocative action and those responsible for the inappropriate response to it have taken the lead and are providing the environment and context for this negotiation. The federal government's response to the Marshall decision saw the first nations integrate into the commercial fishery and receive some 10% to 13% of a fully subscribed industry, double the proportionate per capita share to provide for moderate livelihood. That approach was applauded by industry and agreed to by first nations. The subsequent 20 years of integrated management of a shared resource served to propagate and enhance the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous participants, seeing several indigenous harvesters and their representatives elected or chosen to represent industry within the broader fisheries management consultative process.

All access to areas and allocations granted through the present licensing regime is based on recorded historic fishing participation and activity. The proficiency and capacity of the fishing industry make harvest control rules and regulations absolutely necessary. The fishing industry infrastructure co-operates or partners with DFO science and conservation and protection. The industry supports the food, social and ceremonial fishery to protect indigenous culture and tradition without reservation.

There can be only one integrated commercial fishery for more reasons than I have time to explain here in five minutes, but here is an outline: conservation and protection proficiency and efficiency; integrity of industry harvest control rules and practices developed to address Marine Stewardship Council sustainability assessment, including market demands and ecology science; equal opportunity for access to the resource; and optimal timing of harvesting and better co-ordination of and opportunity in marketing, as recommended by industry lobster commission studies.

The potential for a massive competing non-compliant fishery is the real threat to our multi-billion dollar industry and resources. Without the support of the existing compliant participants within industry, conservation and protection will be threatened. The operative terms here are “competing” rather than limited or regulated, and “compliant” rather than non-compliant. Moderate livelihood is best achieved through the existing framework for both indigenous and non-indigenous fishermen. Insecurity and instability are created in the absence of a permanent settlement and clarification of the department's authority or capacity to regulate the resource. The ambiguity as to the level of necessity required by the Badger test creates the danger that the level of necessity required for the department to act may prevent the authorities from taking pre-emptive action, and allow a situation to spiral out of control.

I would like to read the following points into the record.

The eastern shore community derives variably $20 million annually from the fishery. First nations derive approximately $160 million. This is a huge disparity per capita. I'm talking about the eastern shore here.

First nations just bought $5 million of eastern shore access at prices far exceeding the commercial value, prices far out of reach for the shareholders of the resources here on the eastern shore or the heirs and successors of those who prosecuted the fishery here to provide the basis for the economy in these local communities for generations.

There is no willing seller here. There is no other option. We feel government is leaving us here, our community, vulnerable.

There is a large body of support for the original DFO approach on this file, from 1999, which has to be respected if any resolution is to endure and the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission are to be implemented effectively.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Connors.

We'll now go to the Maritime Fishermen's Union.

I don't know which one of you will be speaking, or if it's one or two, but you're good to go for five minutes or less.

[Martin Mallet, Executive Director, Maritime Fishermen's Union]

We'll be splitting our time as much as possible, Mr. Chair.

Good evening. Thank you, on behalf of the Maritime Fishermen's Union, for giving us the opportunity to speak here tonight. Our organization represents over 1,300 independent inshore owner-operator fishermen in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

The current upheaval in our fisheries gives us a definite sense of déjà vu. Post Marshall decisions one and two, our fishermen and communities were significantly affected, especially during the Burnt Church crisis. Back in November 1999, Michael Belliveau, our then executive director, gave a presentation to the FOPO committee that still resonates with us 21 years later.

Many of the recommendations emanating from the committee were applied by subsequent governments and, as indicated in the Macdonald-Laurier report by Ken Coates last year, “have resulted in a wide range of important benefits for the region, including” for indigenous groups across the Maritimes and the Gaspé Peninsula. Amongst others, one benefit was a significant increase in “on-reserve fishing revenues for the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet growing from $3 million in 1999 to over $152 million in 2016”. This has been the result of a successful commercial fisheries integration for many indigenous groups, which the MFU and other organizations also helped foster following meaningful dialogue and understanding. However, despite these positive impacts, many challenges remain for both the indigenous and non-indigenous groups.

The “moderate livelihood” definition, and its implementation, remain at the top of the list. However, our understanding of past and current processes was, and still is today, that this implementation would be done through DFO-regulated commercial-communal access.

In our communities, the tensions that have occasionally arisen between indigenous and non-indigenous fisheries have been about out-of-season fishing and illegal sales of fish harvested for FSC purposes. The development of new moderate livelihood fisheries without the same seasons and rigorous regulation and enforcement as commercial fisheries will exacerbate such tensions. The expansion of first nations participation in commercial-communal fisheries does not, however, carry the same risk.

Over many decades, fishing organizations across Atlantic Canada have worked diligently with the federal government to establish a co-management approach that is often cited internationally as a model for nations to strive for. This model, based on an ecosystem and precautionary approach, seeks to balance fishing output with the ecosystem's ability to regenerate and sustain itself—for example, the use of effort- or quota-based management and fishing seasons protecting reproduction periods, etc. It also must consider socio-economic and traditional input from fish harvester and indigenous groups. These DFO-administered advisory committees provide the basis for meaningful representation and dialogue for fisheries management across Canada.

Our Canadian lobster resource management is a resounding example of this model's success. It currently generates tens of thousands of fisheries-related moderate livelihood jobs for indigenous and non-indigenous folks alike. Therefore, any additional access needs to be considered through the lens of this well-managed management system while also taking into consideration the socio-economic importance and the dependence of our coastal communities on this particular fishery.

Our organization supports the basic principles of the Marshall decisions and indigenous commercial access to fisheries under federal management. However, one of our greatest critiques of the decision is that it did not establish a timeline for government to implement the said decision. Therefore, I would like to suggest that this committee reflect on this issue.

In closing, I would also like this committee to revisit the lessons learned from the past and help celebrate the successes from the last 20 years, but also identify the remaining issues and gaps and look to resolve them.

On this, I'll pass the mike to my friend and colleague, Kevin Squires.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You have 40 seconds, Mr. Squires.

[Kevin Squires, President, Local 6, Maritime Fishermen's Union]

I will skip then to the main concerns that our members have indicated to us. The first is the need to regulate appropriate levels of fishing. We have a limited effort, and the fishery has delivered a valuable, sustainable fishery. The other one is to conduct the fishery according to common, mutually agreed upon rules and seasons. These are important. They're based on what's best for the fishery, not necessarily best for who is removing the fish from the sea. It's the fishery that matters here. Having mutually agreed upon rules helps maintain compliance among our members.

One of the things our members have been saying, and all organizations have been saying repeatedly, is that we need some communication here. We don't feel that we've been heard. We have significant problems with the fact that DFO has failed to figure out a way to include us. We understand the nature of nation-to-nation negotiations, but there has to be a place for commercial harvesters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Squires.

We'll now go to our rounds of questioning.

We'll begin with Mr. Bragdon, for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our special guests, Mr. Mallet, Mr. Connors and Mr. Squires. Thank you so much for taking the time to join us this evening to provide valuable insight into the discussions that are taking place at this critical time.

Obviously, we've gotten to this point, and there are so many factors that led up to this over years and years. I think all of the witnesses that we're hearing from want to get to some sort of peaceful resolution and understanding, which is encouraging.

I'd like to ask you for your input, and hear your perspective in regard to the role that the government and the minister have played thus far. Do you feel it's been an adequate response by the federal government? In the nation-to-nation talks, do you feel the government is adequately incorporating other parties that have a tremendous stake in the industry and in the future of the fishery?

I'll open that up. That would be the first question I have for you. Do you feel that the response of the minister to date and this government has been adequate?

[Martin Mallet]

As an association we've been working with other groups over the last several months—actually, for over a year now—sending some communications directly to the Minister of Fisheries' office stating the fact that there were a number of issues that were coming to a head in the management of indigenous access to the fisheries. Unfortunately, we have had no response to any of our requests, or any of our main concerns.

One of them was to create a dialogue table where everybody could speak together and talk about fisheries management. That was a serious issue for us, and it's part of the reason that things got out of control over a month ago in St. Marys Bay. We are now trying to fix things, but unfortunately, there's been a lot of bad blood created because of these issues.

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

Mr. Connors.

[Peter Connors]

Yes, I've thought about this a long time. There should have been action taken long before it was. I think there was a standoff or breakdown in communications or negotiations between the government and first nations, and that was allowed to stagnate. In an effort to push things ahead, we had the incidents we saw there.

I have a little bit of sympathy for the government, in that there's ambiguity around the law. When I read some of the media reports, how the government is not laying charges and not taking action because it doesn't think it can get a conviction when it thinks the regulations are being violated, that's a big concern to me when the government is stuck that way.

That's why I put in there about the test the government has to justify to fetter the right. I know there's a lot of difference of opinion around that, but there's no definition around necessity with regard to the Badger test. At what point can the government enforce its regulation? Then, if it lays charges, it may or may not.

That ambiguity puts the government in a very awkward position. It's a big concern to me when the government can't lay charges in order to enforce its regulations, especially in this fishing industry, because regulations are so important in the marketing of our product.

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

Thank you, Mr. Connors.

I'll just ask Mr. Squires quickly one final portion of the question, because I suspect my time is getting short.

In regard to the special representative being appointed at this time, do you feel like that could get to a solution here? Do you feel hopeful that this measure and this take...? Do you feel like you're getting indications that you will be heard from or you'll be able to have input?

I'll start with you, Mr. Squires.

[Kevin Squires]

I think at this point it's very hard to be optimistic that the special representative is going to accomplish very much, because, as my colleagues have mentioned, we have been asking for information or an explanation.

We haven't asked to be directly involved in negotiations. We understand that's not appropriate for us and not a place for us.

It's very important as industry organizations that we try to explain to our members what is happening as best we can. We haven't been receiving any information or explanation or any support from DFO to deal with our members. Understandably they're very worried about their own livelihoods and the fishery that they've put a lot of efforts into developing good stewardship.

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

Thank you, Mr. Squires.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

Before I go to Mr. Cormier, I will say to the committee members that things would flow better if you identified who you want to answer a particular question. That way there'll be no confusion in-between, and you'll get a better flow and perhaps more time to ask an extra question.

Mr. Cormier, it goes to you for six minutes or less, please.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you to everybody for being on this committee.

Tonight my question will be for Mr. Mallet.

It's good to see you again, Mr. Mallet. Let's go right to it, Mr. Mallet.

In your opinion, what do you think will be the solution to this problem, a solution that not only respects the Marshall decision for first nations but also makes sure that conservation is at the top of the considerations?

[Martin Mallet]

My view on that, and the view of many of my colleagues, is that there is space within the commercial fishery to provide enough access to what is needed by indigenous groups, as we speak right now. By doing so, we also need to see that needs access follows existing commercial fisheries rules. This is why we have, for instance, as I've mentioned, seasons and different ways of managing the resource that respect conservation and sustainability principles.

I think there are ways to match indigenous needs with ours. I think that if some indigenous groups or individuals need to fish with fewer traps, well, that can be done within the band's management system to allow maybe fewer trap fishermen per indigenous fishermen, but traps that are mandated by the federal government.