Fisheries Committee on Oct. 29th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I am sorry, Mr. Johns, but your time is up.

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

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

This is certainly developing into an interesting process. I have a series of questions, so please keep your answers fairly short. I'll ask Mr. Mallet to answer first, and then Mr. Connors and Mr. Squires.

For years now, and especially in the last five years when I've been on this fisheries committee, the committee has repeatedly heard witnesses describe that trust has been broken by DFO in its relationships with harvesters of all types, meaning indigenous, commercial, public and recreational harvesters. Many dedicated officers and staff out there, I believe, are working to deliver in their roles, but even DFO officials have been undermined in their efforts to keep good relations with harvesters.

Can you describe your relationship with DFO? If you have experienced breakdowns in communications, what level do you think is the source of the breakdown?

[Martin Mallet]

Our experience with DFO has been a relationship over many decades. We've had some issues in the past. We've had issues more recently, but at the end of the day, we try to work together and try to come to some kind of common ground.

As my colleague Kevin Squires mentioned earlier, the number one thing to consider is communication, dialogue. As soon as these break down, that is when you get issues in whatever fisheries management problems you're working on, whether whales or anything else related to species management.

[Peter Connors]

I think up until now we've had a really acceptable relationship with DFO. We appreciate that there are various sectors and various interests in the fishery. Over the years I've always thought they did a relatively good job at managing. We had a good working relationship with the department.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Has that been the case recently?

[Peter Connors]

As I said, everybody thought they had a perfect solution to this issue in 1999. This is causing a lot of problems. There also seems to be some restructuring taking place there now.

[Kevin Squires]

As Martin mentioned, I've already given the example. I asked a direct question, and the intention within the department regionally was to improve communications, but nothing has happened. Our assumption has to be that superior management quashed that communication. The starting point should have been to establish that rapport and then give us, as industry reps, something to report to our members. In the absence of good information or honest attempts to provide information, people fill in the blanks. Sadly and unfortunately and reprehensibly, really, it manifested itself in a violent act. It's completely unacceptable, but when people don't know what's going on, then unfortunately, they fill in the blanks.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

In your view, Mr. Squires, how could a ministerial special representative foster better dialogue between the Mi'kmaq and non-first nations commercial fishers in the area?

[Kevin Squires]

I don't know, frankly, but we have hope.

When I responded earlier to a similar question, I said that at this point it's hard to be optimistic. I suppose that's unfair for someone who has just started the job.

Obviously this is very difficult. Peter mentioned the hesitation on the part of the department to proceed with charges if they thought they couldn't get convictions. There are great difficulties in understanding what moderate livelihood” might mean. It means a lot of things to a lot of people. There are a lot of questions to be answered here. Obviously people have to start talking about how we might get to solutions.

A lot of us fear. You can tell by the colour of my hair that I've been in the fishery for a long time. We can remember the history of boom and bust within this fishery, and the limited entry has managed to largely eliminate those killer cycles. We have a stable fishery, but how are we going to move forward towards reconciliation? Obviously we have to discuss it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Squires, and thank you, Mr. Arnold.

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

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

My first question is for Kevin Squires.

I've heard from fisheries reps within the fisheries associations, and they tell me the greatest concerns are around transparency and making sure of the sustainability of the lobster in the long term. Do you think those are the only two concerns that are affecting fishermen?

[Kevin Squires]

No, I don't think they're the only concerns. They're obviously very important. The questions have already been raised or mentioned about exactly how the FSC fishery is conducted and the amounts of lobster that are being landed.

Because it's an input-managed fishery and not an output-managed fishery, it's very different from the quota systems we see in other harvests. We need to have ideas of what's being landed, where it's being landed and when it's being landed. The catch per unit effort is really important. That's part of the concern over the small fisheries, but there are other concerns. Knowing what's going on and knowing how to plan for our future is a big concern.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Wouldn't you say that transparency, total transparency of the Mi'kmaq fisheries, as well as ensuring that it's sustainable through conservation methods would both be covered by what you just stated?

[Kevin Squires]

Transparency would be a huge and important step. I'll give you that.

The question of conservation on one limited fishery obviously doesn't address the question of the whole fishery, but the problem is going to be moving towards negotiating what the limits are to a moderate livelihood fishery. The question we wonder is, is there a limit? What are the limits? How will they be managed? That's the open-ended question for us.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Connors, we heard testimony that in that area, LFA 34, the catch per unit over the past two years has been lower but has been basically consistent with the way it has been historically over the past 10 to 20 years. During this period, Sipekne'katik has been involved in that fishery and has been operating out of season, meaning that they are accounted for in the data. The data is showing no clear impact on sustainability.

With that in mind, can you help me understand what the commercial fisheries are seeing right now that is causing the alarm?

[Peter Connors]

I think the main concern of the fishing industry is the capacity of the fishing industry and the regulations that have been brought in to limit the amount of stock coming out.

As has been proven, the fishing industry has the capacity to clean the ocean out. The reason there's a great stock of lobsters there now is that they're left in the water because of the regulations that are in place.

We took a lot of pains in building egg production. A lot of the lobsters are left there to build a stock and a brood stock. Our concern is enforcing regulations and maintaining the quotas that are coming out, the harvest control rules.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Connors, we heard testimony from Shelley Denny, who said that fishing in the spring or fishing in the fall was not jeopardizing things for conservation. She's a marine biologist. Are you saying she's incorrect?

[Peter Connors]

What I can say is that we're under a lot of pressure from the Marine Stewardship Council. We have certification and all the assessments of our fishery that have been done. The harvest control rules had to be adjusted in order to pass that certification. It's important that we have that certification. I'm taking the advice of the DFO science on that, and the process that was gone through to assess the lobster and put the measures in place that are in there now.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I have one last question.

You said earlier, regarding the shocking things we saw on the news—pounds being burned, and all of that—that the violence was “premature” and “inappropriate”. Don't you feel that it was not only premature and inappropriate, but wrong and criminal?

[Peter Connors]

Yes, it was.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Then the wording was a little bit wrong when you said the violence against the Mi'Kmaq was “premature”, correct?

[Peter Connors]

Yes, for sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

We'll now go to Madame Gill for two and a half minutes, please.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Connors and Mr. Squires, you mentioned several times the lack of information, transparency issues and the fact that information was being imagined. You are saying that the lack of information will cause problems.

In light of the testimony we have heard today—of course, you don't have access to other testimony—do you think the committee has enough information to carry out its work in everyone's best interest?

For example, rule of law issues have been brought up often. Is complete data on all fishing activities in and out of season required? What about the division of powers? Who has the power to decide?

Regarding the work history of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, you have often raised concerns about questioning fishers both in nation-to-nation negotiations and in consultations.

So do you believe we have all the required information, based on the testimony we have heard, or do we need more information from the DFO to do our work?

[Martin Mallet]

May I answer, Ms. Gill?