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.