Fisheries Committee on Oct. 29th, 2020

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

In terms of conservation, what are your fears of having a season outside of the regular commercial fishing season that was there for so many years? What is the fear about that if there is a small fishing...going on? I know at the same time that you're doing a lot of conservation efforts with Homarus, I think, restocking the ocean with lobster throughout the years. I think you're doing that in collaboration with first nations also. What is the fear of having a season outside the commercial fishing season?

[Martin Mallet]

It's all a question of effort. At the end of the day, the fishing effort is the actual trap; it's not the number of fishermen on the water. The traps fish with different efficiency depending on the timing of the season.

To fish in the spring or the fall, there are some major differences in terms of catchability rates of these traps. These need to be analyzed. In many cases, these seasons that we have to date have been put in place with very limited time frames to make sure that the effort is limited through time.

I think we need to have the dialogue. We need to have a discussion. This is why I've been asking for many months now—we've had these dialogue tables—to get fishermen and indigenous groups together to understand each other on what our common needs are.

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

Regarding collaboration, I'm going to talk more about my zone here. The collaboration has been going on with first nations for a number of years in my area. I think we all recall the 2003 incident in Shippagan. That is way behind us now, and the collaboration since then has been very good.

There are two fish plants in my riding that are owned by first nations. What collaboration have you seen in my zone here, on the waters and outside the waters, with the commercial fishermen and the first nations fishermen over the last couple of years, and as of today?

[Martin Mallet]

Collaboration within the MFU with indigenous groups, let's say, for your area in New Brunswick is significant. It's basically in our DNA and it's been there for many decades.

More recently, we've participated through the Marshall 1 and 2 decisions to get the integration of indigenous groups in the commercial fisheries done with the fewest issues as possible. Also, we've been part of the mentorship programs that were set up back in the day to train individuals who wanted to partake in the fishery. We collaborate on science and lobster enhancement projects. Many of the groups have invested. We are actually increasing our collaborations as we speak. Fortunately, recent events hopefully will not derail these beautiful initiatives.

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

I think my time is almost up, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Mallet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll now go to Madame Gill for six minutes or less, please.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair, my question is for Mr. Mallet, Mr. Squires and Mr. Connors.

Relative to your requests, of course, this situation persists. We are now facing an urgent situation. However, this appears to be a pretty long story.

Let's imagine you heading the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and having to respond. What would be your requests and your action plan in the short, medium and long terms to provide your assistance in the current situation while keeping the future in mind?

[Kevin Squires]

Perhaps I can begin to answer that question.

As I mentioned at the opening of our presentation, the basis of management and sustainability of the lobster industry has been limited entry. We'd like statements of principle from DFO stating that whatever resolution was achieved over time, that the level of effort that's currently applied to the fishery be maintained on that basis. Obviously as well we'd like to see some statement of principle that rules that were negotiated and developed would try to adhere as well as possible to the lessons that have been learned over a long time in a well-established industry. Those could be the starting point.

I suppose the other most important one when it really comes down to it at this point is a guarantee that there be some good communication.

I personally went to meet the regional aboriginal fisheries manager about three years ago. It turns out it was the day after he had had discussions with his manager about the need to improve communications with the commercial industry. That was three years ago. We have yet to see any effort made in that direction to try to really let us know what's happening with implementing a modern livelihood issue.

So, it's communication and statements of principle adhering to what we see as valuable to the industry.

[Peter Connors]

If I could follow up on that, I really think, as I said in my opening statement, that the response by the federal government in 1999 and the agreements that were reached then addressed the issues. We've had a very peaceful, co-operative commercial fishery that's profitable for everybody.

Personally—and I know I will get some feedback on this—I don't see the need for this second competing fishery, and I see it as a competing fishery. That has a lot of implications and potential problems attached to it. I think the FSC fishery was put in there to address the culture and traditions of the indigenous people so that they could have their own recognition for that, and it recognizes their right.

As far as the moderate livelihood goes, there certainly is enough access within the commercial fishery there for first nations to provide the moderate livelihood as well as the rest of it, so I don't see the purpose of setting up this second commercial fishery.

You have to understand that the fishing industry partners with DFO, with conservation and protection and science and hydrographic work. They do a lot of work. If we get a second fishery and it becomes a competing fishery, and I'm talking about non-compliance.... When we talk about the FSC fishery, I think that has been demonstrated. There has been a lot of testimony to the fact that there has been a lot of extracurricular and illicit fishery taking place under the cover of that.

We're running into a problem now with the sale...because there can't be any sale of that. A second commercial fishery will provide an avenue for the sale of an illicit fishery. I don't mean any disrespect by that. The FSC fishery is more or less the first nation fishery, but the commercial fishery has to remain under a single regulator, under a single set of regulations for marketing, and would provide better relations in the long run. That's my opinion.

I think that the federal government is getting to the point where if there can't be some kind of agreement, they are going to have to enforce the regulations that are in place now, and the agreement that's acceptable.... I'm not going to suggest whether this isn't a legal fishery or it is a legal fishery. I'm suggesting that there is a very fine line there whether it's a legal fishery or not.

I think that we have to have a single fishery, and I think the federal government is going to have to have the authority to implement that and regulate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Connors. Thank you, Madame Gill.

We'll go now to Mr. Johns for six minutes or less, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all, for your testimony.

Mr. Connors, do you support the Sipekne’katik's assertion of their section 35 constitutional rights to self-govern themselves with their rights implementation lobster fishery management plan?

[Peter Connors]

Well, I think that in the statement I just made, I recognized the authority of the federal government to manage the fishery.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

You understand and respect that it is the government that is to negotiate nation to nation and that the commercial industry is under the purview of DFO and represented by the Crown at the table there.

Do you respect that?

[Peter Connors]

Yes, I understand that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay.

You talked about the disparity in share of the quota on the east shore. I want to thank you for sharing those stats. It's greatly appreciated. I want to thank you for recognizing the disparity and the inequality that's happening there.

Do you believe that DFO is going to the table in good faith to negotiate with the nations?

I just want to give you an example. Where I live in Nuu-chah-nulth territory, where they have been in court—they won a Supreme Court decision in 2009—the government has appealed it and appealed it. They have wasted $19 million in taxpayers' money on the right to catch and sell fish. That money could obviously be better spent supporting the fishery and getting them out on the water instead of into court.

Do you think that the government is going to the table with a meaningful mandate to negotiate? I ask because the judge in that case said they are knowingly sending their negotiators to the table empty-handed. Do you think that Canada is going there in good faith?

[Peter Connors]

I pretty well answered that question. The negotiators went to the table in 1999 and came up with the best possible solution at that time. That's our opinion. I'm not a legal expert—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Do you believe the government is going to the table to help accommodate the decision and the right of the nations to take part in the fishery? Mr. Squires talked about sustainability. Do you think it's sustainable to have them excluded or for them to have a small share of access to this fishery? Do you think that's sustainable?

[Peter Connors]

I don't really think they have such a small access to it. The figures show that there's at least a proportionate amount, and maybe double the proportionate amount, of access to the fishery. We do have a limited and a fully subscribed fishery.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

When we look at the income levels and the average income in those communities and look at the court decisions and the constitutionally protected rights, do you believe the government has done its job in supporting the court decisions and the constitutionally protected rights? That's the duty of the government.

What efforts have been taken by your organization in terms of reconciliation? You talked about reconciliation, and I appreciate that. What have you done in building those relationships and educating your fishers, as other unions have done internally, to help better understand the decision, and also section 35, the constitutionally protected rights for indigenous people?

[Peter Connors]

I'm going to make it clear—and I'm not a constitutional expert—that I see some of the activity that has taken place, and the self-implementation of the fishery, as a challenge to the jurisdiction of the government. It's not agreed to. It's not agreed to by either the federal government, as far as I know, or industry.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

These are constitutionally protected rights and court-protected rights as well. The Marshall decision made that very clear.

In terms of the fishers who have gone out and, in the name of conservation, cut traps, burnt a lobster pound, destroyed lobster, brought shame not only to Nova Scotia but also to commercial fishers across the country and Canada, what do you say to those fishers? Do you think they were out of step?

[Peter Connors]

Yes. As I said in my opening statement, that action and response was inappropriate. It was certainly premature. There was a lot of education—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Do you believe the minister and her department bear the responsibility for going to the table, likely without a mandate, and knowingly not negotiating in good faith with the nations to allow them to exercise their right to a modern fishery?

Who do you think is responsible here?

[Peter Connors]

There is a lack of information and there's a question over jurisdiction within this country that has to be settled. We're dealing with an issue here on which the federal government has supremacy. That's my opinion.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

The courts and the Constitution have the supremacy.

Do you believe the government's honouring the constitutionally protected and treaty-protected rights? These decisions have been reaffirmed by the courts. Do you believe the government is going to the table with a mandate, and directing its staff to accommodate those rights?

In mitigating situations like this, the division that's being created falls at the feet of the minister for not going to the table and not sending negotiators with a mandate. Do you not agree?