Fisheries Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2020

[Susanna Fuller]

Again, it depends on where the market is.

If it's going to go into the same flow in the supply chain as the non-indigenous lobster, it depends on the state. Soft-shell lobster do not ship well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Am I through, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Oh yes. Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

We now go to Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas, for six minutes or less, please.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to the honourable members. Good afternoon to the witnesses.

I'm going to get right to the point. My question is for Ms. Fuller.

Ms. Fuller, I listened carefully to your opening statement. You mentioned the lack of education around the Marshall decision. The current problem stems from the mismatch between the regulatory framework and the right of indigenous communities to fish for a moderate livelihood.

What tangible measures should the department have introduced?

[Susanna Fuller]

I think that when the Atlantic policy review was being done there should have been an immediate rollout of what that meant for aboriginal fisheries. There should have been a rollout of education when the Marshall decision was done and when it was clarified.

The department spent a lot of time allocating money and funds and ways of buying licences, which I think was needed, but it should not have ended there. We should have had a massive amount of treaty education, Marshall education and really working proactively with the independent fishers to figure out the way forward. We would have avoided much of this conflict.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Fuller.

Specifically, can you tell us what the department could have done to prevent the current conflict that has unfolded?

[Susanna Fuller]

I think that immediately trying to work with first nations on moderate livelihoods and understanding what was.... You know, the moderate livelihood is not black and white. It's different for every community, as others have said here, but allowing that to go forward in a way that was not conflict oriented.... I think we have spent quite a bit of time since the Marshall decision and since the first commercial communal licences were purchased, and then the next step, just in the last few years, was to again address the moderate livelihood through money only.

This is a very complex issue. It is not going to be solved by money only. We need policies, education and regulations around moderate livelihood that are done jointly with first nations communities, and we're going to have to do a lot of that going forward to repair a lot of the relationships that have been broken and have suffered in the last few months in Atlantic Canada.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Fuller.

I listened carefully, and you again referred to “education”.

Other than education, are there measures the department could have introduced to prevent the unfortunate situation we are dealing with today?

[Susanna Fuller]

Maybe I'll give you an example. When the Government of Canada committed to protecting 10% of its coastal and ocean environment in 2015, I heard that at every single fisheries advisory committee meeting that I went to, every single one.

I will say that I have never heard it said—until maybe more recently—that this is what the Marshall decision is, this is how we're going to start to consider it when we think about fisheries science and management, this is how we're moving forward on moderate livelihood plans with indigenous fishers, and this is how it links to conservation harvesting plans that are put forward by the non-indigenous fishery. There are many practical ways that it could have been advanced, and it wasn't done.

Again, I just think that stating that “we are going to implement Marshall and this is what we think it could look like”.... I have not heard that at fisheries management advisory committee meetings, if that's specific enough.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Fuller.

My questions are for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials.

Given what Ms. Fuller has explained, can you tell us whether the department has done a lot more in the way of education?

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

Yes, thank you for your question.

Again, I can speak to aspects of that related to the science sector. Certainly, in the last number of years, they've rolled out a number of training programs for our science staff to make them aware of moderate livelihood, the Marshall decision and indigenous reconciliation programs. Through the regions, we have set up in a couple of areas additional activities for working with indigenous groups and first nations, but it's really not for me to speak to sort of the management approach around moderate livelihood fisheries.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Smedbol.

Is there a definition for “moderate livelihood”?

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

As a member of the science sector, I'm not aware of a definition, but really it's not something for the science sector to speak to. That would be a policy statement and a government-to-government issue.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Would it be possible to have the department provide a definition for “moderate livelihood”?

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

I'll take that back as a follow-up request and see if we can provide the committee with something. But I think the minister did, before the committee—

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Smedbol.

Another of the department's core responsibilities is conservation. Can you tell us whether the department knows the quantity of fishery resources removed for the purposes of a moderate livelihood?

If so, since when?

How is that measured?

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

In terms of removals from moderate livelihood, I don't, or at least the science sector does not, currently have that information, and again, I'm unaware if other branches within the department have that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

We'll now go to Mr. Johns for six minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Chair, is it possible to get a written answer since my question was not answered?

I would like the department to provide a written answer to my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, and I believe, from listening to the answer, that Mr. Smedbol committed to trying to get you that answer. We hope the department will provide in writing any answers that don't get answered here this evening.

Back to Mr. Johns for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony today and for being here at the committee. I'll start with Mr. Smedbol.

You've been asked a lot of questions about the impact of the moderate livelihood fisheries, especially recently with the Sipekne'katik. Could you believe that the 350 traps, the dry lobster pots, that were used by the nation, which they said amount to about 0.005% of the overall commercial catch in LFA 34 since September 23, has had a significant impact on the conservation of the stocks in that area?

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

That response actually requires a little context. I think most on the committee understand how our assessments are undertaken. We monitor, particularly in LFA 34, commercial catch and we have some independent fishery surveys—

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

I mean just in terms of its scale, this is a pretty small-scale fishery that's taking place.

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

The way we assess changes in the population is by comparing catch per unit effort within area 34 relative to that in previous years. Until we have all of the information in from this particular year, we can't fulsomely undertake that comparison. Secondly, given that we are looking backwards, if you will, in time it can take several years actually to detect a potential impact of any removal or additional removals or other type of activity on the population level trends within LFA 34.