Fisheries Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Not only is their input very informative, but it is also helpful to our study.

As a Bloc Québécois member, I represent Quebeckers, so I'm going to focus on Quebec's perspective and how we view the problem.

We, Quebeckers, form a nation, so we are perfectly capable of understanding the concept of a nation. In 2002, we signed a historic agreement with the Cree nation known as the peace of the braves. The agreement between the Quebec and Cree nations recognizes ancestral and modern rights. The 50‑year agreement establishes a specific number of principles governing the future management of the territories in question. As a result, the Quebec and Cree nations adopt an approach based on respect and co-operation in managing major forest lands, for instance.

I think that's an interesting consideration in this study. I wonder whether the approach could work for fisheries, particularly on the Pacific coast. Would it not be possible to include provisions in the Fisheries Act recognizing the fact that you are distinct nations working with the Canadian nation as equals, or the Canadian government, I should say. I am not so sure I can refer to it as a nation in that case, but that's a debate for another time.

How could such a principle or agreement be built into the Fisheries Act, so your nations didn't always have to fight for their rights, their seat at the table, their ability to make their own decisions and establish their own standards? Do you think it would be possible to introduce a similar concept, something based on the peace of the braves, the historic agreement we signed in 2002?

I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Derek Butler]

Thank you for your question. It's been a while since I've spoken in French, so I am going to answer in English, if that's okay.

The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, with the co-management that exists, and the wildlife management board in the Nunavik territory are in some part models, perhaps, of that. I'm not too familiar with the paix des braves agreement, but there is a co-management model in place for Nunavut, under the land claims treaty, through the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. We present to that board about our fisheries allocations and policies. It's the fisheries allocation policy that the board is responsible for. That might be something like you're alluding to with the paix des braves agreement.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

The idea is to have an established, signed and agreed upon arrangement so that you don't always have to revisit, review and reassess everything. The idea is to move forward on that basis as equals. What do you think?

[Robert Chamberlin]

I apologize. I can't speak in your language. In grade 8, I was asked to leave French class.

[A voice]

For other reasons....

[Robert Chamberlin]

It was for other reasons. It was the start of a.... Never mind. That's another story altogether.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Robert Chamberlin]

Of course, I'm aware of the pluralism that Quebec has with Canada. I'm also happy to hear that you have reached an agreement with the Cree wherein you recognize their ancestral rights, both historical and present-day.

I think the key part I picked up that resonated with me very quickly was about respect and collaboration. That is what we're missing in the engagement between DFO on behalf of the Crown and first nations people. It is not about respect. It's about minimization. It's not about respecting Supreme Court law. It's about reinterpreting it through policy. The collaboration is now, at a technical level, avoiding the government-to-government discussions that are the basis of reconciliation.

How do we accomplish what you've done as a province with the Cree nation? I'm aware—it's been said to me—that under section 35 in the current Fisheries Act, the minister has the authority to delegate management agreements. That's one thing that could be implemented, but it needs to be implemented in a way that is not exclusive and does not give priority to anyone. Rather, it should set an equal table for all first nations that enjoy the very same inherent rights.

[Stu Barnes]

Just to add to that, I totally appreciate the sentiment, and I think that's what we're striving for.

I mentioned the IHPC process before. That is the process set up to inform the IFMP development each year. Our first nations do not go to that process anymore. Our rights were constantly being put on the floor to be challenged, and that speaks exactly to your point. We wanted to be in the room as a government, not just another stakeholder. That relates to how we come to the Pacific Salmon Treaty table as well as part of team Canada. We're there toeing the line, and we don't get respected at a domestic level, so it's really hard to keep trying as hard as we can for team Canada at that level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll now go to Mr. Bachrach, in place of Ms. Barron today.

You have six minutes or less.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the committee for allowing me to sit in on behalf of my colleague. It's good to see folks again.

Thanks to our witnesses for your time today and your contributions to this study.

Mr. Barnes, it's good to have you here from our part of the world. Listening to you talk about your nation brought me back to the summer, when I was paddling down the Kispiox and the Skeena rivers, connecting with Gitxsan fish harvesters out there fishing at family fishing sites that have been used for thousands of years and reflecting on the deep connection to the river and the place.

You've been speaking about, and Mr. Chamberlin as well, the recognition of indigenous law and the recognition of indigenous management in the statute. They are really important things for us to be discussing in the context of these potential legislative changes.

My first question is about what barriers you see to implementing the vision of legal plurality. As you know as someone who comes from the Skeena watershed, fish issues are highly contested, and there's a broad cross-section of society that feels a connection to fish and to the place. We often run into tensions between different perspectives, different world views and different values. What are the current barriers to implementing the legal plurality that you've laid out for the committee today?

[Stu Barnes]

One of the phrases we had for the indigenous program review from a few years ago was that it was igniting a cultural change. Basically, we have to accept that we're going to be doing things differently. It's not going to feel right at first. Change is never an easy thing until we have the willingness to accept the change and stop going through the same process expecting different results. That's all we've been doing for the past 30 or 40 years.

We need to really think outside the box. When we bring in traditional protocol agreements, I know they're hard to understand. People may have already checked out and started listening to other things and talking about other things, but this is exactly where we need to dig our heels in. We're here at the table doing our best to come as one voice, and we need to see that from Canada as well. We're all on the same team, but it just doesn't feel like it sometimes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It seems like there's maybe a tension between political will on the part of the government and the internal culture around these types of issues, the statutes themselves and the law. Which of those do you see as being the bigger opportunity for change? Can we get to the outcomes you want to see by amending the act and putting in different clauses, or do we require a shift in the mentality and culture within the department, within the government, when it comes to the issues you're talking about and the recognition you're seeking?

[Stu Barnes]

I think it's the latter.

Can you repeat that again? I'm sorry.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The committee can recommend amendments to the law. There are already parts of the Fisheries Act that are being implemented.

[Stu Barnes]

I feel like it's the latter, because if the salmon allocation policy was implemented the way it was written, we wouldn't even need the changes. We just feel like it hasn't been followed, that's all. We're really digging in our heels to try to get some changes that will reflect it and that will maybe create a change in decision-making. Really, the salmon allocation policy in particular is something we're in this policy-changing game for. If you just listened to what the policy said, we'd be fine, so I think it's the latter.

[Robert Chamberlin]

Perhaps I can jump in here. I'd like to make a comment.

I think about it this way. To me, the Fisheries Act is the foundation of a house. The integrated fisheries management planning is perhaps a wall or a room. The salmon allocation policy is up in the attic. When the foundation isn't working, what are we going to get out of the rest of it? If we want to be strategic with public money investment and our time and energy, knowing the tensions we will need to go through to arrive at a solution, we have to start with the Fisheries Act.

Stu mentioned integrated fisheries management planning. They're asking first nation rights holders to sit with licensed privilege holders and for us to compromise, but those fishers only have the opportunity to fish at the leisure of the minister's licensing regime. We can't sit there and pretend that's government to government. We need to land at an appropriate place to do that kind of work.

When we talk about resources, we're not here to try to maximize budgets and make the juice match the squeeze. We want the appropriate level of resourcing to do the work that's necessary. Stu mentioned the historical inter-nation and nation-to-nation protocols. These discussions are under way today. These are the understandings we need to arrive at. We need to understand that the relationships between nations have been damaged by Canada. We need the time and resources to revisit and re-envision what they're going to be, finalize them among ourselves and then sit down with government to figure out how we're going to implement them.

This is going to be a little bit of work, you could say, because of the interdependence of first nations on salmon. I'm speaking only of salmon, because that goes across the province. That is where I see opportunity.

This also points to the broader commitments of the federal Crown for reconciliation. When you sit down and make an agreement for whatever industry or whatever project and run into differing views from within one first nation, whether it's hereditary chiefs or elected officials, that is the work that needs to be done. It's governance building by first nations and for first nations, which then allows a much stronger measure of certainty going forward.

It will take resources. Trust me, it's not easy work. We did it internally for six years. It was tense. It was incredibly complicated and we didn't reach the goal. That was after about five or six years of work. We don't have the resources to continue it. This is playing out across British Columbia.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

We'll now go to Mr. Small for five minutes or less.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses.

Mr. Butler, you spoke about the need for better science to support “prosperous fisheries”. Would you like to elaborate on that a bit?

[Derek Butler]

We've had a particular challenge in Nunavut-adjacent waters with respect to Greenland halibut. Granted, because of COVID we missed the surveys, but a vessel went down and there wasn't a plan to put the new vessel in place to do the research survey. We finally got there, but now we're missing a couple of data points with respect to the time series. You need to establish at least five years in the time series to have confidence in the results. There is work under way to do the correlations between the old survey—a vessel did do some work, but it wasn't strictly correlated—and the new survey so we can have confidence in where the resource is.

If we don't do that work and miss data points in the survey, we take the cuts under the precautionary approach. I have thoughts on that. I think we have a very restrictive view of what the precautionary approach means. If we don't do the necessary work, fill in the data gaps and do the work with AI or whatever is available, we take the cuts as an industry and as Inuit we lose fish. We don't get that fish back. It takes a while for allocations to be re-established. If you take a 2,000- or 3,000-tonne quota this year, it doesn't come back up next year and you start again from the new level. You lose that going forward. It's not just an annual cut. The work on Greenland halibut is probably one of the best examples right now.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Is that a threat to our eco-certifications, such as MSC's?

[Derek Butler]

Yes, that can be a substantial threat to eco-certifications. I call it the democracy of the marketplace, with consumers having confidence that when we fish or when they buy fish, it's sustainable in terms of management, ecosystem impacts and extractions of the resource. Consumers have the right to know through some third party certification that whether it's paper, pencils, wood or fish, it's sustainable. If we don't do the science, it can put that in peril.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Is the Fisheries Act keeping up with our changing ecosystem? I'm thinking about species migration with warming oceans.

[Derek Butler]

I think the flexibility provided for in the act around the fish stock provisions, including the minister's discretion, is crucial.

Predicting what will happen and what Mother Nature will do in the future is very difficult. Crab in the Newfoundland and Labrador context bottomed out in mid-2015 or 2014, and now it's resurged. We could not have foreseen that. We went through a colder phase of an overall warming regime.

I think the act is responsive as long as we have flexibility in the minister's discretion and have adequate science to measure as we go. It's like groping in the dark a bit. I teach graduate-level fisheries policy and sustainability, and I tell the students that counting fish is easy, except they move and you can't see them. You have to do the annual science, the continual assessment work, to understand what the resource is doing. As the climate changes, we need to make sure we're doing that annual work. If we miss years, we end up like Alaska. They missed a survey year, and when they checked again, literally the snow crab was gone.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Chamberlin, do you think pinniped and other predation should be addressed in the act?