Fisheries Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes. I think the rebuilding process and the precautionary approach framework help to do that in terms of having scientific reference points. I think precaution, though, is fundamentally a value judgment, so we don't want to put it all on scientists all the time.

From an ecosystem perspective, DFO is working on an ecosystem-based framework. It's overdue. It's been 20 years since we promised that we would do ecosystem-based management.

I think it is more urgent, because we are understanding the links between predator and prey species. Also, I can't underestimate the impacts of climate change. We're seeing shrimp disappear from the Scotian shelf. Snow crab is being impacted.

I do think that ecosystem approach work really needs to happen. It's good that it's in the decision-making part of the act as a factor to be considered, but we need to get to some real-world outcomes and processes. Perhaps the process that Dr. Morissette is referencing can help us get into better ecosystem-based management if we're doing it collectively across stakeholders and rights holders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

That concludes our first hour of testimony and questions.

I want to say a huge thank you to Dr. Morissette, Ms. Fuller and Mr. Williams.

We're going to suspend for a moment as we switch out the panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We're back.

Welcome to our witnesses on our second panel.

We have, from the Cooperative of Captains Owners of Gaspésie, Claudio Bernatchez, director general; and from the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, Mr. Robert Jenkins, president, and Mr. Ian MacPherson, executive director.

Thank you for taking the time to appear today.

Each organization will have five minutes or less for their opening statements.

Mr. Bernatchez, you can start off for five minutes or less, please.

[Claudio Bernatchez, Director General, Coopérative des Capitaines Propriétaires de la Gaspésie]

Kwe, good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

For centuries, the St. Lawrence marine environment has provided access to diverse and high-quality food. Coastal and riverine communities derive revenues from these waters that fuel a significant economy in eastern Canada.

However, time and time again, the worst has been allowed to happen. Fisheries resources have fallen to such low levels that their survival has been in jeopardy. Generation after generation, the same approach persists. I don't how this can be allowed to happen over and over again.

Every now and then, individuals stand up to sound the alarm. Then they disappear, lost in the fray. Meanwhile, some people get rich, others go bankrupt, others leave their communities, and some seek re‑election.

Everyone has their own priorities and their own interests. These are all too often detrimental to one or another of the biomasses that make up the St. Lawrence. We keep doing the same thing—high-volume fishing, processing and marketing—so we keep getting the same results. We keep failing. Yet, the signals are clear and unequivocal.

Canada needs a Fisheries Act that is enforceable. It must come with the means to enforce it. We need this to be the case in order to preserve the economy of many coastal communities that depend on it, in whole or in part, to continue integrating our indigenous communities into this industry.

We also need to have objective, non-partisan exchanges that are based not on individual interests, but on the best available evidence, whether that evidence comes from our scientists and other resources around the world or from our leading fishers' associations. Fishers' knowledge and expertise can contribute to a broader understanding of what's actually going on.

That's why I would like you to think about the possibility of recruiting fishers to acquire scientific data, which would foster co‑operation.

This would facilitate the development and integration of a true ecosystemic approach that should, in turn, enable the adoption of integrated fisheries management by DFO and the industry, which indigenous communities are part of. A greater understanding of the fishing environment and the many factors that define it will position us to give the industry the predictability it needs to become more resilient.

This industry needs DFO to be flexible and enable the sustainable use of species, including emerging species. It needs fishers to be open to moving away from high-volume fishing and towards a quality fishery. It needs processors to be constantly on the lookout for new markets, small or large, some of which occupy a certain niche. Lastly, it needs provincial authorities to support the initiatives of all players in the supply chain.

This industry also needs competent people to make important decisions about the future of the fisheries and the sustainability of the resource. I've only been at this for four years, but I've seen three DFO ministers come and go so far. I don't believe that any of them has had enough time to develop the knowledge and expertise required to make sufficiently informed decisions about the most important issues. I sometimes wonder if it would be better to have a non-partisan, pan-Canadian organization whose members would serve for limited terms, leveraging their complementary expertise to make appropriate decisions in accordance with a new version of the Fisheries Act.

I invite you to think about the possibility of discussing this proposal with senior DFO officials and giving them opportunities to get closer to the community so they can better understand the issues. The Association des capitaines propriétaires de la Gaspésie, or ACPG, in Rivière‑au‑Renard, would welcome them.

Fortunately, despite all the challenges, individuals want to help the fisheries evolve into something different. They want to demonstrate enough flexibility to adapt to the changes they're being subjected to. These people are in industry, in DFO, in other federal and provincial departments, and even in the general public.

All the necessary foundations are in place to develop a multi-stakeholder collaboration that will enable us to go further together. There are many issues affecting Canadian waters, and several groups are trying to address those issues. Fishers can help find solutions. They can even participate in the effort to enforce Canada's sovereignty over and in its waters.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

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

[Ian MacPherson, Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association would like to thank the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for the opportunity to provide input on potential changes to the Fisheries Act of Canada. This important document is vital in keeping our ocean resources viable for current and future generations.

Today, Captain Jenkins and I, on behalf of our 1,260 captains, will present what we feel are important, critical and relevant changes that will assist in keeping our ocean resources healthy and sustainable.

The current fisheries regulatory regime is extensive and complicated. However, above all, it is important that the resource wins while contributing to the continued existence and vibrancy of coastal communities.

Today, we would like to highlight the following high-level points. We are very receptive to expanding on these points in the question and answer period that follows today's opening remarks.

This list is meant to be comprehensive, but is by no means complete. With meaningful harvester discussion and pragmatic approaches, workable solutions can be obtained. In addition, any regulatory changes need to be supported with effective and practical regulations that will reinforce these initiatives. We support the following initiatives:

Number one, the resource must come first.

Number two is the “one licence in, one licence out” approach to maintain equilibrium in terms of not adding additional effort in the fishery.

Number three is boots on the boat: direct operational involvement of owner-operators and first nation vessels that are crewed by band members. This keeps the financial proceeds from fishing in our local communities.

Number four is for the same seasons for all harvesters. “Same seasons” has a direct correlation with the protection of the resource and the resource coming first.

Number five is consistent and transparent enforcement of the Fisheries Act for all harvesters.

Number six is for all harvesters to be part of nation-to-nation discussions concerning our ocean resources and how they will be managed.

Number seven is mandatory use of electronic logs for all primary species fisheries.

Number eight is the declaration of our Canadian seafood as a critical North American resource. The protections that have been recently put in place for Canadian critical minerals should be extended to our Canadian seafood. Alliances with global security partners should be created and formalized.

Number nine, revise the current new entrant criteria so that the many men and women who seek a future in the fishery can gain valuable experience and enter the industry when they are ready.

Number 10, allow more flexible partnership agreements so that expensive hard assets are utilized more efficiently. In addition, this process must be simplified from an administrative perspective to gain wider adoption.

Number 11, reorganize the substitute operator policy to be more flexible to meet the needs of everyday life. We need appropriate allowances for time off without lessening the strength of owner-operator requirements.

The oversight of a resource that is literally fluid in all aspects is not an easy one. Currently, we are see seeing fractured relationships and resource exploitation by some that see the ocean as a source of short-term gain at the expense of the resource and the future.

There are very encouraging signs that the next generation is keen on continuing the life of their ancestors. We collectively have a responsibility to get this right and currently, communication between government and all harvesters is lacking. We must come together with a goal of a clear, transparent and articulate fisheries act.

Our most current challenge is the current uncertainty that surrounds many aspects of the fishery. We require expanded dialogue amongst all parties that count on this valuable resource for our livelihoods. As legislators and decision-makers, we all need to do our part in implementing practical solutions to complex challenges. Let's make the changes that will benefit all harvesters and communities.

Thank you again for this opportunity. Captain Jenkins and I would be glad to address any questions at the appropriate time in today's session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for coming today.

My question is for Mr. Bernatchez.

Are there parts of the Fisheries Act that worked against your fleet in the recent allocations of unit 1 redfish?

[Claudio Bernatchez]

We could say, was it against our fleet? Was it to favour another fleet? I won't comment on that, but definitely we were hoping.... I would say that actually the whole federation of Canadian fish harvesters was hoping for a more balanced distribution of fish between offshore owners and inshore or midshore owners.

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

Do you think the act should address beneficial access to quotas on species that have had biomass growth at the expense of other species that have met their demise by over-predation, such as, for example, with the redfish explosion and the destruction of the gulf shrimp fishery?

Do you think these types of predator-prey balances and those fishers that are affected by changes in balance should be somehow addressed in the act?

[Claudio Bernatchez]

If we really want to implement an ecosystem approach and see fishers and the communities that depend on them as part of the ecosystem, the answer is yes. That's what we asked for, by the way, and we weren't the only ones. The Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionnels, FRAPP, and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, the FFAW, also asked for this.

We all agreed that DFO scientists had clearly demonstrated the effect of shrimp predation by redfish. They even said that redfish had eaten up to 200,000 tonnes of shrimp. It would have made sense for those who were hit hardest by the arrival of redfish to have a better chance of getting fishing quotas that would have enabled them to get by in the medium term.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. MacPherson.

Mr. MacPherson, when fisheries close for conservation measures and then reopen, who should gain beneficial access as a result of the conservation measures and the suffering that's been incurred by stakeholders? For example, in the case of mackerel, should the mackerel fishery reopen in the near future, how would you like to see that access applied?

[Ian MacPherson]

Thank you for that, Mr. Small.

I think what we need to do is refer to history in terms of who was fishing that resource before. The licence-holders are the ones who are most impacted by a closure of any fishery.

To tie in with your question for Claudio, one of the things that I think needs to be looked at is what's the economic loss to a particular area. Maybe that should be a part of any decision: if one species replaces another, so to speak, because of whatever reasons, that a case is made to keep the money, similar money, coming into those communities.

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

Thank you, Mr. MacPherson.

Many fishing industry stakeholders that I talk to are alarmed at the influence of the ENGOs at stock assessments. Many of these ENGOs that work against access to quotas are funded by organizations from south of the border, like Pew.

Can the act address this? Who's a stakeholder and who's not a stakeholder in assessments? Do you think this should be addressed in the act?

[Ian MacPherson]

Yes, absolutely.

We're very involved with that process in terms of the advisories and things like that. We've been disappointed because DFO, in some cases, is not following their own guidelines to have people involved with some of those committees.

At the end of the day, we're very clear about who we represent. I think that if people are going to be around the table, there needs to be transparency in terms of who they are actually representing, and I mean that for a number of groups.

Thank you.

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

You're welcome.

What would be your number one ask if there were to be a change to the Fisheries Act right now? What would that ask be, Mr. MacPherson?

[Ian MacPherson]

First and foremost, we want to protect owner-operator. As in our list, the resource has to win, so there has to be fulsome discussion with all stakeholders. If a fishery is in decline, how is that going to happen? What are the impacts going to be?

I think those are some of the biggest things we're facing right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

We'll go to Madam Desbiens now for six minutes or less.

No, I jumped over Mr. Morrissey.

I'm sorry, Bob.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That is a tall order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I don't know. We'll see.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I'm referencing size.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for Captain Jenkins and Mr. MacPherson.

Thank you for the very precise list of recommendations. Either one of you can comment as you choose on these in your answer. I want to go through a number of these to give you a chance to expand and time is limited.

Could you add a little to the “reorganize the substitute operator” rule?

What's your thinking here, Bobby?

[Robert Jenkins, President, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association]

Thank you very much.

Is that on organizing the owner-operator?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

No, it's on the substitute operator, because I get a lot of criticism.

[Robert Jenkins]

Right now, we have five days. That's what we have in the gulf. Fisheries have changed a lot since the 1970s, when that five-day rule went in. I think we have to take a real comprehensive look at whether somebody needs 30 days, or whatever the case may be. It has to be looked at case by case.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Right now, you only have the option to use your five days or lose the whole season, which is impactful.