Fisheries Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. MacPherson.

There is another thing that was brought up quite a bit. Captain Jenkins mentioned “boots on the boat”. You were just talking about this.

I find it interesting how the same concepts are used with such ease when we talk about east coast fisheries. However, when we talk about them on the Pacific side, there seems to be a lot of justification for not moving forward. Now, there's no denying a transition is required to support the process, moving forward.

I'm wondering if you could reiterate, at a high level, how boots on the boat result in increased proceeds going towards local fishers and communities.

[Ian MacPherson]

I don't want to oversimplify it, but I think that a lot of the time people live in the communities. Their kids go to school. They contribute, volunteer or whatever. I don't have the exact statistics at my fingertips, but I know a lot of our members reinvest in their communities if they're there. The benefit goes there. It can benefit a number of communities. If it's a corporate entity, however, we could see proceeds going to other parts of Canada or out of the country.

This is why we feel it's important that we're fishing locally, employing local people and having those benefits go back to the local communities.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

One item that I don't believe I heard you bring up is the impact you're hearing about from fishers around any changes to stocks—migratory changes, reduction in stocks or new stocks—as a result of the climate crisis.

Are there any points you can share with us today that you are hearing from fishers about first-hand implications? Are there any recommendations you might have on how we can best move forward to address our quickly changing stocks?

[Ian MacPherson]

Yes, I think there are a couple of examples.

Certainly, one of the most striking local examples is the prevalence of striped bass. They're a predatory fish. They're very aggressive. They're starting to really decimate some of our stocks, and the smaller fish and juvenile lobsters. There have been autopsies done. They're like vacuum cleaners out there. We are working with DFO. There was a bit of a pilot project done. This is a prime example on the east coast of Canada where we have a fairly detrimental stock. Now it is worth something when it's caught and sold, which is the upside.

I think we need to adapt more quickly, or we're going to see the decimation of some key stocks on the east coast.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. MacPherson.

You mentioned the importance of nation-to-nation work. Can you expand on that a bit more?

[Ian MacPherson]

I remember Bobby mentioned Saulnierville. I will be absolutely clear that our fishing organization does not want to see any sort of repeat of what happened down there three or four years ago.

There needs to be dialogue. Harvesters need to talk about the tough things, too, and the problems. It's my understanding that the reason harvester groups are not allowed at the table—I'm talking about non-indigenous harvesters—is the nation-to-nation policy. My understanding is that it's a policy; it's not a legal requirement. I think this goes a long way in creating issues. When there's a vacuum and people don't know what's going on, human nature is to assume the worst, a lot of the time.

We need more in-depth and transparent dialogue among harvesters, plain and simple.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

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

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. MacPherson, I'll start with you.

You talked a lot about everyone being under the same season and so on. We've read articles about this issue for some of the fisheries on the Atlantic coast.

Is there anything specific needed in the act to deal with the organized crime element, or is that under the Criminal Code or other statutes? Are there pieces that could be in the act to address the ever-increasing value of the commodity and apparent attraction of organized crime?

[Ian MacPherson]

Certainly, the PEIFA has been quite prominent in this part, Mr. Arnold. We do issue victim impact statements when we're asked, in terms of the detrimental impacts. One of the things that we haven't been making a recommendation to the courts on is to make the fines substantial enough so that it's not becoming just the cost to do business.

The other thing we've been quite focused on is suspension of fishing days, particularly at the front end of the season, as a deterrent. In a lot of fisheries, those are the most prolific and valuable days to a harvester.

These are things that could maybe discourage that, but if the fines are such that it's just the cost of doing business, that's a big problem.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Are these pieces of legislation or would they be regulation that is already enabled in the act that hasn't been implemented? Are there actually changes in the act or is the ability there within the legislation to implement regulations and adjust fines and penalties for that piece of it?

[Ian MacPherson]

Well, certainly they need to be in lockstep.

You're the legislator. I guess we're more exposed to the regulation side of things, but there again, when you have fulsome discussion amongst groups, I think industry can come up with some good recommendations.

We want the same rules, as we mentioned earlier, for all harvesters. That keeps the playing field level and protects our resource. Obviously, if there are criminal elements involved, we need to have legislation that will help to plug those holes, so to speak.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

Are the current regulations and laws being enforced to the extent that they need to be or should be in order to protect not only the resource but also the legal harvesters who are out there?

[Ian MacPherson]

That's a broad-spectrum question. I think we need to see consistent enforcement in all of our fisheries in light of some of the things that are going on.

I just want to quickly loop back to something you mentioned. Ten or 12 years ago, a lot of these fisheries weren't very lucrative, and hardly anybody was interested in them. Absolutely, it's a problem, in that the value of the fisheries has skyrocketed, and we have a lot of people interested in participating—or in getting the proceeds of the fisheries—who weren't really interested too many years ago.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

I want to switch quickly to Mr. Jenkins.

You talked about the five-day rule and so on. Are there any changes that are needed to deal with, say, captains who have long-term health issues, whether it be cancer or dialysis requirements? Those long-term health effects and issues would keep a captain or an owner-operator from being on the boat. Are there adjustments needed there?

[Robert Jenkins]

Yes, I believe there are, especially in light of the fact that a lot of these fishermen and enterprises in the gulf here are family-oriented. I've been fishing for 50 years. That will give you an idea of how old I am. I still enjoy fishing and I want to keep fishing. If I go to my doctor next spring and he tells me that something's going on, it doesn't mean I'm going to be ready to get out of the fishery, Mr. Small, but I would like the opportunity to be able to grab one of my grandsons and say, “Here, it's going to be up to you now, and you take the gear until I get a clean bill of health.”

There shouldn't be all these loopholes, especially for families. There may be a case where you may have to look at this on a case-by-case basis, but if you're looking at father-son, father-daughter or even nephews, nieces and things like that, I think that has to be taken into consideration when you're looking at this. A lot of these gears are family-oriented and have to be looked at in that way to cover some of these obstacles. That's what I'm calling them right now, obstacles, because they're outdated—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold. You have gone way over.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bernatchez, I agree with some of your statements. As far as shrimp is concerned, I agree with you that we probably waited too long to look into the redfish issue. The large number of redfish in the gulf has had an impact on shrimp, and perhaps even on other species.

That said, I find your statement about decision-making a little odd. You said that decisions should not be made by politicians.

I was elected in 2015, but I also worked in politics before that. In my time as a member of Parliament, I have seen that if stakeholders in the fishing industry or groups like yours don't like decisions made by public servants, they meet with MPs and ministers to ask for changes.

What are you going to do if it's not politicians or public servants making the decisions? Who's going to make the decisions?

[Claudio Bernatchez]

I was talking about the most important decisions. Obviously, there could be discussions.

What I'm trying to get at is that all stakeholders in the industry have their own interests, including fishers.

I don't have an answer to your question. We need to figure out a mechanism to ensure that people set aside their interests and guide the decision-making process in a neutral, apolitical way when important decisions affecting the future of the resource and the future of Canada's fisheries are made.

I know public servants do good work. I know several of them. However, we also know that their hands are often tied and that the minister is the one who decides. I'm wondering whether that's the best way to proceed.

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

Mr. Bernatchez, a number of people advise the minister, including DFO officials. Even we MPs can make certain recommendations to the minister when we think things should be done differently. I did that with respect to shrimp and the management of the whale crisis in the spring. In that case, we managed to get the regulations changed, because the department officials made the unfortunate mistake of using three different maps to measure water depth.

That said, you say that other people, such as fishers, should be involved in the decision-making. I agree with you that fishers' arguments must be taken into consideration. However, one of the things that Dr. Morissette, who was on the previous panel, and other scientists outside DFO are saying is that the shrimp population is not as large as it used to be. They say they've seen a decline in the species. However, some fishers are saying the opposite. According to them, there are a lot of shrimp, and they could be fished again.

Some arguments can be divisive and raise questions. As you know, the Fisheries Act provides measures to protect our resources, but there is no mention of protecting our communities.

Don't you think the act should include a provision to compensate fishers, the industry and the communities that depend on the fishing industry if a fishery is closed? Should we consider compensating them when a resource is declining so much that it is necessary to protect it for a number of years?

That may be in the act, but I don't recall.

[Claudio Bernatchez]

Yes, that would have to be looked at.

The idea is to get all the players and all the stakeholders to work together. We obviously don't want to further divide an industry that's already far too divided.

We have to try to bring the various stakeholders together. That might help prevent crises like the one we experienced. Obviously, people will always want to promote their interests.

I know where the information comes from regarding the claim that there are still a lot of shrimp in the gulf, but we know very well that there aren't many left. Statements like that should be taken with a grain of salt.

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

I agree.

Mr. Bernatchez, that's why I brought it up earlier, when you mentioned that some people say things to get elected. If I had wanted to say such things, I would have done so at the fishery forum organized by the Bloc Québécois in Caraquet.

Thank you, Mr. Bernatchez.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

We'll go to Madam Desbiens for two and a half minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It doesn't often happen that Mr. Cormier and I disagree, but we absolutely disagree right now. In fact, he was invited to our forum, and I expected him to be there. He was welcome. It was a really rewarding and enjoyable experience. No one got attacked. Everyone wanted to work together.

That said, Mr. Bernatchez, I'm going to go back to the testimony that David Vardy gave before the committee a few weeks ago. Mr. Vardy is a leading economist who has also worked in government in Newfoundland and Labrador. He told us at the outset that we had to not only restore fishers' trust in the system, but also re‑establish ties between the various authorities. I think that's what Mr. Cormier is referring to, and that's what we're trying to do here. We want to find solutions.

I know you'll agree with me, since we've both experienced it, that everyone on the ground is facing a major crisis. It was mentioned earlier. In fact, Ms. Morissette said that urgent action was needed.

We are at a crossroads, a turning point. We really need to review the way things are done, and I'm including the politicians, the people from the department and the scientists who work there, the independent scientists, fishers' associations and the fishers themselves. If there was one theme that emerged from our forum, that was it.

Do you happen to have any important points to add regarding Mr. Vardy's assertion that an open, public and transparent forum needs to be set up? He also mentioned that the success of countries like Norway and Finland, I believe, stems from the fact that they are not federated countries. Ms. Morissette also mentioned New Zealand. Apparently, the fact that they did not opt for a federalist system gives them more flexibility, more transparency and better cohesion among the authorities.

What do you think?

[Claudio Bernatchez]

Regardless of the model that is chosen, the first thing to do would be to avoid creating an entity that would sow discord or create division. I say that because there is already far too much distrust within the industry and among the fishers themselves, unfortunately. It's sometimes hard to get consensus on the issues. We're seeing it right now, and we've seen it with the redfish announcements.

In our region, there will soon be an announcement about adding lobster fishing licences, which creates a lot of uncertainty. There will be a lot of discontent, and it could even lead to chaos, unfortunately. People in the industry have trouble thinking long term.

When we're in the midst of fishing season, we don't take the time to attend forums, express our opinions and figure out how we could do better to ensure the future of the industry.

Mr. Cormier, for your information, the Fisheries Act talks about ways to protect coastal communities, but the main emphasis is on preserving the resource and using all necessary means to do so.

I realize that nothing is perfect. However, I think the way the current system works indicates that we could probably have done better, at least since 2020. That's as far back as my data go.

Climate change is not the whole story. Couldn't we find ways, as we are already doing at the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation, to address common challenges? We could at least solve some problems.