Fisheries Committee on Dec. 11th, 2024

[Darren Porter]

No. It's worse than that by far. It's a slap in the face.

I've been 20 years with my licence. I own three-quarters of the large eel fishery in Hants county, the county I live in, and I've been walked over steady. You know, I tried every.... I'm a legal fisher and have never been charged. I've been boarded dozens of times, and I'm very well known for being a legal fisherman. My children are legal fishermen. My daughter is a fisher as well.

You know, the minister had many options. She gave these licences to groups that didn't want them. The employees did not want these—they voiced that very clearly—but the big eel fishery did.

This is one species. This is the American eel. Somehow they've separated this from juveniles to adults. We have 239 large eel fishers who have been displaced by the elver fishery. Many of us—150 of us—want entry. We have something to give back, as well, for conservation and precaution. I have 300 pots I can give the minister and say, “Okay, allow me a fair shake at this.”

The employees don't want this. They've voiced—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That would save.... Isn't that right? When you don't fish adult eels, it's actually good for conservation.

[Darren Porter]

Absolutely, and the kicker is that we have all the adult eel science, and she won't take it from us.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

The minister said that, yes, adult eel harvesters, as well as the elver harvesters, have paid for science too, which shows that the stock is healthy.

The minister said in her letter to licence-holders and adult eel harvesters that she took the feedback into consideration. I've had lots of feedback, and I haven't had one person, one employee, one licence-holder or one fishing group who supports this. In fact, they're emotionally, very vehemently opposed.

Do you know of anybody who would have told the minister that this is a good thing?

[Darren Porter]

No, and we were not consulted prior to this decision-making. It appears we were, but the same thing I was told was going to happen happened before the big eel fishers were even brought into the room. We were told exactly how many kilograms we were going to have by some of the elver group, and it turned out to be completely true. There was—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

They consulted you like this: “Would you like this? Oh, we want your opinion.” Then, when it came out, none of your opinions were taken into account.

[Darren Porter]

Absolutely not.

It goes against conservation, period. We could have given back thousands of traps and potential access for this species. It's not two species. It's one species. They shouldn't be managed separately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

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

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses, here and online.

Mr. Porter, you made a comment. I want to give you some time to unpack it, because I found it very interesting. You talked a little about how moderate livelihood can save the fishery.

Sir, through your experience working side by side with Mi'kmaq, and as a commercial fisher, it's very important that you have time to unpack this in the context of what we're doing, which is...the Fisheries Act. I'm looking to see whether you can unpack that for us.

[Darren Porter]

I'm a very fortunate man. I'm the father of mixed-race children, so I've learned to have a perspective different from that of many people. I've worked with Mi'kmaq from grassroots to KMKNO, in the consultation room and outside the consultation room. I'm friends with many chiefs. I don't agree with everything they do—I'll tell you that right now. However, at the exact same time, I agree with a lot of things.

Moving forward, if we had a healthy environment in which we weren't constantly being pitted against each other, proper enforcement to clean up the bad apples on both sides, and a situation fostered by reconciliation.... You've never even heard of the upper Bay of Fundy and what we do there. We work extensively...but because it's not a bad story, it doesn't make it to the media. Many fishermen don't understand this. I have fishermen apologize to me all the time. They tell me off, because they don't understand what I'm doing when I'm sticking up for the Mi'kmaq in certain situations. Then they write me back a year or two later, saying, “Listen, I didn't understand, but I understand now.”

If you had a rights-based fishery where it came down to the individual, that individual would become reconnected to the environment they were always connected to throughout history. Once they become connected to it, they're like me. This is my church. I spend 300 days a year on the ocean environment. It is my place of worship, basically. I protect it. I will protect it to the end of my life, and so will they. If they protect it, their politicians will listen to them. Their politicians have a right. We have economic power. They're starting to get economic power. They have the rights. I don't have section 2.3 or section 2.4 of the Fisheries Act, or section 35 of the Constitution, but they do.

I would like to have protection under the Fisheries Act for all fishers, because I think we are Canada's second-largest exporter. We need to be treated better, and we need to foster unity. There needs to be an environment created by our government—we need to do our part, as well—that fosters that relationship. It's not that hard, because I've done it. You can research this. I've been at this for a long time, and I've done it with the chiefs. I'm the only white fisherman in the country who is in the consultation room, probably, so it can be done. I can share part of my resource. Well, it's not my resource. It's our resource. There are peace and friendship treaties in this country. These things need to be taken more seriously.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I appreciate it. I asked that question given your relationship over the years, as a commercial fisher who works with Mi'kmaq.

I think there are some interesting bylines in what you just said, in terms of the importance of...and you highlighted it in a different context, to a degree. You were talking about fishing habitat, but I think it's the same type of milieu. We need consistent enforcement, and there needs to be a line of sight for everyone on that.

In a couple of months, we'll have recommendations. You'll get a report. You'll look through it. All of you will. You highlighted some of the recommendations you would like to see.

Let's say you have seven. What are one or two that you think are essential, in terms of building blocks for a modern Fisheries Act that needs to evolve, grow and adapt?

[Darren Porter]

That's very easy to answer. It's two things.

The purpose of the Fisheries Act is to protect the fisheries. I don't mean just the commercial fisheries. I mean the rights-based, commercial and recreational fisheries. It's not an energy act. It's not other acts. It's the Fisheries Act. We need to be protected, not just managed and controlled.

Number two, we need to add fisheries to the subsection 34.1(1) factors, because there's no tool for the FFHPP—the fish and fish habitat protection program—to use, when any project comes down, to protect a fishery. They have to assess offshore energy. They have to assess that project as that project. They don't have a single tool they can use to say, “Okay, are there any fishermen fishing there? Can we just move them a little this way?” They'll displace us.

Add those two things in. They're very simple. Just add fisheries to the factors, not just fisheries' productivity. I mean all fishers. Just rejig the purpose. It had a brand-new purpose last time, so it can't be perfect. Add fisheries to protect the fisheries.

This is very important to Canada. What would happen to Nova Scotia if you crashed the fisheries? What would happen to Halifax? It's a big question.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

What happens to the entire province?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Kelloway, we've gone a bit over your time.

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We're listening, Mr. Porter, and this brings us back to a very important reality. We're very interested in what you have to say.

What I seem to be hearing in your testimony, Ms. Lindsay, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Porter, is that there's a need for clear and appropriate organization in the projects you initiate.

Other testimony we've heard on this committee has been along those lines. Wouldn't it be a good idea to take the politics out of the resource and fisheries management exercise a little, include fisheries in it and have a kind of apolitical mediation that would call on sociologists or economists, for example? These individuals would be able to argue in favour of some very important variables, which would ultimately lead to more suitable and realistic directives and directions.

[Darren Porter]

I think politics is important, but I think politics should be pulled from the enforcement.

The politician's job is to fix the act, change the act and move the act. As soon as the politicians start interfering with the enforcement of the act, that's a problem. If we could remove that from the situation.... You go back in four years. Your job is to change the act, not to enforce the act. That's the enforcement officer's job.

That's my opinion.

[Scott Jackson]

I see a lot of merit in establishing processes that do bring in a political expertise. We've seen this with the Fisheries Act, and we've seen it with the Species at Risk Act. I bring that up simply because DFO is involved in the implementation and application of the Species at Risk Act.

We find often there is a lack of consultation. At times, we guess it's politically motivated. It would also be very welcome to have much more robust, informed, transparent, accountable cost-benefit analyses that accompany decisions. It seems that a lot happens behind the curtain, in the black box, and we're not privy to it. When we ask to be part of it, we're told no, or maybe, or the situation that was alluded to before, “Here's what we're going to do. Do you like it?” The cake has already been baked, and we don't have a real opportunity to influence it.

I think the principles that you outlined would be very much welcomed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

I'll now go to Ms. Barron for two and a half minutes or less, please, to clew up this first hour of testimony.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to say that so much of what Mr. Porter said, I really appreciate. There are a lot of points that you made, Mr. Porter, that I'll be making sure to put stars next to in my recommendations.

It just got me thinking, and perhaps this is a big question with not enough time, but it's a question for Ms. Lindsay and Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Porter was talking about, and I'm sure you'll agree, the importance of protecting our marine ecosystems for generations to come and how that's all interconnected. Of course, we know the same applies to forest products. We want to make sure that we have sustainable, healthy, biodiverse forests that are interconnected, and we want to protect our streams and oceans.

Is there one recommendation that you could provide for us today to help us in our recommendations as we move forward? What do you think would be something that could help us make sure we're putting out forestry products not just for today, but for generations to come?

[Scott Jackson]

I would go back to my previous comment. I think there is a need for much more holistic thinking within government. I think a lot of decisions are made in silos. Notwithstanding that there are very specific purposes behind the Fisheries Act, I think it's important to understand how the implementation and application of that legislation—or any legislation, for that matter—affect other societal priorities. We find that that's very much a shortcoming within the federal government today.

We do touch on many societal priorities: indigenous reconciliation and economic self-determination, low-carbon buildings, green jobs and an emerging middle class. I'm not making these up. They're in ministers' mandate letters. They're spoken to all the time in federal politics.

If I could have one wish, it would be for much more holistic approaches to how the federal government gets involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

We'll now say thank you to Ms. Lindsay, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Porter and Mr. Thomas for sharing their knowledge with us, as a committee, as we go through this particular study and write a report on it.

We thank you for that.

We'll suspend for a moment now, to bring in the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I now call this meeting to order.

We welcome our witnesses for our second panel.

In the room, we have Mr. Alberto Wareham, chair of the board of directors for the Fisheries Council of Canada. He also operates a really nice fish plant in Arnold's Cove that has been in the family for many years.

On Zoom, we have Mr. Carl Allen, New Brunswick executive member and treasurer for the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation.

[An hon. member]

He's not on Zoom. He's sitting right there.

[Carl Allen, New Brunswick Executive Member and Treasurer, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation]

I'm fast.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!