Fisheries Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

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

Okay. You talked about this, and we also hear a lot about managing resources and that in some areas the resources are going down.

Let's say five more licences are added in your fishing area. Will this be a bad thing, or would it have no impact on the resources?

How would you see that, if there were five more lobster licences in your area, for example?

[Carl Allen]

If they're pulled out of thin air, it's concerning. It's one thing if we're going to transfer five licences from one group to another, but if you're going to pull five new licences out of one area.... It may sound like a small number in a zone that has 700 licences, but....

I've heard this comment made, especially when times are good. When resources are good—like once we had built the resource up in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence to a very sustainable resource—it can handle it. What happens when it goes the other way? Do you think LFA 34 could handle five more licences today? Not necessarily.

It's a very dangerous game to play, because it's five today, 10 tomorrow, and then where does it end?

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

I have a quick one before I go to Ms. Sonnenberg.

What do you think about fishing out of season?

[Carl Allen]

We completely oppose it. We've made one-on-one efforts, and we have....

Contrary to some people's opinions, we have a very good working relationship with our neighbour first nations in New Brunswick. The two biggest ones are Elsipogtog and Esgenoopetitj. They have the two biggest FSC fisheries that are out of season.

We've made efforts to try to move them right into our season. That would be the most preferable thing. Then we're all on the same page. We're all in this together. We're not opposed to first nations participating in the fisheries. It's just that we were kind of assured 25 years ago that we'd all be on the same page, with the same working, so it's concerning when it goes the other way.

The point I was trying to make was this: If FSC fisheries are not properly monitored, non-first nations will actually get in on that. They'll throw traps out there with no tags on them, because they know that C and P may not enforce. It's just a slippery slope.

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

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Ms. Sonnenberg, I have about 30 seconds left. In your testimony you talked about how we have to “define clearly”. I guess you were talking about defining more clearly the rules around lobster fisheries or other fisheries when it comes to a particular group.

Was that what you were saying?

[Melanie Sonnenberg]

No, Mr. Cormier. My comment was to define what IUU is to Canada, because it's not just one thing. It's very diverse and complex.

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

Okay.

I think my time is up. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

We'll go to Madame Desbiens for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. Their presence here is always valuable.

I’d like to hear Ms. Sonnenberg’s opinion, as well as Mr. Allen.

From what I’ve heard in the field, lack of clarity in the law is a major factor. I’m talking about a lack of clarity in defining ceremonial fisheries, food fisheries or livelihood fisheries, for example.

In your opinion, if laws were worded more clearly and terms were better defined, could regulations be applied that, in turn, would be clearer?

I would invite Ms. Sonnenberg to answer first.

[Melanie Sonnenberg]

I believe the definition is clear, but I think what happens in the next part is that the follow-up on how that catch is being used is not being followed through on. Therefore, sometimes, in some instances—not all, because many first nations communities use it as it's intended—there are fisheries going on outside of that under the guise of food, social and ceremonial, when it's not being used for that.

Therein comes the oversight from the department on the water and the need for some more monitoring on that front, because it's hurting both the indigenous and the non-indigenous communities.

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

Mr. Allen, would you agree that the law is clear enough?

[Carl Allen]

Certain laws around food, social and ceremonial are clear. Where things really start to get murky is when you talk about “moderate livelihood”. When we talk about moderate livelihood fisheries, what are those? We don't even know what a moderate livelihood is, let alone what that fishery may consist of. Even when you look at that part of that decision, the decision was the right to the pursuit of a moderate livelihood. It was no guarantee of a moderate livelihood.

Where the lack of clarity exists, I think anywhere the government can take the time to clear something up, even one small issue at a time, that will help. It's in the grey. Conflict is more likely to exist when there's confusion.

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

That confusion is as troubling for non-Indigenous communities as it is for Indigenous ones. Indeed, it can breed frustration on both sides.

You said earlier that you still have good communications with certain Indigenous groups, whose focus is on preserving the resource, just as yours is. The basis for greater harmony between harvesters could therefore rely on clear definitions of livelihood fisheries, for example. Such definitions could include examples or tonnage limits.

Could you tell us what a better definition would be built on?

[Carl Allen]

Well, that's the—

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

It’s complex, but can you give us some idea, so that the Committee can make informed recommendations?

[Carl Allen]

It is a very complex issue. It's a hard one to define. We've struggled with this. We've made efforts with the department.

I am a member of the federation. We've had meetings as such, and we've tried to wrap our minds around that. I'm not even sure.... I think that's beyond my expertise on what it may be. I think, though, that any time we can, we should do that.

Typically, what we've seen with various first nations is you can have a conversation with the leadership, and the leadership, unofficially, may agree with you and understand and whatnot, but it's when they have to deal with their individual members.... As I alluded to in my opening statement, we, as an organization, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, tried to eliminate poaching that was going on among our own membership. That's a tough conversation to have in-house. That's their responsibility as well. They have a responsibility to have that conversation within their own membership, because at the end of the day, with rights comes responsibility. The frustration is not with the right; it's with the abuse of rights.

I believe there is such a thing as an abuse of rights. We have a right to free speech, but you can abuse that right. With that right comes responsibility. I think that's a bit on the part of first nations leadership to take that role, as harvester organizations have done in the past.

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

To conclude, do you have a recommendation for the Committee in this regard?

[Carl Allen]

Off the top of my head, there are a few things that we've talked about. I think education is a big thing. It's the same thing. We've done this. We have a science and research branch for lobsters: Homarus. We've done stuff with our own membership. We've started to do that with first nations, trying to make some of the individuals understand why you shouldn't fish lobster in July in any given area, let alone St. Marys Bay, the Northumberland Strait, the Gaspé or wherever.

I think that's a big component. It's just education at the ground level, understanding the importance of what it is we're trying to do, why certain conservation measures are in place and why that conservation is important to a stock that....

In reality, I'm here to fish. I'm a fifth-generation fisherman. I hope there are more generations to come behind. I want that for the first nations as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Allen, and thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Many of the questions I was going to ask, my colleague Madame Desbiens just asked. I feel there were some really good responses provided to them, so I'm going to switch gears a bit.

One thing that has come up in previous meetings is the technology that can be used to increase accountability and understand what's happening on the open water. I'm just looking at the website right now for Global Fishing Watch. It talks about the open ocean project, which shines a light on industrial human activity at sea and makes it available to the world. It has a vessel viewer.

We had witnesses who came on December 7, Ms. Suchan and Ms. Swartman from MDA, who were also talking about technology to help track what's happening on the water.

To Ms. Sonnenberg first, through the chair, what are you seeing specific to this technology? I know you were talking a lot about the importance of enforcement and accountability. Are you seeing any increased use of technology to help in this work?

[Melanie Sonnenberg]

Too often we find ourselves, in the industry, in a position where we're having new things added to the fishery and we haven't actually fully addressed something that might have been implemented five, 10 or 15 years ago.

I'm always very cautious about how we introduce technology. There are shortcomings with technology in some of the coastal areas that we would represent with the federation in terms of being able to have access to some kind of connectivity. A lot of areas in fisheries are simply out of range. Adding something new to them is only going to complicate things for the harvester. It's going to add another layer of complexity for that harvester to comply and be in compliance, so I'm often cautious about this.

The introduction of e-logs is the way we're going, but there are things that need to be addressed. One of them is privacy. I have asked on numerous occasions how the information will be used by the third party. To date, I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

Even before we get into the issues of technology and how it would work on board a vessel, we have to know what that third party can do with our harvesters' information. That's a huge issue for the people we represent.

As far as technology is concerned, a lot of the wheelhouses I've been in look nothing short of amazing in terms of the technology they're using, but it has to be introduced in a way that's in collaboration with the industry to make sure that it's doable and workable. We also have to take into account that we're going to have harvesters who cannot use it, and that's something we don't spend a lot of time on either.

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

Thank you, Ms. Sonnenberg. That's some good information for us to be aware of as a committee.

When I asked the witnesses who were here from MDA about the use of the information and what the next steps were with the information to their organization, they said the information is provided to DFO. Of course, she was unable to speak to what happens with the information from there and how it's utilized.

I realize you're not DFO and cannot speak on behalf of DFO, but do you see any evidence of this information being used to inform communities or to ensure that education, awareness and accountability mechanisms are put into place?

[Melanie Sonnenberg]

At the present time, I don't see any evidence by DFO to allay the fears of industry that the information is going to be used for corporations to better understand how to access a fishery for illegal activities to occur. Some of that is paranoia, perhaps, on our part, but on the other hand, some of it is very real.

How that information is disseminated and can be.... Outside of what is called the “rule of five”, if you have more than five individuals participating in a fishery, then inside the department you can receive the information, because then it's not proprietary.

The concern is if that third party could do that very same thing. So far, I have been given no answer for that. Perhaps we will have somebody come forward after this testimony today, and we will get the answer we have been asking for.

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

Thank you.

Instead of going on to another question for the last minute of my time, I'm going to ask Mr. Allen if he has any further thoughts on this topic.

[Carl Allen]

Yes, I think technology can help in places. I think the problem with technology sometimes is the standards within what the department sets. I think e-log is a prime example of that.

Because of the proprietary information and the harvesters being concerned how that may be used, certain organizations like the RPPSG in the Gaspé, and even the PEIFA, have tried developing their own e-logs, because as member organizations we want to control the information.

Part of the problem and why we don't have e-logs today is that we get just about to the finish line, and then the department changes the standards. Then we go back to square one, even to the point where some third party developers, private companies, have backed away. The department cannot just set a standard, stick with it and maybe say it will go seven years before it changes that standard. We get just about to the finish line, and they change it again. Then we're back to square one. I think some of that will have to be addressed.

Yes, like Melanie alluded to, proprietary knowledge of that data is very important. I'm less concerned about what the department may do with my information than what Vericatch may do with my information. That's just to use one third party company; I don't want to single out Vericatch. They are not the only party out there. They are just the one I know.

How will they use that, and who will they take that information to? There are people in this world who want that information, because they want to know what resources are being fished where. They want to know, if they're going to try to wiggle their way in to control an industry, where they should be going first. That's a major concern on our end.