Evidence of meeting #12 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was decisions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Thank you.
In your opinion, were the St. Marys Bay lobster stocks healthy in November 2020?
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Are those same lobster stocks healthy today?
President, Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance
No, they're not healthy anymore due to the presence of an incredibly large, commercial, out-of-season fishery.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Okay. Thank you.
I'll switch now to Ms. Sonnenberg.
Principal owner-operator and fleet separation were established in the Fisheries Act through Bill C-68 in 2019. Is that correct?
President, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
That's correct.
President, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
Very soon after the regulation came into force, we started asking for reports as to what was being done. Then it became clear we were not going to see much being done. Since the time that it came into force, we've raised this basically on a monthly basis.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Okay. My next question was going to be what the minister's response was at the time, but it doesn't sound like there was a response at the time. Can you provide what the response has been? Has there been one?
President, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
It has varied with different ministers, and as it was pointed out earlier, we have seen a variety of ministers in the last few years.
I think where the stumbling block happens is between the minister and the department. The act was one portion, one piece of it, as you know, and then when the regulations came in, the expectation was it would provide the vehicle to back the act up.
One of the shortcomings in the regulations was the ability for a company or an individual to come in with an agreement that would be reviewed during a transfer in a licence exchange. They were given 12 months to rectify the problem, and because of the wording in the regulation, it really stymied the ability for serious action.
We went from asking for updates on what was going to happen to asking for the cleaning up of the problem that existed inside the new regulation to today, and we are still working back and forth, asking for that correction to be made in that, which is desperately needed in order to properly enforce the regulation as it was written.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
So the act and the regulations are there but are just not being enforced?
President, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
The act is there, the regulation has the shortcoming, and there's been no attempt until recently to rectify the issue that is creating what we would consider to be, in some neighbourhoods, an increase in controlling agreements on the water.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I'm going to have to jump in there, Mr. Arnold, as the time has elapsed.
With that, we'll move on to Mr. Cormier for six minutes.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon everyone.
Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.
My questions are mainly for Mr. Allen or Mr. Mallet.
I have no doubt my fellow members around the table agree with some of the points you raised. We've discussed many of them throughout this study.
The first thing I want to ask you about is the issue of fines. As far as I'm concerned—and other members around the table will agree with me—the fines for certain offences are rather low. They're not high enough. I'm talking about things such as poaching or being in possession of egg-bearing female lobsters.
Indigenous communities also feel that the fines are too low. They fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, and they sell their catches. We talked about that.
Do you consider the fines to be too low, encouraging certain individuals to do the same thing the next day or week?
I don't think a $500 fine for a catch or poached fish that can bring in thousands of dollars is going to deter anyone.
Where do you stand on those fines, which may be too low?
Carl Allen Vice-President, New Brunswick, Maritime Fishermen's Union
I would agree with that. The fines typically are not high enough. Depending on the offence, we're doing this exercise within the Maritime Fishermen's Union right now of trying not to use the word "fair" but an "appropriate" fine for the offence. If you're talking about an offence that doesn't affect the sustainability of the resource, then maybe we shouldn't be so harsh. For instance, failing to report a lost trap due to the right whale really has no effect on the resource.
To your point about undersized lobsters, buried females and fishing in a closed zone, in a lot of cases the fines are not appropriate. I don't think a lot of people use the term the government uses: "cost-benefit analysis". When you do the cost-benefit analysis and ask about the cost of getting caught, it's way smaller than the benefit of breaking the rule, so let's break the rules. The amount I'd get away with before I even get caught would more than compensate for the fine for being caught.
Once upon a time if you were found guilty of serious offences, you lost time on the water. Somehow it got to be a case of, "Oh, well, but that's impacting his livelihood". However, if I'm affecting the sustainability of the resource, I may be affecting your livelihood and someone else's livelihood.
No, I don't think the fines are enough.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
All right. Thank you.
Now I'll get to the heart of the matter.
This may be difficult for some to talk about, but we need to talk about these problems. We need to talk about what's going on in the industry if we want our lobster fishery to thrive for future generations.
I'm sure you saw the recent story that aired on the Radio-Canada show Enquête. Investigative journalists went undercover in communities and witnessed things that were going on, on both the indigenous side and the commercial side. The focus was on indigenous fisheries. In the indigenous food, social and ceremonial fishery, indigenous fishermen were selling their catches to groups that were reselling them on the black market, organized crime groups and so forth.
Are you aware of that happening in your communities?
Is that something you're seeing more and more often in indigenous communities?
Vice-President, New Brunswick, Maritime Fishermen's Union
In some first nations communities it's one of those worst-kept secrets. The same thing has happened in St. Marys Bay, where we've turned a bunch of FSC fisheries into quasi-commercial fisheries. They're out-of-season fisheries and in some cases these fisheries are taking place during a biologically sensitive time of the year when there should be no fishery. There shouldn't even be an FSC fishery, let alone one that gets turned into a quasi-commercial fishery, if we want to have truly sustainable resources.
This is an issue that we've been bringing up over and over again. What happened in St. Marys Bay, in the incident between non-first nations and first nations fishers, was because things got so bad that nobody was doing anything. Non-first nations fishers felt that was the only option, but I think they made a mistake at the time.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I have just one minute left. I'm sorry. The time goes fast.
I understand that. Selling catches harvested for food, social and ceremonial purposes is prohibited under the act.
Let's talk about the commercial fishery now.
What we want is a sustainable industry, one that will continue for many more years. Mr. Sproul spoke of the importance of making science-based decisions and knowing the state of the resource.
Why does the lobster industry still not have dockside weighing?
That would probably be a way to deal, once and for all, with the issue of dockside monitoring and catch control, specifically how harvesters get their catches.
It's probably also the way to put an end, once and for all, to lobster smuggling, whether in indigenous communities or the commercial fishery. As you know, some harvesters don't report their full catches.
Why isn't dockside weighing mandatory?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask for a short answer. We're out of time.
Vice-President, New Brunswick, Maritime Fishermen's Union
I'll try.
I would say that the short answer for why lobster has never been a monitored fishery is that it's not a quota fishery. It's effort-based, not quota-based, and that's one of the reasons from the harvester side of it. Most fisheries in the past only went to dockside once they went to a quota fishery. We look at it as it becomes cumbersome and expensive for us for a fishery that doesn't have a quota.
Liberal
Vice-President, New Brunswick, Maritime Fishermen's Union
No, no—I don't want to have that debate. I'm just saying that's the simple answer.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I'm going to have to jump in.
Thank you very much, Mr. Cormier.
I now give the floor to Mr. Deschênes for six minutes.
Bloc
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I'm glad we have all of these interesting witnesses with us.
I just want to take a few minutes, Mr. Chair, to move a motion, as my colleague Mr. Arnold has to leave before the end of the meeting. I would just like us to vote on the motion. It was sent to everyone on November 14.
The motion is to give us more time to study the law enforcement barriers. I asked that we add at least three additional meetings and invite the following witnesses to answer questions on this topic.
The following people would be invited to testify:
(a) fisheries officers and/or union representatives of fisheries officers; (b) the Conservation and Protection Directorate of Fisheries and Oceans Canada; (c) the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and her Associate Deputy Minister; (d) representatives of the RCMP; (e) the Minister of Justice; (f) the Deputy Minister of Justice; (g) retired fisheries officers; and (h) any other witnesses the committee deems relevant.
I propose that these witnesses appear before the committee. I would like us to be able to debate my motion now, since everyone is here.