Evidence of meeting #5 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 fishers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
This would be to vote on the motion as amended, to have this be one of the approved motions to study.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
With there being no more debate, can we move to a vote?
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Mr. Small, you have the floor. You have two minutes left. We'll continue with our witnesses.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Central Newfoundland, NL
Mr. Chair, I'm going to pass my time on to Mr. Deschênes.
Bloc
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sandt‑Duguay, let's continue our previous discussion since the purpose of this exercise is to see what happened and how to improve things. One of your suggestions was to reduce the number of pots.
You didn't talk about that much in your presentation, but I know that you were a consultant to indigenous communities. That's an important role. In these last two minutes, I'd like you to give us your opinion on the indigenous issue.
If other fisheries were to open in the future, how would you create a plan that unites as many people as possible, rather than a plan that sows division?
Fisherman, As an Individual
Essentially, I think that more consultations are needed. As I said, the lobster fishery is an inshore fishery. So I think the residency qualification should have been applied, and there should have been more consistency.
The requirements favour some fishers and exclude others. I'm talking about non-indigenous fishers. I think that caused some disappointment because a lot of fishers didn't get a license. The plan talks about the next generation. However, I'm disappointed for the next generation when I think of all the people who bought high-priced businesses in recent years, especially turbot fishing businesses. They're the ones who should have been helped. They're the ones who paid a high price in recent years and were let down by the scoring system. They were left out. Maybe a few older people about to retire decided to stay in the fishery once they got a lobster licence.
I think that DFO had other solutions in its tool box to help struggling fleets like shrimpers and turbot fishers. On top of that, circumstances change; this year, the shrimp fishery is doing better.
Concerning the shrimp fishery, turbot fishing grids closed two weeks ago because too many small turbots were being caught. This fishery could also make a comeback. Without consultations, however, it's hard to bring home the point that fishers who already live in the area should come first or receive priority. Without enough consultation, things happen too quickly, and later on, when we demand explanations, we get no response either.
I wrote a letter but I didn't receive a reply. I never even received an acknowledgement of receipt. I went into problem-solving mode. It occurred to me that licenses had been issued as far as Rimouski, but what if other licenses could be issued for areas further west. I discussed the idea with other local fishers, because I'm not the only one who has no licence. We decided that we needed more information to make an informed decision or submit a request for a licence in areas further west.
We decided to mount a scientific project. I applied for a scientific lobster release licence to perform a random sampling that would let us know whether there were lobster to the west of us in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of several local residents who had been passed over for a licence. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans turned us down. I carried out this project at my own expense, and it was turned down.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much. I'm sorry, but I have to interrupt you.
Next we're going to go to Mr. Klassen for five minutes or less.
Liberal
Ernie Klassen Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Mr. Cloutier.
Access based on residency is standard in many fisheries. It helps to keep the wealth that fishing brings in coastal communities. Since a residency cut-off made by the last minister wasn't considered right by some, where would you suggest the residency requirement be set?
Director, Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie
Adjacency principles are recognized and known by all fishers and organizations in Quebec. They exist to protect each region, as I said earlier. What surprises us is that the department failed to apply these principles unilaterally or equally to all fisher groups applying for a licence. That's the problem.
Because requirements were not applied fairly, we now have disgruntled groups of fishers demanding restitution, and the department or the Regroupement is going to have a very hard time repairing the damage, because the harm is done. It's not a matter of figuring out whether to apply the residence qualification requirement or not. It should have been applied, because it's the only requirement that treats the various regions developing different fisheries fairly.
Liberal
Ernie Klassen Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Okay, so if the stock then moves from one area to the next, I'm wondering how the licences transfer with the stock as it moves.
Director, Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie
In fact, a region doesn't deplete a species completely. In the case of lobster, for example, stocks are declining in the United States, in the Maritimes and in southwestern Nova Scotia. However, because the species moves, transferring a fisher's licence to another region where he could keep fishing would be difficult if the other region wants to develop a new fishery. If lobsters are moving north, regions currently unable to fish lobster would obviously want to develop their own fisheries, like any other region.
So I don't think that transferring licences from one region to another is feasible. It may be possible to sell them from region to region, but we certainly couldn't transfer a fisher's licence to allow the fisher to go fish in another region. That would not be enforceable.
Liberal
Ernie Klassen Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Okay.
My next question is for Mr. MacPherson. I'm wondering how much fluctuation actually happens in the industry. You talked about the fluctuation of the stock happening. Can you explain that a bit or expand on that?
Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association
Well, we've seen some pretty dramatic increases over in Prince Edward Island due to.... When I talk about “one in, one out”, that means that one licence is bought and one licence is sold. There's no extra effort put in. About 12 years ago, we eliminated over 44,000 traps on Prince Edward Island, and it's really helped the fishery rebound.
Yes, you know, we saw some declines related to the hurricanes on the east coast in the last five years in certain areas, but it usually happens quite often in terms of.... If an area is fished hard, even in four or five years, you could see a change. Some of it's climatic, but we have to be sensitive to the fact that it can also be related to the amount of effort coming out of an area, too.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Great.
Thank you very much, Mr. Klassen.
With that, we're going to wrap our second panel here.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony, for being here in person or joining virtually. Your testimony will be very helpful as we complete this report, which will have recommendations for the government going forward.
We do have a couple of bits of business for the committee, but I want to thank you again and excuse you from our meeting here.
We have a couple of things I would like to get through fairly quickly. Number one is—
Mr. Gunn.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
I'd like to move to resume debate on my study motion considering B.C.'s salmon open-net pen aquaculture transition.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Okay. Hold on for one moment here. I just want to make sure that folks have this motion that is being brought forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
We're back.
Just for clarification, the last time we were debating this, it was the motion and then it was the amendment to that motion, which hadn't yet been voted on but had been brought forward by Monsieur Deschênes. That's where we were when the debate was adjourned on this motion. That's what we would be voting on to bring back at this time.
With that, this is not a debatable motion, so we will need to move to a vote on this. You should all have the motion. You should also have received an email that goes through the difference in terms of the original motion and then the amendment to that motion that was also brought forward and that we were in the middle of debating when it was adjourned.
With that—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
No, no; when this was adjourned the last time, we were in the middle of debating Monsieur Deschênes's amendment to this motion. We would be voting to return to the debate on this motion and the amendment that Monsieur Deschênes had brought forward for this motion.
With that, we need to move to a vote on whether we will resume the debate.
I'll turn it over to the clerk.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)
The debate on the motion resumes.
With that, we will open it up to debate on the amendment and go first to Mr. Klassen.
I'm sorry. Mr. Morrissey had his hand up first.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Chair, to clarify, it's the amendment that was being debated that we have returned to. Just so everybody knows, it is not the motion.
Perhaps you could reorient the committee on the amendment that was put forward by Monsieur Deschênes, or maybe he will do it. That's where we're at now. I'm not familiar with what it was.
