Evidence of meeting #8 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.
Vice President, Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles
Initially, at the local Fisheries and Oceans Canada office, we were told that it was an obligation. However, when we did some research, we realized that it wasn't an obligation for everyone. We were the only ones who had to meet that obligation.
Bloc
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Mr. Déraspe, I want to address one last point with you.
You talked about the cod fishery that's allowed in Newfoundland in the fall. You said that this was creating a sense of unfairness among fishers in the Îles de la Madeleine.
Could you give us a little bit of your perspective on that?
Vice President, Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles
Today, we buy cod that comes from Newfoundland. We fish in roughly the same waters. We go almost as far as Newfoundland. As for Newfoundland fishers, they come almost as close to the Îles de la Madeleine most of the time. They fish cod in the fall, when we can't. I don't see why. They say that cod is endangered, but if some people are allowed to fish cod for subsistence or other purposes, the regulations should be the same for everyone.
I'll give you an example. Recreational fishers are allowed to catch five cod a day. If there are 10 people on board, that's 50 cod. They have small boats, rowboats. In our case, we have commercial fishing vessels. We have to travel a certain distance at sea, 15 to 20 miles, to fish for cod in this area. There are costs associated with that, if only those associated with fuel. It's not profitable for us if we have to go that far to catch five cod.
As commercial fishers who pay for licences, we would like to have the right to go cod fishing for a day. If we're entitled to a quota of 200 pounds, we'll go fishing in that area. When we return, we would simply report our catch to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
It's not a boat that we get out for a day of fishing, but a boat designed for commercial fishing. That's a whole other thing.
Bloc
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
If I understand you correctly, Mr. Déraspe, when it comes to granting new fishing rights, as happened for cod, you would like a process to include all fishers in the areas adjacent to the new fishing area.
Is that correct?
Vice President, Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles
Yes, it would be something like that.
At the moment, it's not really accessible for fishers in the Îles de la Madeleine who engage in commercial fishing.
Bloc
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Déraspe.
Mr. O'Rielly, you suggested amending section 2.5 of the act. This section sets out a list of criteria that the minister may consider in making decisions. You suggested changing the word “may” to the word “must”.
Did I understand correctly?
Executive Director, Northern Coalition Corporation
Yes. Thanks for the question.
There are a number of considerations in section 2.5. They're all high level and very vague. I do not see how they are of any benefit to the minister in arriving at any decision. They're of that nature.
What we're proposing is that those core principles of adjacency, historical dependence and economic benefits be mandatory, and that the minister must require them and explain how they were applied. This does not fetter the minister's authority. The minister may make other decisions but, at least, will have to consider those core elements and advise how they were applied in each case.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Deschênes.
That finishes the first round of questioning.
We'll start the second round with Mr. Arnold.
You have five minutes.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll turn to Mr. O'Rielly again to further follow up on a previous question from Mr. Deschênes.
You mentioned that you would recommend that the principle of adjacency of access be added to the requirements. I believe I just heard you say that these are things you feel must be done, so the terminology in the legislation would be that the minister “shall consider”, not “may consider”. Is that correct?
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Okay. Would this mean that the criteria that are there would all be that the minister “shall”, or should there be different sections saying what the minister “shall” consider and then another section saying what she “may” consider?
Executive Director, Northern Coalition Corporation
Essentially, the proposal is that those three elements be mandatory, but on your question and the question of Mr. Deschênes, it really doesn't matter if all the others are “shall” or “may”. They are of such a nature that it's really difficult to understand how they will have any influence.
They just say that you should consider this and you should consider that, but there is no specificity or clarity as to what that actually means. For the consistency in the legislation, it could be easily “shall” for everything, just so there is consistency.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
You mentioned the rationale for a decision. Do you feel there's any transparency in the decisions on allocations? We heard recently from the DFO official who was here—I believe you mentioned this as well—that the TAC allocation process is more of an art than a science.
Do you feel there is enough transparency in those decisions, or should that also be in the act? Should we have a requirement of disclosure of rationale for decisions?
Executive Director, Northern Coalition Corporation
There is no clarity right now about how these principles are applied. There's no transparency or reporting. Our request is that it be mandatory, but also that the minister be required to explain how they were applied.
We're being careful not to propose any fettering of the minister's authority. The minister can still choose to do something other than attending to any of those principles, but they must be considered, in our view. Any explanation thereafter would offer greater transparency, accountability and clarity because it would impose some process on the department and the minister to identify what those factors are, how they are applied and what weighting is assigned, etc.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Thank you.
I want to turn now to Mr. Campbell. You spoke about the difficulties with ownership, controlling agreements and so on. Did the changes to the legislation and the regulations that followed improve the issues we've heard about at this committee with controlling agreements and owner-operator policy?
Counsel, Cox and Palmer
They have improved them, based on the legislative amendments. The problem with them is that there's an impediment that.... I'm mainly consulted when a husband or wife dies, and they have a fishing fleet. It's become very difficult for succession planning to move that licence over to a son or daughter, or whoever the new entrant is in the family. That's where we're having the issue.
As far as giving us a regime or structure is concerned, I think the legislative amendments did exactly what we requested in 2020, but there's a small amendment required. The problem with what DFO has stated with the structures it's proposing is that we're back to bare trusts or controlling agreements and declarations of trust, which is the wrong way to go.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Thank you. I'll stop you while I have 10 seconds left.
Would the changes that have been made on the east coast be of benefit to small harvesters on the west coast?
Counsel, Cox and Palmer
Definitely. It's all about income tax. Either you're paying 15% income tax in a corporation, or you're paying 52% income tax individually. It would be very beneficial if their income was greater than, say, $50,000. That's a generalization.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold.
Next, we'll go to Mr. Earle.
Welcome to the committee. You have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Philip Earle Liberal Labrador, NL
Thank you, Chair.
My questions this morning will be directed toward Mr. Best and, if time permits, Monsieur Déraspe.
Ulaakut, Garry. Atelihai.
I'm being guided by the recommendations in the national Truth and Reconciliation Commission report and call to action number 92, in particular, on corporate reconciliation. I represent Labrador. The Nunatsiavut Government is in its 20th year of self-government.
I'm wondering if you could talk to this committee about corporate reconciliation in the context of the Fisheries Act. What do you see that gives you comfort that the government is serious about corporate reconciliation with indigenous peoples and setting quotas that promote and allow economic development in indigenous communities?
Garry Best Board Member, Northern Coalition Corporation
Qujannamiik, Mr. Earle.
Thank you, Chair and committee, for allowing me to share some thoughts this morning.
I am a beneficiary of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. I am also a member of the Northern Coalition and president and CEO of the Nunatsiavut Group of Companies. Coincidentally, I am the national chair of the Inuit Development Corporation Association. A lot of what we're talking about applies across the north route to Inuit Nunangat.
Regarding our area in particular, I would like to focus on one alarming point that is not just an irritant; it upsets a lot of local people along the coast. In shrimp fishing areas 4 and 5, which are adjacent to Nunatsiavut waters, our access is only 32% within shrimp fishing area 4 and less than 29% for shrimp fishing area 5, notwithstanding 20 years of a land claim agreement. We find that not necessarily of benefit to us. We find that's a very low share of resources adjacent to our coast and, frankly, offensive.
I do not speak on behalf of the Government of Nunatsiavut even though I'm a beneficiary. There have been many discussions with DFO over the years. Within the Nunatsiavut Group of Companies, we have nine companies that are wholly owned and majority-owned and 10 partnerships. I would say that the most connected company of all is Nuluak, which is our fishing entity. We don't have enough quota to purchase a vessel to compete with the big players, and that's problematic.
I will say that the dividends and royalties we get now we plow back into growing profitable and sustainable companies in areas that may not be as profitable, such as construction on the coast and other elements where we can support our people socio-economically speaking.
Again, while there's talk of truth and reconciliation in particular, it is a fact that we aren't getting fair access to our resources. It's certainly something we'd like folks to consider on a go-forward basis, something that's a bit more fair, a bit more just. We'd like folks to understand the adjacency principle and historical dependency as well, because they really allow for increased economic benefits to many of our coastal communities that are still suffering poverty in many respects.
Qujannamiik. Thanks.
Liberal
Philip Earle Liberal Labrador, NL
Mr. Déraspe, I'd like to ask you a question.
It relates to your earlier testimony related to fishers from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador fishing near your geographic area. I didn't quite understand that. I understand your geographic area to be in NAFO area 4R, a closed area.
Could you expand on your testimony to give us more insights into how Newfoundland and Labrador fishers are harvesting in that perceived to be closed zone?
Vice President, Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles
It's not really in our area, but we travel 100 to 150 miles north. They travel about the same distance in their area. If they can fish cod in their area, then we should be able to fish cod near that area.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Earle.
We're going to finish our second round.
Mr. Deschênes, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. O'Rielly, I want to continue my line of questioning on the proposed amendment to section 2.5. It would change just one word, but it would have a significant impact. It would further define the discretionary power of the minister, who would have to take into consideration all the principles listed in section 2.5, and there are a number of them.
Would that address the main concern that you and Mr. Best expressed, which is that new fishing quotas aren't always allocated to inshore fishers who live near the fishing area?
In particular, you said that 10% to 15% of the quota is fished by Labrador fishers, so there are fishers who come from outside the area.
Would those criteria be sufficient to protect inshore fishers?
Should a criterion be added stating that priority must be given to fishers who live near fishing areas?