THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 1, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study the implementation of Indigenous rights-based fisheries across Canada.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good morning. My name is Fabian Manning, a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the pleasure to chair this meeting. Today we are conducting a hybrid meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
I would like to remind senators and witnesses to keep their microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name by the chair. Should any technical issues arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve this issue. If you experience other technical challenges, please contact the ISD service desk with the technical assistance number provided.
Finally, I would like to remind all participants that Zoom screens should not be copied, recorded or photographed. You may use and share official proceedings, posted on the SenVu website for that purpose.
I would like take a few moments to introduce the members of the committee participating in today’s meeting. I usually allow them to introduce themselves, but for the time constraints we’re under, we will do it this way. Hopefully, I won’t forget anybody. Today we have with us the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Busson, from British Columbia; Senator Ataullahjan from Ontario; Senator Campbell from British Columbia; Senator Christmas from Nova Scotia; Senator Cordy from Nova Scotia; Senator Cormier from New Brunswick; Senator Francis from Prince Edward Island; Senator Kutcher from Nova Scotia; Senator Quinn from New Brunswick; and Senator Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador. Senator McCallum has also just joined us.
Today, the committee will be hearing from officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada on the topic of Indigenous rights-based fisheries. We have the pleasure to welcome Jean-Guy Forgeron, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Harbour Management; and Doug Wentzell, Regional Director General, Maritimes Region; and Gorazd Ruseski, Director General, Indigenous Affairs.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here today. I understand you have some opening remarks. Following the presentation, members of the committee will have questions for you.
For the information of my colleagues, we will try to end the public portion of this meeting at 10:45 or earlier in order to have a short discussion in camera.
Mr. Forgeron, you have the floor.
Jean-Guy Forgeron, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Harbour Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Senate and honourable guests. I thank you for the invitation to speak to this committee. Today, I will be joined shortly by Doug Wentzell and Gorazd Ruseski, who were both kindly introduced by the chair.
After my brief remarks, we’ll be happy to answer all of your questions.
[Translation]
As the Department responsible for ensuring the long-term health and management of fisheries and oceans resources in Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s goal is to ensure that all fisheries remain safe, productive, and sustainable for all harvesters.
[Technical difficulties]
[English]
In terms of fishing rights for First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, the department is committed to ensuring that rights are implemented and accommodated across the country, from coast to coast to coast, in collaboration with our rights-holding partners. Today, my opening remarks will focus on Canada’s East Coast with respect to implementing the treaty right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, as you and members of this committee know, the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada Marshall decision affirmed the treaty right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood, in accordance with the peace and friendship treaties of 1760-61. The Crown signed separate but similar treaties with the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey, and Peskotomuhkati First Nations.
[Technical difficulties]
[English]
When it comes to implementing this treaty right, we are guided by three key principles: conservation and sustainability; transparent and predictable management; and our duty to fulfill Canada’s commitment to reconciliation.
I think it is important to underline what the department has already done to implement what the court found to be a communal right to pursue a moderate livelihood from hunting, gathering and fishing since the Marshall decision was rendered in 1999, as well as what we are continuing to do. Outside current negotiations, more than $550 million has been provided under various programs, including the Marshall Response Initiative, right after the Marshall decision, and its successor program, the Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative, for fishing licences across multiple species, vessels and gear, governance, capacity building, and training in order to increase and diversify the treaty nations’ participation in the commercial fisheries and contribute to the pursuit of a moderate livelihood for their members. As a result, the annual landed value among the treaty nations has increased by a factor of 55, from $3 million in 1999 to around $170 million in 2019, which is approximately 6.4% of the total landed value in the Maritimes and Gaspé region of Quebec.
[Translation]
Despite this progress, some Treaty Nations expressed that their treaty right had not been met, and the Department acknowledged there was more work to do to build on this progress.
With this in mind, in 2017, DFO co-developed with partner Treaty Nations an approach to addressing the right through reconciliation agreements.
[English]
In English, we call them Rights Reconciliation Agreements, or RRAs.
[Translation]
These time-limited, legally-binding agreements provide the Treaty Nations with the financial resources to acquire fishery access, vessels, and gear, as well as funding to build capacity and governance and options for collaborative fisheries management approaches.
[English]
In total, three RRAs have been signed with four treaty nations: Elsipogtog, Esgenoopetitj, Wolastoqiyik Wahsipekuk and Listuguj. This represents approximately 25% of the 35 communities’ populations.
[Translation]
Nation-to-nation discussions continue with other Treaty Nations as we work to implement this right in the Maritimes, and the Gaspé and the lower St-Lawrence region of Quebec.
[English]
However, treaty nations in Nova Scotia, although involved in its original development, have now rejected the RRA approach. As a result, in March 2021, the then-minister introduced a flexible interim approach, under which we work collaboratively with interested Treaty Nations to reach understandings that will enable communities to fish as per a moderate livelihood fishing plan that is unique to their vision of the treaty right. This approach allows treaty nations to designate harvesters to be authorized to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood within the established commercial fishing seasons.
[Translation]
Over the course of the past year, we have worked with interested Mi’kmaq communities in Nova Scotia and have been successful in reaching two understandings on these moderate livelihood fishing plans.
The first was reached in June 2021 and recognized harvesters designated under the Potlotek Moderate Livelihood Fishing Plan to be authorized to fish lobster, under a DFO-issued licence, during the commercial season.
The second similar agreement resulted in the Kespukwitk District Netukulimk Livelihood Fisheries Management Plan, which enables harvesters from Acadia, Bear River and Annapolis Valley First Nations to participate in the established lobster fishery in Southwest Nova Scotia.
We are also currently in discussions with other communities who have expressed an interest in this moderate livelihood fishing plan approach.
[English]
As we continue nation-to-nation negotiations and engagement with the treaty nations, DFO will continue its ongoing dialogue with the Atlantic fishing industry on implementing Indigenous rights and reconciliation and provide fora to hear industry’s views.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, our goal as a department is to have a fishery that is peaceful, productive, and prosperous, one that upholds the Marshall decisions and respects treaty rights.
[English]
DFO has a responsibility to recognize and implement Aboriginal and treaty rights but also a fundamental role in managing and regulating the fishery for the benefit of all Canadians.
[Translation]
The 2022 fishing season is an opportunity for all of us to work together. While the path forward may be difficult at times, we are all striving toward a shared and common objective: the sustainable use of our fisheries while implementing the Treaty Nations’ right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood.
[English]
My colleagues and I are happy to take your questions now, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forgeron.
Senator Francis: I would like to acknowledge that I’m joining you from Anishinaabe territory in Ottawa. Good morning, everyone.
Multiple witnesses told this committee that DFO does not have a real mandate to implement the right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood fishery. As a result, officials continue to go into negotiations with First Nations empty-handed rather than focusing on long-term measures that would lead to permanent implementation. The department has opted to pursue interim measures that only seek to temporarily accommodate or moderate our moderate livelihood fisheries within the current legal and regulatory framework created for the privilege-based commercial fisheries.
Are there any plans to make Minister Miller and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, which has the actual mandate to engage nation-to-nation negotiations, be the lead on this file? If not, is the plan to continue to pursue interim measures, even though they have done little to resolve this long-standing dispute and to reduce tension or violence on the water?
Mr. Forgeron: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first question I will answer is on the role of the ministers. As the senator correctly pointed out, Minister Miller is responsible for overall negotiations with our First Nation and other Indigenous partners across Canada. Whenever there is a fisheries agreement, that is led by the Minister of Fisheries and DFO officials, even within the context of a greater agreement.
At this time, when it comes to advancing agreements or understandings under moderate livelihood fishing plans with First Nations, DFO continues to be the lead.
On more comprehensive negotiations, for instance, with Sipekne’katik in Nova Scotia, the overall agreement negotiations, where it’s a more comprehensive reconciliation agreement, is led by Minister Miller and his department, except when it comes to the fishing elements, which is DFO.
DFO does have a mandate to try to advance moderate livelihood fishing, as noted in the minister’s statement of March 3 of last year. Right now, we are mandated to do so in two ways. One is the RRA process, which are interim short-term agreements. Four First Nations have signed them, and they are signed by both ministers. When we sign an RRA, it would be the Minister of CIRNAC as well as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Currently, we have RRAs with four First Nations, representing about 25% of the treaty nations’ populations. We have ongoing negotiations with a number of First Nations individually or through their aggregates, in some cases, depending on the preference of the treaty nation. It’s their right to decide to negotiate through aggregate or as an individual nation. On the RRA processes, because of the processes available, that is at the moment the preferred process to advance the right. Others prefer the moderate livelihood fishing plan process to the RRAs.
Our mandate on the RRAs will end in the not-too-distant future. At that time, we’ll be looking to possibly have a different mandate. In our view, we clearly have a mandate with multiple paths to advance the right at the moment, but that one mandate will come to an end soon. We began discussions, consultations with treaty nations last summer in anticipation of the possibility of looking at a different road or mandate to advance the treaty right.
I would also like to note that beyond the Rights Reconciliation Agreements, or RRAs, and the moderate livelihood fisheries and plans under the Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative, or AICFI, we do ongoing activities to strengthen the capacity of First Nations in Atlantic Canada and Quebec to participate in the commercial fishery through not only things such as accesses and gear, but also in training and business development. That way, the communal commercial fishing rights of those First Nations are prosecuted in an effective way. This has been a long-term, ongoing program, and probably one of the most successful development programs the government has put in place. It has kind of quietly gone under the radar for years.
Senator Francis: May I ask a supplementary question, chair?
The Chair: Yes, but I have a note before you do, Senator Francis. I have a long list, so I will permit a question and a follow-up for each to see if we can do one round. If we have time to go back again, I’ll give everybody a head’s up.
Senator Francis: To be clear, these interim agreements are signed by First Nations without prejudice on their rights. It’s not accurate to suggest DFO has ever attempted to implement the right. I’m interested in the steps your department has taken since the start of the Forty-fourth Parliament. Are there any legislative or regulatory changes being considered to implement moderate livelihood fisheries, not just temporarily but permanently?
Mr. Forgeron: We do not envision any regulatory or legislative changes within this Parliament. We believe we have the legislative and regulatory tools required to advance communal commercial fishing rights across Canada, including for moderate livelihood fishing.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Busson: Mr. Forgeron, I have a question. You spoke about the RRAs, the Rights and Reconciliation Agreements, that came into effect in June 2021. You’re hoping that this can be the basis for a path forward for moderate livelihood fisheries.
Can you tell me how involved the First Nations were generally in drawing up, creating and designing these RRAs as a plan? You said it was interim. Do the plans going forward have a lot of consultation involved to make sure that First Nations are involved in building these agreements?
Mr. Forgeron: Mr. Chair, if I can ask a question of clarification. I think the senator was referring to the moderate livelihood fishing plans, which are the new ones that started for the first time in June as opposed to the RRA, which —
Senator Busson: Sorry, yes.
Mr. Forgeron: The moderate livelihood fishing plans are actually developed by the communities themselves. Right now, the only plans we have had to date are in the Province of Nova Scotia. They were developed by the individual First Nation working with, in the case of Nova Scotia, the KMK, which is the aggregate negotiation arm of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs, which provided guidance and support to the First Nation. Potlotek would discuss with us their moderate livelihood fishing plan, but their plan is their plan.
When we came to the understanding that this was a plan that could be executed as a way of pursuing a moderate livelihood, then we provided the licensing through our communal commercial licensing process to authorize the fishery. It was all based on the plan they developed internally, in cooperation with KMK, in consultation with the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs and in consultation with DFO, which is, of course, the regulatory authority with managing fisheries. They did consult with us, but at the end of the day, they were the only approvers of their plans. We authorized those plans when they got to a place where we believed they could be executed in keeping with the ministerial statement of March 3, 2021.
Senator Busson: Thank you. I have a quick supplementary question. I seem to be assuming this focuses on lobster fishing. Does it apply to other species as well?
Mr. Forgeron: The right applies to other species as well. The moderate livelihood fishing plan and the understanding we have with Potlotek was simply for lobster. The second plan that we received, which was from three First Nations from southwest Nova Scotia, was also for lobster. However, this mechanism can be for other species.
Currently, in southwest Nova Scotia, Annapolis Valley, Acadia and Bear River First Nations are looking at the possibility of a moderate livelihood fishing plan for elvers for instance. The concept, like the right, applies to more than just lobster. Lobster just happens to be the preferred species of fishing at the moment as it is particularly lucrative and not the most excessively difficult thing to fish.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
Senator Christmas: I would like to welcome Mr. Forgeron and his colleagues. This is the first opportunity since the Senate had passed a motion last May, I believe, to discuss the moderate livelihood fishery. Just as a quick reminder, the Senate affirmed the Marshall decision and the upholding of the moderate livelihood fishery and urged Canada to do so. The Senate also condemned the violent act. This is the first opportunity to meet with DFO on these matters.
Mr. Forgeron, I’m trying to put things in context, so the Marshall decision was passed in September 1999. That’s some 22 years ago. From your remarks to date, we have three RRAs — Rights Recognition Agreements — and two understandings, is that correct? Is that what we have accomplished over 22 years?
Mr. Forgeron: That is what we have accomplished over the last number of years with the current tools we have been using to advance the right. At the time of the Marshall decision, First Nation access amongst the treaty nations would have been valued at landings of $3 million. Through the Marshall Response Initiative and through AICFI, we have advanced First Nation participation to the point that landings are now valued at approximately $170 million, which is a 20-fold increase. Treaty nations’ commercial landings represent now over 6% of the landed values in the Maritime regions and Gaspé. That was accomplished through the Marshall Response Initiative, which was the first program-added initiative to do so, and through the Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative, which also provided additional access, fishing and gear. I would argue, more importantly, they provided training on commercial fishing to create commercial fishing enterprises and training of First Nation members who are part of the treaty nations who are going to participate in the fishery so they would be able to fish effectively and safely.
We have spent, in access through those programs over that time, about $550 million to achieve those results. Since those two program — and as the Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative continues, especially in regard to commercial fishing enterprise development and training — and in response to a court case with the Assembly of First Nations in Nova Scotia, we ended up co-developing to further advance the fishing rights beyond the program that we had achieved to date, which ended up being the mandate for the RRAs — the Rights Reconciliation Agreements — as a means of further advancing implementation of the treaty right beyond what our programs had done to date.
Under that process, you are correct, four First Nations, representing 25% of the treaty nations’ populations, have signed agreements. We could possibly see a lot more of those agreements in the months ahead.
And because in Nova Scotia there was a lack of appetite for the RRAs after discussions on RRAs for a period of time, we came up with another alternative way, which was through the moderate livelihood fishing plans, which was a concept that came out of Nova Scotia treaty nations, again, as an alternative way to continue advancing that right.
So I would believe, Mr. Chair, in answering the senator’s question, we have at different times since 1999 used different instruments to advance the right, mostly programmatic — MRI and AICFI at the beginning — and in more recent years through the RRA process and last year through the moderate livelihood fishing plans process, as a means identified by our partners as preferred ways of trying to advance the right further.
Senator Christmas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Chair. We have three RRAs and two understandings, and that involves 35 First Nation communities. You mentioned the programming of $550 million, and that $550 million is over 22 years. However, my understanding is that all that program money has nothing to do with treaty rights. It’s without prejudice to Aboriginal treaty rights.
I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Forgeron, to the Allister Surette report. He was appointed as the Federal Special Representative to look at moderate livelihood. In his final report, he says:
. . . the root of the conflict in the fishery is the unwillingness of DFO to recognize Indigenous rights and self-determination, and to share any of DFO’s jurisdiction . . . with the Indigenous communities.
He goes on to say:
. . . the Indigenous point of view that the Government of Canada is continuing to take a colonial approach to this matter, disregarding the governance and leadership of the Indigenous communities in the “nation-to-nation” commitment, hence continuing to impose and dictate their rules on the fisheries that is outside their scope and mandate.
So, Mr. Forgeron, why doesn’t DFO recognize section 35, the Aboriginal right to self-government in a moderate livelihood?
Mr. Forgeron: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will start by making a comment on one of the senator’s earlier comments, which is to say that something will prejudice the right is not the same as saying it is not relevant to or does not support the implementation of the right. In the view of DFO, the programs we have undertaken since 1999 have indeed been undertaken in a manner that advances the implementation of the treaty right to fish for a moderate livelihood.
Gorazd, would you like to speak to the report provided by the Federal Special Representative?
Gorazd Ruseski, Director General, Indigenous Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning, everybody. Since this is the first time I’m speaking, I would like to acknowledge I have the privilege of coming to you from my home in the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Indeed, I had the privilege of actually working with Allister Surette, the Federal Special Representative, and supporting him in his engagement with Indigenous partners, with industry and other stakeholders in the Atlantic fisheries in the development of his report and recommendations.
I think what was an important takeaway for me, coming out of that report and in the process, was not just the views that were expressed by the treaty nations about how far the government has gone to implement the moderate livelihood right, but also a particular concern about relationship building between Indigenous and non-Indigenous harvesters in the sector. And, indeed, many of the recommendations from the FSR’s report focused in on that very issue and how we might go about overcoming some of those relationship challenges.
He did recommend, among other things, that there be a clearing house of information that be made available on the moderate livelihood fishing right and the efforts the government has and is continuing to make to further implement that right.
He made recommendations about the establishment of local or area-specific tables for exchange of information and dialogue between DFO, between Indigenous nations and between non-Indigenous harvesters and their associations. He also recommended collaborative projects that might be a way to help build or rebuild relationships in areas where industry and Indigenous may have common cause.
A couple of specific areas where he focused in on had to do with science collaborations: gathering, sharing and interpreting information that might help further consider the sustainability of the fishery resource, particularly lobster, but not exclusively so. And there have been some processes set up by the department since his recommendation in that area to enable that.
As well, on my team, we initiated, during the time that the FSR was engaging with others and developing the input for his report and, since that time, continued to have a table for exchange of information with industry to further explain and answer some of their questions about the nature of the right and how the department is going about implementing it. Hopefully, over time, we will be at a place where, with ourselves and with industry, we will also have an ability to bring Indigenous partners and perspectives into that conversation as well.
Senator Christmas: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question wasn’t answered but I will wait for the third round.
The Chair: Before I go to Senator Ravalia, I have a question myself. I want to butt in here. I apologize to the members.
Mr. Forgeron, when you were answering one of the questions — and I may have taken it wrong — from Senator Christmas, you stated that “current tools” that we had to advance the rights. I just wonder, do you require additional tools to further advance the rights and, if so, what efforts are being put forward to access or create those additional tools?
Mr. Forgeron: At the moment, we think the tools we have seem to be working and have a possibility for further advancing implementation rights with a number of First Nations. Some prefer, in fact, the RRA — or RIA in parts of New Brunswick — process, or the moderate livelihood fishing plans. Other treaty nations are looking to have, I would say, a reboot of the system, and we as a department have begun reflecting on what would be the best way to move forward. But it is something that we should not be reflecting on by ourselves.
In fact, we started a process of consultation over the summer to have an idea of getting information from our First Nation treaty partners on how they think is the best means to advance the right. We’re not at a point where we’re ready to go off in a new direction, but continue to pursue advancing rights with the current tools we have. We think there is a significant opportunity of successfully advancing the right for some First Nations in the short term under the current tools.
However, as I mentioned earlier, the mandate for RRAs will end soon and our successor approach is yet to be determined. It will be informed by our analysis of how things have gone to date and what our treaty nation colleagues and partners would want to do. As I mentioned earlier, the RRA process was co-developed with KMK and Nova Scotia treaty nations. The moderate livelihood fishery plan approach also emerged largely out of Nova Scotia as well, and we will be looking to our treaty nation partners on what the best approach is in the future. I don’t have a specific answer for you, Mr. Chair, at the moment.
The Chair: Thank you. We will go to the committee room now.
Senator Ravalia: My question is an extension of what was referred to earlier in the question period. The moderate livelihood fisheries agreement reached between First Nations and Fisheries and Oceans Canada seems to me interim and short term with many hiccups and not a firm plan on a go-forward basis. Mr. Forgeron, do you have a long-term measure with respect to your department to implement the moderate livelihood fisheries on a more permanent basis? Do you get a sense that there is some resistance within your department to achieve this?
Mr. Forgeron: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We believe all the programming and agreements we do are part of answering the need to meet the treaty right in the long term — in an incremental way. I think the question is, “When do you know it’s fully implemented?” The answer is that we don’t know nor have our First Nation treaty partners defined what they think full implementation looks like. That is something that we discuss with them, but every program — be it the Marshall Response Initiative, AICFI, RRAs or the moderate livelihood fishing plans — is a building block to the complete implementation of the right.
They are not interim by nature but are building blocks that build and build toward the achievement of that right, which has never been defined as having a finishing point. To be clear about when I say “finishing point,” there is no absolute finishing point to addressing this treaty right because the treaty right will change over time as First Nations communities change over time and the requirements change over time. It will be an evergreen process in one way or another that the department recognizes will never be concluded even if there were a day that people said, “Today we are meeting our moderate livelihood rights; they are completely fulfilled.” That might not be the case in five years’ time. We recognize the treaty is a living treaty and therefore implementation of the right will be an ongoing, living responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I am speaking today from the Algonquin Anishinaabe Territory. My question goes to both Mr. Forgeron and Mr. Ruseski.
These are complex issues. So that we can properly grasp which ones are in play, can you remind us of the difference between a commercial fishery and a communal commercial fishery? How does communal commercial fishing differ from moderate livelihood fishing?
[English]
Mr. Forgeron: Thank you for that question. Commercial fishing as you traditionally know it is people who are individual fish harvesters, fishing to make a living and a livelihood off fishing. Traditionally, they receive commercial licences under the Fisheries Act. Fishing for a moderate livelihood is another form of commercial fishing because you are fishing for a livelihood.
However, these licences are licensed differently because the right to fish is a communal right held by the First Nation government and not by the individual members. These licences are issued not to individual harvesters — the individuals who are the owner-operators and who have been issued licences year after year to fish commercially, own their own vessel and gear, may have a crew that supports them in that and derive their living from it. They have an individual commercial licence. In the case of communal rights fishing, we have regulations that allow us to provide a communal commercial licence to an Indigenous organization.
The moderate livelihood fishing that has happened as a result of our programming over the years is fished under these commercial communal licences that are issued to the First Nation itself as a community. Then they determine who fishes that licence on behalf of that community.
Moderate livelihood fishing plans — the ones we spoke about earlier — fish under that regime.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: In terms of the legislation, which provisions in the Fisheries Act, or in any other federal acts or regulations, should be amended to recognize rights-based fishing, such as moderate livelihood fishing? That may be a huge question, but do you have any suggestions as to the legislation involved?
[English]
Mr. Forgeron: The department recognizes the right to fish for a moderate livelihood as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, and we know it is constitutionally protected under section 35. We have never envisioned putting in legislation, specifically recognizing that. I think there is no issue of recognizing that fact.
When it comes to implementing the right, the act does provide us the regulatory tools to do so. The Aboriginal communal commercial fishing regulations that we use to issue commercial communal licences are great examples of those tools that the current legislation has. They are flexible enough that they address the right without specifically naming it per se, but there is no question on the part of the department or the government that this right is a recognized right as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The department believes it is its duty and responsibility to implement all of the elements of the decision.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Kutcher: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. I am confirming that I live in the unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq peoples in what is currently Nova Scotia.
During our last session — now some six to eight months ago — numerous witnesses raised substantial concerns about systemic racism within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, and the need to effectively address this. We also learned about activities that could be implemented to deal with this systemic racism issue.
Could you please share with us what specific activities DFO has undertaken within the last six months to address this particular issue? Thank you.
Mr. Ruseski: Thank you for the question, senator. To respond adequately to your question, I would have to go back a little bit in time to a few years ago and then build up to today. A few years ago, in response to the government-wide rights and reconciliation agenda that was being promulgated at that time, our department initiated the development of a department-wide reconciliation strategy.
That strategy was meant to educate and initiate for all DFO and Canadian Coast Guard employees a better understanding of how Indigenous rights and reconciliation play out in our department’s portfolio and activities. It was meant to do so in a way that identified opportunities to advance rights and reconciliation in virtually every business line of the department, not just in the resource management and operational activities therein but also in science, in habitat, in Coast Guard and even in the administrative functions of the department.
A few years later — I think it was in September 2019, if my memory serves — that strategy was actually made public. Since that time, the department has been working to implement that strategy.
Among other elements of that strategy, as I mentioned, were initiatives and actions that related to administrative areas of the department, including in our HR and corporate services areas. For example, the department undertook to develop an Indigenous employee recruitment, retention and development strategy. The department also undertook to promote employee training, whether it is on Indigenous history in Canada or relationship competency development for employees in program areas that are just starting to get involved in working with Indigenous partners across the country in their particular areas or, more generally, to promote diversity and inclusion training to all of our employees, including mandatory training for DFO and Coast Guard executives. That included diversity inclusion training, unconscious bias training and workshops related to those things. Those have been happening on an ongoing basis, including recent months, and folks have been taking that kind of training.
In addition to that, it was also a couple of years ago that we stood up reconciliation co-champions to promote the department’s strategy, to promote these actions in support of Indigenous employees and in support of non-Indigenous employee education and awareness. There are currently three co-champions, one of which happens to be Mr. Forgeron. They are leading this wider culture change in our department, which is again really helping to be advanced through that DFO strategy.
I should also add, since I played a pretty significant part in the development of that strategy some years ago, I have not seen a comparable strategy in other departments or agencies across Ottawa so far. However, I am aware that some departments and agencies are working on similar strategies and taking slightly different tacks associated with it.
We are taking steps to establish Indigenous employee networks in our department. There is an Indigenous employee network in our Pacific region. There’s an informal network that has been set up in our Gulf region. There is another network that has been set up for Indigenous employees working in conservation and protection in the Maritimes and Gulf regions. Indeed, there’s a national DFO and Coast Guard Indigenous employees network meeting taking place next week that will involve people in Ottawa as well as a virtual meeting.
I should finish by also mentioning that in January of this year the department hosted an interdepartmental meeting, a workshop on reconciliation that included many other departments and agencies. Again, that workshop also had a focus on Indigenous employee experiences working in the federal public service, and some tools and approaches that our department and other departments could share that would help to enhance that experience and their recruitment, retention and development in the public service.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much.
Mr. Forgeron: Mr. Chair, I would also like to add, as Mr. Ruseski mentioned, that I am a co-champion. I would not say I am leading it. We have established a task force involving a number of our Indigenous colleagues who are really, truly champions in leading on a reconciliation work plan with the department and with champions of reconciliation throughout the department. They are building a reconciliation work plan from the ground up involving our Indigenous colleagues here at DFO.
They gave me the title “champion,” but I would call myself a supporter of those who are the real champions in this exercise.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that explanation. I think we all need to be champions in that exercise — supporters, champions and allies at the same time. I appreciate that information.
I would have thought — and it sounds like the department is doing some good work — that as part of that work you would be able to share with us the data showing us how racism has changed within the department. Would you be able to share with this committee the data that you have? I would assume you would have done measures before you put in these programs and then measure it again to see how effective your interventions have been. I look forward to hopefully getting some of that data from you. Thank you.
Senator Quinn: Mr. Forgeron, thanks to you and your colleagues for being here this morning.
I am a new senator and this is my first time on this committee. I am coming back to moderate livelihood. Could you talk a little bit about the metrics that are contained within the concept of moderate livelihood? How do you define “moderate livelihood?”
Mr. Forgeron: The court defined “moderate livelihood” as an income that paid for the necessities of life and a few comforts but not the accumulation of wealth. That’s a very broad definition. I do not believe anybody has put a narrower definition to it. The necessities of life being food, shelter and a few other things.
The court made it clear that it was not a right to an open-ended accumulation of wealth. Food, clothing and housing would, of course, be the bare necessities, we assume. Within the hierarchy, within fishing rights, there are food, social and ceremonial fishing rights that are enjoyed by our Indigenous communities across the country, the right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, which is not a commercial fishing right.
Among the 35 treaty nations in the Maritimes and Gaspé, there is a right to a moderate livelihood fishing, which is a commercial fishing right that would be layered on top of that. Our highest priority from a fish management point of view at the department is the food, social ceremonial and Aboriginal right, then the treaty commercial right. If there was a line definition of where that moderate livelihood treaty right would be, First Nations would, of course, continue to fish beyond that. But there has been no set established metric to define the moderate livelihood right to date.
Senator Quinn: I would think that would be very difficult to do given the varying circumstances of the First Nations and their particular circumstances across the country. Thank you for that.
I have a follow-up question. You mentioned that the Rights Reconciliation Agreements belong to the First Nations. Does the First Nations planning define what that RRA is?
Mr. Forgeron: The moderate livelihood fishing plans are developed by the First Nations — holding a pen as we officials would say on those. The RRAs or RIAs, depending on which term our treaty nation partners like to use, are a negotiated agreement.
Senator Quinn: How does the first one link into discussions with the other fishers in the areas that are in question? How does that tie into the other theme that you have, which is sustainability? I would think that the fishing community as a whole has a responsibility with respect to sustainability. What is the interaction between the First Nations, the other fishers and sustainability?
Mr. Forgeron: Sustainability should be everybody’s priority in the fishery, and it is the number one priority of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. One of the points in the Marshall decision was clear that the Government of Canada and, through the Fisheries Act, DFO had the authority to regulate the exercise of the treaty right for conservation or other compelling reasons, and primarily for conservation.
DFO is still responsible for the overall conservation. That’s one of the reasons in the March 3 statement by former Minister Jordan, that one of the points was that in advancing the treaty rights, we are not creating new access. We do not want to create new fishing pressure that will risk our conservation goals.
Our conservation goals are objectives shared by our treaty nation partners and the industry. When it comes to discussion of the moderate livelihood fishing plans or the RRAs, that is a nation-to-nation relationship between the Government of Canada, the treaty nation and/or whatever organization that treaty nation wants to use for purposes of negotiation. It is not something in which industry should or can be involved in. Unless a treaty nation wanted to, we wouldn’t actually involve the industry. In fact, I recently sent a letter from myself to the major inshore fishing associations on the East Coast explaining this issue. If the committee is interested, I would be happy to share that letter for its information. It explains the nation-to-nation relationship and why industry is not a participant in these negotiations.
Industry and First Nations can have discussions if both parties want to do so on a specific issue. There is nothing that prevents that or prevents First Nations from sharing information. Certain First Nations will put up information about their agreements, making them very public, be they moderate livelihood fishing plans or RRAs. For instance, the Listuguj Mi’kmaq government has put up its RRA on its website without the financial details, which they decided not to do for commercial confidentiality reasons, which makes reasonable sense. The moderate livelihood fishing plan on lobster with Acadia First Nation is posted on Acadia First Nation’s website, for instance. But it is their decision to post these documents. In the agreement, we agreed, but it was their decision to make these things public so that if the commercial industry is curious to see what these things look like, they have that opportunity.
Aside from that, we speak with the industry all the time at different levels of the organization, in which we talk about all fisheries management issues, which also include issues regarding rights implementation. We have had a series on the rights implementation side, we have had a series of workshops and ongoing work that we are planning on increasing the industry’s understanding of Indigenous rights and their implementation. But when it comes to the actual negotiations, the negotiations are between the Crown and the individual First Nation.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, I look forward to seeing the letter. That was excellent.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Forgeron, you can forward the letter to the clerk, who can forward it to all the members of the committee.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, Mr. Forgeron, to you and your colleagues for joining us today. I’m speaking from the unceded land of the Algonquin and Anishinaabe peoples.
Previous witnesses to this committee have explained that since DFO has no real mandate to implement the self-determination and fishery rights of the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples, that the department’s focus since 1999 has been to get First Nations to sign on to temporary agreements focused on increasing access and building capacities in the commercial fisheries. The temporary agreements include the Rights Reconciliation Agreements ranging from 5 to 10 years, and the season-specific Netukulimk livelihood fisheries pursued by a few First Nations in Nova Scotia, as you stated earlier in your remarks this morning.
Is it the view of the department that the communities that sign these interim agreements did so without prejudice to their rights? In other words, is it the view of the department that these interim agreements do not equate to the implementation of their self-determination in fishery rights and that there is still work to do?
Mr. Forgeron: As I mentioned earlier, yes, it is “without prejudice the right.” However, saying “without prejudice the right” is not the same thing as saying, “it is not relevant or does not support the implementation of the right.” Every one of these agreements — and these types of agreements are only recent agreements. We did things through programs since 1999. It’s only over the last four or five years or so we are using these agreements. We believe that they are an incremental, building-block step forward implementation of the right. It does not conclude the implementation of the right. In an agreement, it concludes, for that period of time, the resources provided for that further advancement and it gives the opportunity for the First Nation to use — if it’s an RRA for instance — resources to go out and the acquire accessing gear over a number of years, and continue to advance the right using the resources from the agreement.
The collaborative governance is another element of the RRAs that people haven’t spent much time discussing, at least today, in how we manage our relationship with that First Nation in advancing their fishing rights. RRAs can be in three forms, technically. It could be to provide funding for access to licences, quotas, gear and vessels. That’s one type. Another type, theoretically, is on collaborative governance, which is funding to create that collaborative governance between the First Nation, the aggregate and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the rules on how that would work. Or it could be comprehensive, which has the two elements together. The RRA in New Brunswick, for instance, is only on accessing gear. We are negotiating the collaborative governance one and the management component. The one in Listuguj, for instance, which is the most public RRA, is comprehensive. It has both — les deux volets — of the agreement system of collaborative management and of access for licences, quotas, gear or vessels.
All of this, in the view of the Crown, counts towards the further implementation of the right, but it does not define the right and nobody says, “this is it.” But it is, as I mentioned, an incremental building block towards achieving the goal of implementing the right.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for that.
Mr. Forgeron: I hope that answered the question.
Senator Cordy: That was very detailed. Thank you very much for that. I’m new to the committee, so it’s very helpful.
I understand that the departmental mandate is set to expire this month. Can we expect a new mandate before the old one expires? And what commitments can we expect for the implementation of self-determination in fisheries of the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples?
I’ll add to that the funding envelope that will accompany this mandate. Will the department focus on implementing self-determination and fishery rights of the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy peoples?
Mr. Forgeron: I don’t think I’m in a position to talk about new mandates that could be coming forward, as that would be within the realm of cabinet confidences. But as I mentioned earlier, we began engaging our treaty nation partners who are an important partner in deciding what future mandates, or what we do to bridge ourselves to a new mandate would look like. Currently, it’s the modern livelihood fishing plans, and we’re still driving forward with the RRAs in the interim.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. We can always try, though, when we ask those questions.
Mr. Forgeron: I could have gotten myself in trouble.
Senator Campbell: I’m trying to understand how the East Coast fishery compares with the West Coast fishery. We haven’t seen the actions on the West Coast that we saw on the East Coast. Why am I not seeing that on the West Coast? Is there a difference between the commitment for the fishery for Indigenous people? I’m really confused by that. I live in a community on the unceded territory of the Penelakut Nation and they are fishing, seemingly without any turmoil. So my question is, what is the difference?
Mr. Forgeron: What is the difference? One has to recognize and reflect; if you look on the East Coast, the vast majority of treaty nations have not experienced necessarily the terrible occurrences that happened in southwest Nova and fish in a perfectly collaborative way with the commercial industry they neighbour.
I can’t speak to what compels individuals to act badly, as we saw with the burning of establishments and whatnot, but basically those who, to my understanding, participated in it were unhappy with what they saw as unauthorized fishing by certain First Nations and reacted strongly.
I’ll remind everybody that it was two summers ago, and last summer we didn’t see that same level of tension. Our goal as a department is that everybody fish together in an integrated commercial fishery authorized by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, be it through access that was provided through RRAs or moderate livelihood fishing plans, or for commercial fishermen by them adhering to the conditions of their licences.
Senator Campbell: I’m sorry, sir, but this isn’t answering my question. What I would like to know is what is the difference between the fishing on the East Coast and the fishing on the West Coast when it comes to Indigenous peoples. I don’t understand that.
Mr. Forgeron: One of the most significant differences is there is one type of fishing that happens on both coasts, which is food, social and ceremonial, which is an Aboriginal right established by the courts in B.C.; and we have recognized that right should exist across the nation, that Indigenous groups should be able to fish for their own personal food, social and ceremonial needs and that is a commercial communal right. That exists on all coasts.
The other big difference is, on the East Coast, in the Maritimes and in the Gaspé, there is a treaty right to commercially fish towards a moderate livelihood. That right does not exist on the Pacific coast because none of the Pacific nations, of course, are successor nations to the treaties of 1760-61 between the Crown and the First Nations of the Maritimes. So there is a commercial treaty right that exists for the 35 treaty nations, which is significantly different than the West Coast. There are treaty negotiations on the West Coast. There are reconciliation agreements that create economic access to fisheries of First Nations on the West Coast, but it is a very different situation.
One of the other differences is — and we have seen on the East Coast — as I noted, moderate livelihood fishing is commercial fishing. As the then minister made in her statement March 3, it is our expectation that moderate livelihood fishing would happen in the commercial season, though some First Nation communities in Atlantic Canada resist the idea of fishing during the commercial season for the purpose of pursuing a moderate livelihood.
The fishing-out-of-season issue does not appear to be as significant an issue on the West Coast where the FSC fishing happens when it’s authorized to and the commercial fishing on the West Coast happens when it is authorized to, as is the overwhelming majority of fishing in Atlantic Canada, be it by First Nations and of course commercial fishermen. It happens within season. Moderate livelihood fishing plans, for instance, saw that exact thing happen for a number of First Nations over the last year.
Senator Campbell: Thank you, sir. You did answer my question the second time there. I have a greater understanding now. I just was confused. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Senator McCallum: I’m here on behalf of Senator McPhedran and I’ll let everyone know that it’s my first time on this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Forgeron, for your presentation. I wanted to go back to one of the key principles that you spoke about, which is conservation and sustainability, and there are relationship challenges that will come with conservation and sustainability. I think that’s where a lot of the tension comes from, which will remain a tension if not fixed.
Darlene Bernard from the Lennox Island First Nation noted that if there were to be any issues regarding conservation, the privilege-based commercial fishing would be the first place where limitations would need to be explored, not the rights-based livelihood fishing.
What has been the biggest cause for concern regarding sustainability and conservation, and how do those concerns affect the full implementation of rights-based fishing, also taking into account the violence that happened and can certainly erupt again because the issues aren’t fixed, as well as taking in the Fisheries Act?
Mr. Forgeron: Conservation is our primary objective at all times. One thing I should mention is rights-based fishing takes priority over non-rights-based fishing. For instance, FSC fishing — food, social and ceremonial fishing — which is a recognized Aboriginal right, is priority over any kind of commercial fishing of any sort by DFO because it is rights-based not a privilege-based fishery.
Different fisheries are managed in different ways, and a lot of them are based on a total allowable catch, which is based on our science or quotas within a total allowable catch based on our science, which determines the biomass and allows the fish harvesters to fish a sustainable level of fishing.
Where things get a little bit more complicated is in a fishery like lobster, which is not based on total allowable catch but based on what we call effort, that you’re allowed to fish a certain number of traps for a certain number of days during a certain part of the year. Most of our scientific information is fisheries-dependent because of how this fishery is structured. We know that at this point and time the stocks are healthy. In fact, they are probably getting on an even healthier trend as landings have been good for years.
However, any changes to the fishery have to be done in an exceptionally careful way because it is an efforts-based fishery dependent on fishery-dependent information, for the most part, though we do have different kinds of surveying to underline our science.
One of the reasons why we established a Lobster Science Partnership Roundtable, which is a multi-stakeholder roundtable including DFO, the commercial industry, First Nation groups, provinces, academics, was so that everybody has a clear understanding of the science around lobster fishing.
One of the previous questions from one of the senators was we seem to be always talking about lobster but does it apply to everything else? It does. In lobster, it’s quite complicated. It’s one of the reasons why as a general conservation principle, because of the healthy nature of this fishery, we are not trying to create new access and new pressure on the fishery by increasing access.
That is why in the March 3 statement, the minister said we’ll be looking to advance moderate livelihood fishing rights by new access to our treaty nation partners, but we will not be creating that new access; we’ll be getting that access from the current access held by the current commercial industry.
It is also one of the reasons why seasons are particularly important, because we have to understand the data over time. We have to be comparing, to use an analogy which is certainly an outside fish, apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
What comes out of the ocean using the same fishing means, with the same number of traps over the same number of days over the same period of the year in the life cycle of lobster, gives us a data series upon which to know what is the state of the stock.
I hope that answered your conservation question. Conservation is always number one with us, and in rights and when it comes to providing access to the fishing opportunities, FSC, for instance — which is a rights-based fishery, lobster or other species — takes priority over commercial interests.
Senator McCallum: Are you optimistic that we will see the day that rights-based fishing will be fully implemented?
Mr. Forgeron: I’m going to answer that in two ways.
I think it is absolutely a possibility that it could be fully implemented.
But the second part is that it will never, ever always be completely, fully implemented because, as I mentioned earlier, as it’s a right-based fishery that is a part of a living treaty, even if we got to a situation where we came to an agreement or a decision that said at this moment in time the right to a moderate livelihood is being completely met at this moment, that is a moment in time.
It is the responsibility of the Crown to ensure that the right is completely, fully implemented over time, which means even if we got to a point in the future — I’m hopeful that will be the case — we would have to revisit it from time to time to ensure that the right is being fully implemented based on the needs of the treaty nations, changes in their communities.
As I mentioned earlier, the department recognizes and the government recognizes we can fully implement the right for a moment, but there will always be an exercise to ensure that the right is continuing to be fully implemented over time and that will never stop.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator McCallum.
We will go to our second round now,
Senator Francis: Mr. Forgeron, former Minister Bernadette Jordan, who appeared in front of this committee on June 15, 2021, made a commitment to provide us with all the factual and scientific information used by your department to continue to infringe on the self-determination and fisheries rights of the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy. Unfortunately, we never received a response. I would like to follow up on this request today.
Many communities maintain that there has been a lack of clear evidence and formal consultation since the Marshall decision of 1999. There are also serious concerns that justifications have not been made on science or fact, but rather colonial or racist assumptions.
To help our committee assess the validity of past and current government actions, could you please provide us with all the factual and scientific evidence used by your department to infringe on the self-determination of fisheries rights of the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy on conservation and other purposes?
I would like to have it as soon as possible, please.
Mr. Forgeron: Mr. Chair, could I ask a question of clarification?
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Forgeron.
Mr. Forgeron: Would that be the scientific data on old fisheries, or is there a specific fishery the senator would like us to supply scientific data on?
Senator Francis: All fisheries, please. Thank you.
The Chair: Do you have a follow-up question, Senator Francis?
Senator Francis: Yes, I do.
Could you please provide this committee with a list of all formal consultations with the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy led by your department since 1999, specifically focused on the implementation of the moderate livelihood fisheries?
Mr. Forgeron: I am certain we will be able to provide a list for recent years.
I do not know if we have the information that goes back that far. We will make an attempt to put together as comprehensive and as complete a list as possible.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
The Chair: I appreciate that.
If I could, Mr. Forgeron, as soon as you can, we would like to have that information. We are hoping to have a report back to the Senate Chamber by June 1. The quicker we can have the information we can start compiling, as part of our report, anything that may come from the information that you provide. We appreciate that very much.
Mr. Forgeron: Mr. Chair, I’ll add these will probably be a list of the very formal discussions. I would like to note that discussions between the treaty nations and members of the DFO team happen informally on a near-daily basis.
I see here my Regional Director General, Maritimes Region, Doug Wentzell, who reports on almost daily calls with either KMK members — if we are going to use a Nova Scotian example, because it is primarily Nova Scotia he speaks to — or with the Chief of the Passamaquoddy, or different chiefs around Nova Scotia, as well as our ongoing engagement with our First Nation partners through the AICFI program, which provides different kinds of support, through our AAROM Program and Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy agreements. Although this list will perhaps have the formal negotiations, we are going to have to spend a little bit of time finding it but we will try to do so quickly, Mr. Chair, recognizing your timelines.
However, it will be a tip of the iceberg of the ongoing discussions and consultations in advancing the commercial fishing activities and the FSC fishing activities of First Nations on the East Coast.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forgeron. I look forward to receiving that information.
Senator Christmas: Before I ask my question, I want to note one concern.
Mr. Forgeron’s previous response characterized the DFO funding programs as being related to the treaty right. And my understanding of those agreements, that they are without prejudice. It sounds like his answer is bordering on prejudice.
Mr. Forgeron, as you’re aware, the Sipekne’katik First Nation last year had submitted a complaint to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
I understand that the UN committee is seeking a response from Canada in regards to the violence and the racism that Mi’kmaq lobster fishermen had experienced trying to implement their treaty right to fish.
I understand that Canada has provided a response to the UN committee, but it has not been made public. Can you explain why Canada’s response has not been shared with Canadians?
Mr. Forgeron: I would have to turn to Mr. Ruseski for a moment.
I don’t believe it has been sent to the committee yet, nor has a decision been made as to whether it will be made public. That was my understanding as of a few days ago.
I do note that the convention of the Government of Canada when submitting reports in response to this UN committee is not to make it public. I will turn to Mr. Ruseski if he has any further details.
Mr. Ruseski: Thank you for the question, senator. I can confirm that a response to the UN committee has been developed and, in fact, finalized. My understanding is that it has been approved by the heads of all the departments that contributed to the response. Multiple departments and agencies were involved in developing the response.
The overall lead for the development of that response is Heritage Canada. It is my understanding that we are awaiting the final sign-off from Heritage Canada on that response, at which point it will be sent to Global Affairs Canada and they will transmit the response to the committee.
I can also confirm what Mr. Forgeron said. My understanding is that a determination has not yet been made on whether or not that response will be made public and that the convention with such inquiries is not to release such responses.
Senator Christmas: I don’t have a supplementary question, Mr. Chair, but I would very much appreciate it if the committee would consider requesting access to the response that’s being submitted to the United Nations.
The Chair: We can discuss that, Senator Christmas, and follow up.
I have not been informed of any other honourable senator wishing to ask a question. I want to thank our witnesses, each and every one of you, for taking the time to appear before us today. It was an informative discussion and a fruitful session. I’m sure other questions may arise from our get-together this morning. I ask senators to feel free to contact the officials and follow up if something comes up from the discussions we’ve had.
Honourable senators, I would like to deal with a housekeeping matter. I would appreciate it if a senator could move the following motion:
That each committee member be allowed to have one staff member present at in camera meetings unless otherwise agreed to by the committee.
Senator Cormier: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Senator Cormier and seconded by Senator Quinn. If you are against the motion, please say “no.”
Motion carried.
Once again, I want to thank our witnesses for their time this morning. Unless someone objects, we will now go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)