THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 28, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 8:33 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the independence of commercial inshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and the policies and legislative tools used by the Government of Canada to preserve it, such as the Owner-Operator Policy.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good morning. My name is Fabian Manning. I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the pleasure of chairing this committee.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please ensure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. It will be turned on and off by the console operator.
Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on; you may either keep it on your ear or place it on the designated sticker. Thank you for your cooperation.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to me or the clerk, and we will work to resolve your issue.
Before we begin, I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator C. Deacon: Good morning. Welcome. Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Welcome. I am Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Good morning. Welcome. Mohamed Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Prosper: Kwe, weli eksitpu’k. P. J. Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Cuzner: Good morning. Rodger Cuzner from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Good morning. I’m Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Busson: Good morning. I am Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia.
Senator Surette: Allister Surette from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. On November 18, 2025, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on the independence of commercial inshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and the policies and legislative tools used by the Government of Canada to preserve it, such as the Owner-Operator policy.
Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from the following individuals: Chief Robert Gloade, Co-Chair, and Melissa Nevin, Director of Fisheries and Integrated Resources from the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat; and Denny Isaac, Associate Director of Natural Resources, from the Listuguj Mi’gmaq Government.
We will have some opening remarks, and then the senators will have some questions for you. Mr. Isaac, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Denny Isaac, Associate Director, Natural Resources, Listuguj Mi’gmaq Government: Weliegsitpu’g. Good morning.
[English]
Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Denny Isaac, and I serve as the Associate Director of the Natural Resources Directorate for the Listuguj Mi’gmaq Government. I thank you all for allowing me to speak today on behalf of my community of Listuguj, home to over 4,400 Mi’kmaq members, who belong to the Mi’kmaq territory of Gespe’gewa’gi. We fish in the waters of our territory, which includes the Restigouche River watershed, Chaleur Bay, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence River.
The relationship to our territory has always and continues to this very day to provide for our needs, and it is this relationship that is the source of our way of life and our inherent rights. We have a sacred responsibility and duty to protect it, not only for our children, but also for the generations to come.
Our community, in keeping with Mi’kmaq tradition, has a custom where we develop, adopt and implement our own laws to ensure the safety and sustainability of our fisheries, while upholding our value systems. More importantly, they are tools we can use to break out of the generational cycle of discrimination, control, denial and conflict. Our community is also a part of the Peace and Friendship Treaties, which not only affirm our right to fish and sell fish, but also the authority to govern our fishery for the benefit of our community.
Today, I will make three key recommendations in hopes of giving notice and voice to my community.
First, supporting Mi’kmaq fisheries strengthens independent inshore fisheries and local economies.
One of the central aims of the Owner-Operator policy is to keep the benefits of the fishery in local communities. Mi’kmaq fisheries do exactly that. We do not exploit communal licences to maximize corporate profit. Instead, we aim to maximize community participation by providing careers, distributing access and sharing our catch with our community, prioritizing our Elders and members in need.
The success of our fisheries also benefits local coastal communities and the broader regional economy. In a 2023 socio‑economic study conducted by Group ATN Strategies Inc., between 2019 and 2022, Listuguj Fisheries’ operational and capital expenditures contributed to the Quebec economy with $21 million in GDP and $17 million in household income; and to the Canadian economy with $30 million in GDP and $22 million in household income.
The success of our fisheries is enabled by the communal and collective nature of our fisheries and rights. When our community thrives, our relationships with neighbouring communities are strengthened as well.
Second, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO must review its regulatory framework to respect Mi’kmaq rights and priorities. In your 2022 report Peace on the Water, this committee recommended that Canada, with the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Peskotomuhkati Nations, review and amend all relevant laws to align with its rights-based domestic and international obligations. This has not happened.
The Constitution requires the DFO to prioritize access to rights-based fisheries; it does not. Instead, the DFO pursues the willing-buyer, willing-seller approach where the minister only approves the transfer of licences held by non-Indigenous to First Nations when the non-Indigenous fisher agrees to the transfer and the price. This has two negative consequences: One, it prioritizes non-Indigenous fishers’ privileges over First Nations’ rights; and, two, it drives the price of licences to irrational heights.
One of the biggest barriers to implementing Mi’kmaq fishery rights, and the biggest threat to the independence of the inshore fishery is the exorbitant price of licences.
DFO’s refusal to prioritize our rights is the main factor contributing to the extreme prices of licences, and we share the industry’s concerns that DFO’s practices artificially inflate the price of licences by treating them as private property, even though in law and policy they are not.
We ask the committee to renew their recommendation for a wholesale review of Canada’s fisheries regime to ensure it respects Mi’kmaq rights and reflects the priority that Mi’kmaq fisheries are entitled to.
Finally, DFO must use existing tools to recognize Mi’kmaq rights and laws, specifically sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Fisheries Act.
In 2021, Listuguj and Canada entered into the Rights Reconciliation Agreement, or RRA, on fisheries enabled by section 4.1. It commits Canada to co-management and recognizing our treaty rights and Mi’kmaq laws in fisheries, instead of forcing us into frameworks that conflict with our rights.
However, DFO has failed to mandate its participants in the RRA process to enable this rights recognition.
Furthermore, DFO refuses to use its existing authority under section 4.2 of the Fisheries Act to recognize Mi’kmaq laws. The RRA was a good first step, but the DFO needs to follow through on its promises in the agreement and recognize and implement our rights.
This committee also emphasized the importance of section 4.1 agreements for true nation-to-nation decision-making in your Peace on the Water report.
The DFO already has the existing tools to recognize, respect and implement Mi’kmaq fishery rights. It must use them. We ask the committee to renew its recommendation and urge DFO to use existing tools under sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Fisheries Act to recognize and implement our rights and Mi’kmaq laws fully.
Wela’lioq. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Isaac.
Chief Gloade, the floor is yours.
Robert Gloade, Co-Chair, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat: Good morning, senators. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am Chief Bob Gloade, Millbrook First Nation, also the co-chair of the Atlantic Policy Congress, also known as APC.
APC supports Atlantic First Nations through policy, research and development of program alternatives.
I come before this committee with a different perspective, as First Nations fishing is tied to our responsibilities as stewards and is part of our culture and identity.
Our fisheries provide food security, access to cultural practices and support community health.
I can’t speak much about the policies and legislation used by Canada to preserve the commercial inshore fisheries in the Atlantic, but I can speak to how the fisheries intersect with the First Nations communal commercial fisheries.
Both fisheries face similar challenges, like harvesters struggling to make ends meet due to high expenses and limited processing capacity. They both struggle to attract new and young talent, as has been mentioned to this committee.
First Nation communal commercial fisheries differ from commercial inshore, as they are a distinct, legal category and are based on inherent and treaty rights.
There are a lot of misconceptions around communal commercial fisheries. Atlantic First Nations still rely on DFO for licences to be able to access fisheries.
The communal licences come with strict conditions and certain vessel restrictions. There are no policies yet for these licences, so there have been drastic differences between DFO regions in licensing and management.
Additionally, access through these licences is still quite limited. It is tied to negotiations, which are not always predictable or equitable.
Atlantic First Nations commercial fisheries still only make up 6% of the overall Atlantic fishery landings.
Communal commercial fisheries are a major source of income for communities in the Atlantic, often being the biggest source. These fisheries have provided many community members across the Atlantic with the opportunity to fish.
They have also supported communities in developing new community spaces and programs, such as watershed restoration. These fisheries have all been essential to Atlantic First Nations and need to stay separate from commercial inshore fisheries.
The Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat has worked with the Fisheries and Oceans Canada on the development of the communal commercial licensing policy to provide direction and guidance on communal commercial licences.
The flexibility of this policy allows First Nations communities to fish more equitably as First Nations are continuing to build their capacity and manage their small-scale commercial fishery enterprises.
First Nations do not have large fishing associations to advocate for our communities and continue to marginalize our presence and communal commercial and rights-based fisheries.
The communal commercial licensing policy was developed in cooperation with the Atlantic First Nations fisheries director. We recommended to the Senate that they support this policy and reconciliation by supporting our fishing and economic rights to provide for our First Nations in Atlantic Canada.
Senators, I want to thank you for your time today. In closing, I believe inshore commercial fisheries and communal commercial fisheries can coexist in Atlantic waters.
The question remains on how to build policies and regulations to protect independence, respect rights and support the communities who depend on the fisheries.
Wela’lioq. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Gloade.
Senator Busson: Thank you to all of you for being here today.
I’m interested in some of the comments, specifically Chief Gloade, that you referred to when you were talking about the communal commercial fishery.
I’m from the West Coast. I’m not at all familiar with the communal fishery on the East Coast.
Could you explain in a little detail how the communal fishery works within the communities that you represent? For instance, are they managed by your council? How are they managed and how do they actually work in the real world?
Mr. Gloade: In our communities, our fisheries are managed by our fisheries directors and team within each respective community.
Other than that, Ms. Nevin, do you have anything else you would like to add to that, other than our fisheries directors within our communities?
Melissa Nevin, Director of Fisheries and Integrated Resources, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat: Yes. I echo what Mr. Isaac and Chief Gloade have indicated. The fishery is managed within the communities by their directors and their staff, so there are different levels.
Communal commercial licensing is more of a commercial as opposed to a moderate livelihood and food, social and ceremonial fisheries. This provides economic revenues to the community and also provides capacity for training, safety and fishing and brings in economic revenues not only to the region but to the communities.
As Chief Gloade said, this is 6% of the overall fisheries. We have to remember that non-Indigenous fisheries are in the billions of dollars, whereas all of the 40 communities within the Atlantic region are in the hundreds of millions of dollars tops. That’s for 40 communities, in comparison to the billion-dollar industry of the non-Indigenous fishery.
Senator Busson: To follow up, I want to get more of an understanding of how this operates.
Who owns the boats and who owns the licences in the regime you are describing?
Ms. Nevin: In the regime that we’re describing for communal commercial licensing, it is owned by the band.
Senator Busson: Okay.
Ms. Nevin: Most of the time. There are exceptions to this. But the norm is the community owns the vessels, and organizations do all of the safety training.
Yes, the bands own the licences as well.
Senator Busson: Okay.
Mr. Gloade: To reiterate, the bands own the commercial licences on the commercial side of it for our communities.
The majority of the boats are owned by the communities as a communal fleet. There are some individuals in our community that are working toward self-sufficiency and are purchasing their own boats. They require more support and long-term contracts with the band. That’s on the commercial side of it.
There has been an increasing willingness to participate at that level because of the current long-term opportunities for our harvesters within our respective communities.
It’s a mixture of both, but even the gear — primarily, each captain has their own gear. They fish communal commercial licences within their respective communities, and they are managed by our fisheries directors. We have teams. In some communities, we have guardians. For example, recently, we hired two former DFO officers in our community as part of our safety team. But now we are struggling to have them recognized at the same level as when they were working under DFO. Now, they are just guardians when they work for us. We are working toward that with DFO — to have them considered having the same recognition. They are 20- and 25-plus-year veterans of DFO, former officers, but now they are just guardians when they work for us.
Senator Busson: Just for a bit more clarification, under the process that you’re describing with the band owning the vessels and, generally, the licences, the folks who go out fishing would be considered employees? Would most of the profit go to the band or the community? Am I getting that right?
Mr. Gloade: Yes. It is a profit-sharing venture. They are paid salaries. Some are paid commissions. Each community has different regimes set up. They could be directly employed by the band. Some are on a contractual basis with the band. We have contracts with some of our harvesters.
There are also moderate-livelihood harvesters within our community. They are operating more or less independently with their own gear and at a much lower scale and capacity than the commercial harvesters within our communities.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much to our witnesses.
Would you be able to outline to me the current relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous fishers in your area, particularly with respect to reconciliation, the Marshall decision and Indigenous stewardship? We can begin with you, Mr. Isaac or Chief Gloade.
Mr. Gloade: I’ll go briefly and let the others speak as well. It varies in each region; some areas are more accepting, and some areas are not. It is still a constant challenge and a battle for our harvesters in our communities. For example, many of our commercial fishermen have good relationships with the harvesters in their respective communities or the areas where they harvest. Some have challenges as well.
We have had incidents where commercial harvesters had their gear cut and their traps were targeted with issues on the water. It is not always safe out there for them. Incidents have been reported to our community, to our leaders, and even to the RCMP, when some gear has been targeted and boats have been targeted. Weapons have been used in some cases. So they do have their challenges, but for the most part, many harvesters do their own thing. They are accepted and work well with some local harvesters. It depends on the area they are in; there can be constant challenges and battles faced on a day-to-day basis, making it very difficult for our community harvesters in some respects.
Mr. Isaac and Ms. Nevin may they have further comments.
Mr. Isaac: I agree with Chief Gloade. It is region to region and fishery to fishery. In the media, you see a lot of conflict in Nova Scotia which gets a lot of attention. In our area, it’s not as heated. On the ground, with our fishers and their neighbouring boats at the wharf, there are good relationships. However, if we move up to the different association levels, there can be quite a push, a lobby and even court challenges against our Rights Reconciliation Agreement.
Other associations have come to our office and toured our building. They sit down in a meeting and share common issues, common concerns and common areas where we can align. I believe it depends on the fishery, and it depends on the association. Our area is quite small if you compare it to Nova Scotia. The whole Gaspé coast where we fish, for example, has 200 licences. In Nova Scotia, one zone could have 900 licences with quite a different scope of access and number of people.
The relationship on the water is good and civil, but when we go to the associations, it depends on the association you are speaking with. Some can be very difficult to work with. Some will come to your office and shake your hand and have a nice conversation with you.
Ms. Nevin: I want to mention reconciliation and to think of reconciliation in terms of equality. Looking at the equality of First Nations fisheries in Atlantic Canada, we take up 6% of what comes out of the water. First Nations don’t need more marginalization. They need more support to access and implement their fisheries, including what Mr. Isaac was saying around purchasing licences for reasonable prices. Often, that’s out of reach for our communities.
The implementation of Marshall has been a slow-moving implementation story, I would say. It has been 25 years, and we are not seeing the equality in fisheries that we would like to see with regards to the Marshall decision and reconciliation.
We are working on relationships with the fishing associations, but the fishing associations are big lobbyists with a lot more money and power than First Nations community fisheries. Often, they would like to further marginalize the communal commercial fisheries, the food, social and ceremonial fishery, as well as any rights-based fishery.
They do not want to see First Nations communities getting ahead. That is the reality of the situation, but we are doing our best to work with those associations. Like Mr. Isaac said, those relationships vary, based on association and the region. If you have people who are willing to work with First Nations communities and who have mutual respect, that relationship seems to go well. It is very much based on the area. We, as First Nations, especially APC, are open to working with the fishing associations.
Mr. Gloade: I have just one other little piece to add. One of the areas that needs improvement is the rights reconciliation process. When communities go through a comprehensive process of developing a community comprehensive plan for our community harvesters who are outside the communal commercial, like for our moderate-livelihood harvesters, those plans are often not recognized by DFO, not recognized by government and not recognized by enforcement. That’s where the challenges and difficulties come because the rights reconciliation part needs to be accepted more broadly with government. That’s where we face challenges, and that’s where incidents start to occur when individuals go out to harvest under the rights reconciliation.
The other part of that is the enforcement piece of it. One thing that needs to change, and I have gone to DFO multiple times — even members of government — to stop referring to our Indigenous harvesters as “illegal fishers.” A challenge we face when it comes under rights-based fisheries is that we’re often labelled poachers or illegal harvesters, and that causes controversy and friction on the water with non-Indigenous fishers.
Many of our harvesters, on the commercial side, deal and lease boats from non-Indigenous fishers. Those types of comments by government and enforcement officers, labelling Indigenous harvesters as “illegal” fishers, when it’s under the rights-based reconciliation framework, are where the problems stem from. Thank you.
Senator Surette: Thank you for your opening remarks.
I have three questions. If I cannot get all of them in, in the first round, I will try for the second round.
Based on your opening remarks, starting with Mr. Isaac, your first recommendation had to do with strengthening inshore fisheries. Could you elaborate more on what you mean by “strengthening inshore fisheries”?
Mr. Isaac: Yes. We are able to allow more of our community members to participate and earn revenues. Those revenues are then spent in the local economy — regionally and close to home. We work together. I will give you an example too.
The commercial communal licences give us the flexibility to work with other industry, non-Native fishermen, to help fish our licences. Because sometimes — to give you an example, my snow crab quota fluctuates; seasonality, stocks fluctuate. In a high year, I can have 14 vessels and five crews per vessel; in a low year, I can have five to six vessels.
So flexibility is important for us to maintain our economy. We are able to create jobs, not only in our community but in other areas. Because, like I said, we do need some support from neighbouring vessels to help us out, and they earn some money, and it keeps it local. Plus, it builds relationships with our community.
To give you an example, we recently began fishing the Matane after much negotiation work. And two mayors from the larger villages in Matane, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, came out, met our fisheries manager, shook our hands, and they welcomed us and wanted us there; it was quite welcoming.
Senator Surette: So less to do with the licensing regime and regulations from governments, more to do with developing the community?
Mr. Isaac: Yes. And the licence regime is a barrier for not only Mi’kmaq but other non-Indigenous harvesters.
Senator Surette: My second question had to do with your reference to 4(1) and 4(2) of the Fisheries Act. And I’m not quite sure what your recommendation was there, whether you were recommending changing that or modifying that?
As it reads right now, the Minister may issue a communal licence to an Aboriginal organization to carry on fishing and related activities.
In addition, the Minister may designate, in the licence, (a) the persons who may fish under the authority of the licence, and, (b) the vessel that may be used to fish under the authority of the licence.
So your reference to that part of the Fisheries Act was for what purpose? What was your recommendation?
Mr. Isaac: It was to allow us to co-manage our fisheries fully, together. In terms of 4(2), to allow our community laws to be recognized, we face barriers in the province of Quebec, where they don’t recognize our Marshall rights. They do not allow us to trade fish to the markets, and we are forced to work with local buyers.
We have good relationships with them. However, if I want to produce my own product and bring it to market, I would have an uphill battle with Quebec. So we ask to renew the Peace on the Water recommendation, including in 4(2) with 4(1).
Senator Surette: I understand the challenges around communal licences, that you still depend — to a certain extent — on DFO to get those licences.
To go back to the Marshall decision and the moderate livelihood licences, which you referenced, the capacity there is low.
What are the challenges of increasing capacity on the moderate livelihood so more First Nations people could own their own boats and, hence, fish?
Mr. Isaac: Is that question to me?
Senator Surette: To all of you, yes, sorry.
Mr. Isaac: I will answer quickly.
Like I said, I gave you an example: an RSW vessel for snow crab could cost $6 million, a licence can cost $8 million. That is over $10 million of investment.
Then if we go to lobster, they’re smaller vessels; however the licences can vary region-to-region, catch-to-catch.
We have many programs in place where we — for example, in our Rights Reconciliation Agreement, we negotiated a smaller zone for lobster fishing, called 21B West, and we were allowed smaller vessels to fish safely; smaller number of traps, hand pull in; and they did not need a large investment.
That was an initiative we worked on because it was unrealistic to expect people to have millions of dollars to investment before they can gain access.
We worked together with the DFO — well, we have to negotiate through our agreement, but my personal goal is to get more of our community members on the water without having to go into serious risk of debt.
Senator Surette: I am not sure if there are comments from Chief Gloade?
Mr. Gloade: Yes. For our moderate livelihood plan, one of the biggest challenges for harvesters is once they get out there — if they fish under our plan, there is still the challenge of being recognized by DFO and by the government — and if community members follow our plan, the biggest challenge is the ability to sell their catch and the inequitable distribution they would receive for payment — which is not the same as the commercial rate.
If they are able to find somebody to buy their product, they’re only able to get a fraction of the price — less than half, if they’re lucky — for their catch compared to a commercial harvester. Entrance into the industry becomes very difficult for those wanting to start off.
For the acquisition of a lobster licence, they don’t have the millions of dollars and access to millions of dollars, or the licensing from other family members that is passed down. There’s no licence buyback program even made available through DFO under the current agreement.
It makes it difficult for access by moderate livelihood fishermen in the inshore fishery whatsoever.
There are constant challenges there for them to buy gear and finance their gear. They are not able to do that because our communal commercial plans are not recognized or accepted. That makes it very difficult for entrance into the market.
When they do get in, there are always challenges being labelled as illegal harvesters, illegal fishers or poachers when they are fishing under the rights reconciliation base.
The commercial industry was based on the ability to control the industry. If conservation becomes an issue, then we have our rights to fall back on; rights to fish for moderate livelihood and for food; food, social and ceremonial. That is what we have to fall back on.
There has been no real evidence provided that it is a conservation issue. When we do have community plans, we follow certain guidelines. The biggest challenge is the ability for new entrants into the industry and into the market by our communities who want to create that type of livelihood for themselves and their families.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you to our witnesses. I have two questions. I will try to get through both.
We have heard a lot over the last few months studying this issue about the lack of use of knowledge from the wharf and from fishers. Regardless of whether it’s the East Coast or West Coast, and regardless of the community, that knowledge, those insights are not part of the decision making on the part of DFO.
I would expect you to have a position on this as well as it relates to traditional knowledge and what you are seeing.
Recently, I have seen drone footage of striped bass in the famous salmon rivers of Atlantic Canada, and it is teeming with striped bass in the spring. We have a sense of what that might do to the Atlantic salmon population and its continued struggles.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada do not seem to have any sense of urgency around that challenge. It was a protected fish species and was brought back from troubles itself, but it is creating its own challenge.
How is DFO respecting knowledge from your communities, be it traditional historical knowledge or just current evidence in what you are seeing? How does that come into their decision making? Have you seen any of that?
Chief, I will begin with you if I could.
Mr. Gloade: I will refer that to my technical staff. Those are questions that I usually refer to our technical staff in regard to that and also to our conservation team.
I know there are invasive species there, for example, the stripped bass, but there’s no market for that species. That’s why that population continues to grow.
On conservation issues in regard to other species, I will leave that to my technical staff, who can answer those questions.
Ms. Nevin: I would like to say that DFO does what it can when considering our Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge. The Atlantic Policy Congress, along with our Aboriginal Aquatic Resource and Ocean Management bodies, has been advocating for the recovery of wild Atlantic salmon.
We are continuing to do that work and find ways of incorporating our Indigenous knowledge into the recovery of that species. We are working with DFO on that and the wild Atlantic Salmon Strategy and policies associated with that. It is a work in progress, is what I would like to say.
Regarding salmon, there’s been less political attention because everybody is trying to do the right thing when it comes to salmon.
I don’t want to take up all the time because I know that Mr. Isaac has a lot of knowledge around Atlantic salmon as well.
Mr. Isaac: In terms of DFO’s use of our traditional knowledge, I think that is an evolving relationship. I know the minister has changed regarding the Fisheries Act and is beginning to start recognizing that DFO can consider it.
On the ground, a practical example I have is that there was experimental licensing in the St. Lawrence River lobster fishery, and DFO scientists created the fishing plan for data collection, and they had a difficult time catching lobster, and they had a difficult time earning and paying for that study through the catches. They decided to use the fishermen’s knowledge because they knew where the lobster was. They adapted their scientific study to work with the fishermen’s knowledge. I believe that it was the community of Cacouna — the Maliseet, there.
In terms of community knowledge and all knowledge, in fact, we work with DFO to ensure that any knowledge, whether it is our land and data to our Elders’ Knowledge that is shared with us, those are all considered sovereign and under data sovereignty.
Some good work at the local AAROM’s GINU. They work with us and do good work interviewing our local Elders and Knowledge Holders, and they come up with recommendations.
I do believe there’s still work to do. We’re trying to build this capacity within our organization. Some organizations use knowledge for land claims, which is more geographical land use. Some use it for a more ecological understanding of ecosystems and habitats and climate change.
It is not a tool, but where I need to adopt and bring it in is when we make laws in our community to manage and govern our own fisheries and to inform the value systems we need to guide our fishing plans. It requires a lot of engagement with the community and the knowledge that they bring and what values we need to uphold. There are all kinds of different ways we can look at knowledge.
Last, to touch on the striped bass situation, we are aware of it. They migrate away from the Miramichi and are now coming into the Restigouche River, and it is bringing concerns to the salmon harvesters. Salmon are facing many issues right now. Across Atlantic Canada there is a decline. Something is happening in the ocean. However, we have to make sure that both species can coexist. Mind you, I don’t have hundreds of thousands of bass spawning in the Restigouche River, so I think it is more critical to hear from the communities in the Miramichi, Red Bank and Hillground for their views. However, we think in our river the two species can coexist.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you. I hope that your community knowledge is recognized increasingly, and I hope that the St. Lawrence example is not a one-off, that it is used as a basis for improving future action.
My next question is about access to processing and the challenges around processing. Is there any that you find concerning? Are you seeing any good examples of what could be guidance in the future?
Mr. Gloade: Our community is planning more diversification in the fishery. It is about building capacity first. We have a couple of fish plants right now that we have purchased. It takes a lot of resources, time, energy and people to get those up and going.
We have a facility in Sheet Harbour and one down toward Digby. We work with other processors as well. We look at acquisitions and partnerships with current industries. There’s always that opportunity to become more diversified in the processing side of it.
Our own community in Sheet Harbour, we have a wharf there, and we have been building out to do more processing, buy more product from our harvesters, and also supply ice and those types of things.
We have another plant down toward the Digby area, and we have been looking at slowly growing our industry like other communities have been. But the other communities have jumped ahead of that well before us. Initially, our plan was always just to harvest and work with local businesses to sell our catches to. Now we’re working toward a more fully integrated fishery. That does take time and money, and we are working toward that.
Mr. Isaac: I want to highlight some of the challenges that we face with the Quebec provincial government, which is in charge of processing licensing, and it is difficult. We recognize that the Marshall decision is trade law as well. We believe that it allows us to bring our food to markets to sell and trade.
There is a lot of work. We have to work with DFO to have an understanding and unpack this relationship on why we cannot bring our food to the market.
In terms of processing, there are many initiatives where I see industry or non-Indigenous harvesters trying to transform their own catches. I also see opportunities in our community if people need food-safe buildings and they can’t do it from their homes. If there is a way, as a community, we can develop a food-safe building that they can come to, transform the fish they catch and bring it to a market where the market can buy it because it meets food safety standards. Again, that is a lot of work and barriers we have to get through first.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. Isaac. Thank you both.
Senator Poirier: Thank you all for being here today.
I was curious to hear the reasons why the First Nations may choose to lease the communal commercial licence and go to a third party instead of going to the First Nations members. I know some may go and some may not. I want to know what the benefits and advantages are of each one, if you can.
For those that go to a third party, are First Nations people hired by these third parties to be able to work with licences on the boats?
Mr. Isaac: I will take that one because I think I had mentioned it in my remarks.
In terms of that, it’s a community strategy. We always try to prioritize our community harvesters first. We have a fishery advisory body in our community, and we present all of the information. In the past two years, we have been developing this process, and they have given us recommendations.
Essentially, we always try to prioritize our community members. The first priority is to earn revenue for the community, and the second priority is to lease out to anybody who can help support the first priority.
In terms of access, our community wants us to prioritize jobs, own the vessels and hire training crews. There are many other options, but that would be for community members, as long as they respect the first priority, or anyone else that respects community revenue generation, which is important.
In terms of employment, we have many barriers. We have a drug-screening program that we try to work with our harvesters on, and sometimes that can be a barrier. However, it has improved in the last five years. We have seen a lot of success with people coming through that program. That is all intended to keep our vessels safe. We also work to give access to community members who own their own boats. It is a percentage share. However, it is all a communal licence that is managed through our department.
For non-Indigenous harvesters, there are barriers that are put into employment. Employees on those vessels can be difficult due to safety concerns because we don’t own the vessels, and our HR policies for safety can be — I don’t want to say strict, but they are very real, and we have to honour them. We can’t just throw a community member employee onto somebody else’s vessel without owning responsibility for the safety of that vessel. Those are some of the things we have to consider.
Lastly, as I said, there’s the strategy. At the end of the day, leaving fish in the water is not going to generate community revenue. For example, when I said that in some years, my quota can go up very high, where I need fourteen vessels, yet today, I only have five vessels. If I were to invest in fourteen vessels and then only five of them are operating one year, that flexibility is required for us to put leases out. We will put a public bid out, and non-Indigenous community members can participate, as long as they meet our fishery committee’s priorities, which they advise me on. I use that as a guiding tool. Then I present that to leadership, and leadership will decide on a harvesting plan for the season.
We do this process year to year. The changes are based on stocks, quotas, market, availability, safety and staff. We have quite a complex system. We are trying to make it better. Our priorities are community first and to get the fish out of the water safely.
Senator Poirier: We are hearing a lot from fishers that the average age of harvesters is becoming an issue, specifically in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. We also know that for the younger generation to get involved in the fishery, it is sometimes costly. You have talked about that.
Other than costs, are you seeing an interest in the younger generation wanting to learn the fishing industry and be a part of it? Are there challenges other than the costs involved in not having them be able to do it?
Mr. Gloade: In our community, what I have witnessed is an increasing interest in becoming more involved in the fisheries industry and harvesting, particularly by the youth within our community. The biggest barrier is cost and accessibility to funds.
As far as the average age of harvesters in our community, it is in the 30s, compared to the commercial side of it, which is in the 50s or above. The average age of the population and harvesters in our communities is much younger and much stronger, and there is growing interest.
The challenges are access, cost and the recognition of the rights with regard to harvesting. For example, for snow crab, we have four licences. For lobster, we have nine licences with crews. We have about 60 people in our community alone directly involved in one industry, one sector, lobster fishing. Those numbers are there, but they can’t go out and buy the licences. That is where we need to be able to fish under the communal commercial and also look at increasing participation.
I mentioned it briefly with regard to the commercial buyback. That is one thing I mentioned to DFO before is that, under the Marshall decision, there is no buyback program under the current regime with regard to commercial fishermen and to allow more entrants and participation by First Nations in this industry. That also becomes a challenge. There are bank licences there, but the challenge is that there’s no program implemented for buybacks in order to allow more First Nations participation.
Senator Poirier: Thank you. It is fantastic news when you say that young people are getting involved. That is good to hear. Congratulations on that good work and getting that going. Thank you.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
My first question is for Chief Gloade and for Mr. Isaac, then maybe a second question for Ms. Nevin. My first question follows on Senator Poirier’s questions a bit, but I’ll structure it differently, maybe looking for more specifics.
When looking at the licences that your communities have, I would be curious as to what percentage of those licences are fished by Indigenous harvesters in terms of boots in the boat, as we say, versus the percentages of non-Indigenous. Do the communities have a strategy in place to try to increase the percentage of Indigenous harvesters? If so, what are the barriers to fulfill those strategies?
It is a three-pronged question, but I would be curious to hear from both of you, please.
Mr. Gloade: I will speak on behalf of my community. One of our policies is that our boats are to be fished by our First Nations captains. Our crew — our first mates and deck hands — are all band members. Our focus is solely First Nations participation on the commercial side within our communities.
On the moderate livelihood side, there is a mixture because we do have the integration of mixed families within our communities. There are family members who are non‑Indigenous, and they are in our community, so there is a mixture there.
On the commercial side of it, our primary focus is First Nations first. First Nations members, our crew. If we are unable to find anyone, then we will look to community members. Those community members could be individuals from other communities or members from our community that are non-Indigenous. It’s band members first then our community. That’s the policy we have written for harvesters within our community.
Mr. Isaac: We prioritize community first and community members’ access second.
In terms of barriers, there are many. It’s usually physical ones. We have a fit-for-work program we are trying to implement. We have a drug-screening program that we’ve had for, I believe, the last eight or nine years. However, we’ve added other programs. For those challenges, we offer gym passes and access to physiotherapy for our employees. We pay for people to attend treatment programs in the event the drug screening doesn’t go their way.
Like I said, it is fishery to fishery, harvesting plan to harvesting plan, year to year. I gave an example where, one year, we had 14 vessels to catch our quota go down to five. It varies. The snow crab quota changes. Like I said, it’s difficult to say 100% all the time because, some years, there could be a crash in stocks. We overstack our vessels safely, and we always make sure that we give good wages to our employees so it can sustain them for the off-season as well.
Every year, we have a team that calculates how much poundage they need to catch. We can rotate people in or out. Sometimes, boats break down, and we have to move crews and bring on vessels. It is on a year-to-year and case-by-case basis, but we have a committee, leadership and technical expertise to ensure we are doing this safely and in a way that’s good for our community and the people who work for us.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you.
Ms. Nevin, I have a quick question for you. You said 6% is the share of Indigenous fisheries in Atlantic Canada. Is that tied to only the communal commercial licences or all First Nations licences? Was that 6% part of the court decision? Did that percentage just happen, or is it mandated? Where does that 6% come from?
Ms. Nevin: That 6% is the actual access we have. It is based on the licences. We go to our colleagues at the Ulnooweg Development Group. They have a business development team that works under the Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative. They work under that program. They do calculations each year based on how many communal commercial licences we have, how many fishers are out there and what the quota is. That’s annualized.
That 6% figure is either from last year or the year before. We’ll get updated numbers this fall likely, but that is just for the communal commercial fishery.
Know that the percentages for the food, social and ceremonial, or FSC, fisheries and moderate livelihood fisheries are less than that 6%. Our largest fishery is communal commercial licensing. I would say 1% of that is probably for FSC. I would even say maybe the food fishery is a bit larger than the moderate livelihood, so it is very small. It might be below 1%. Those are small numbers. We are very much smaller, so we know that these fisheries are very small.
Senator Boudreau: I’m just trying to understand where the 6% figure comes from. Is that based on population or the size of the overall market?
Ms. Nevin: No, it is based on the quota that came out of the water. It’s what we took out of the water compared to what everybody took out, say last year or the year before. This is how much quota came out, and 6% of that overall quota is the quota for First Nations.
Senator Boudreau: It is not a ceiling you are limited to?
Ms. Nevin: No. It’s not a ceiling we’re limited to. It is just how much we took out of the water.
Senator Boudreau: Okay. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: You may notice that I’m now chairing the committee. I have the honour of doing that. Our chair had to step away.
We’ll continue, and hopefully, you have more time to stay with us. We still have some senators who have questions.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you very much. I really appreciate today’s testimony.
Chief Gloade, you commented about how some harbours have done better than others, and some communities have done better than others. I bumped into Justin Johnson in Truro a couple weeks ago. I coached him in the Canada Games in 1995. Judging by the truck that he’s driving, he’s doing okay with the crab quota. He is a good kid — well, he’s not a kid anymore — and seems to be doing well.
Let’s dig in on the 6%. That would have been acquired through the willing seller-willing buyer approach to acquiring quotas. How would that have grown over the last number of years? Give us an indication in your communities how that would have grown during the last couple of years.
Ms. Nevin: I can speak to that a bit, but then I’ll go to Chief Gloade and then to Mr. Isaac.
It has grown over the last couple of years. I have a report, which I’m happy to give to the Senate, where they did an analysis of the fisheries. Economically, we started in single digit millions to maybe $10 million. Over 20 years, we were able to build up to hundreds of millions of dollars for 35 communities.
I don’t have it right now, but I’m happy to send that economic analysis we conducted in 2020-21 to the Senate. We are looking to do another analysis to see where we are at now from an economic analysis standpoint. I will not share all of the details of that report now, but we’ll send it along.
I will go to Chief Gloade for his perspective.
Mr. Gloade: Over the years, the numbers basically grew after the Marshall decision to 6%. It is not a number that we are satisfied with. That participation level needs to be higher because you need to look at our population. When you look at 30-plus First Nations here in Atlantic Canada and how many people we have in our communities in the population, that number can grow. We could double that number very easily if we had access to licensing.
Since Marshall, even when we want to acquire additional licences under communal commercial plans, they are very costly. Snow crab is over $2 million. For a lobster licence, you are looking at $1 million easily. We are always the willing buyer, but the price for the willing seller to exit is not based on a realistic value. It is based on what they would sell it for to get out, so those numbers always go up. We always have people approaching us, saying, “I want to buy the licence. This is the price.” We have seen the price of licences increase significantly.
It’s not only for licences but also for boats. Even when we bought boats under Marshall, we bought used boats with engines that needed to be replaced within a couple of years, so it became quite costly. For our harvesters to get to the water, they need that 2500 or 3500 truck because they have to move their gear to and from. If they don’t have the proper equipment to get there, they are not getting to work. It becomes their daily driver and also a means of living. If a captain wants to be successful, they need the proper tools and equipment to get there. They may have the equipment, but that does not mean they are financially strong as well.
They have bills to pay, there are insurance costs and the increasing cost of their gear. When their gear gets tampered with, they have to replace it. The onus is on them.
Even the cost of gear has gone up significantly, even during COVID-19, even when there are hostile situations on the water, for example. The cost of the traps and rope has significantly increased. They have to continually face increasing costs. That becomes a real challenge and barrier that our communities are coming to us with.
The cost of fuel and bait, all those things are rising costs. Does the price of the catch and their landing increase? No. It doesn’t increase proportionately. As we all see in the industry, the increasing cost of fuel has a significant impact on our harvester’s ability to get on the water and to fish.
Senator Cuzner: These are challenges that all fishers throughout the industry face across the board. It’s not exclusive to First Nations. Mr. Isaac, do you want to add?
Mr. Isaac: The 6% in terms of landings was the stat. If you consider our community, we had a negotiation, and there was a package of licences negotiated when Marshall was first being implemented. I don’t think our licensing package has changed too much in the last two years; we have negotiated more access to these experimental new licences.
However, it is species by species, catch rate by catch rate and stocks by stocks. Quota-based fisheries like crab change every year, whereas the lobster fishery is based on effort. It depends on how successful your catches are, the weather and if you can go out and check them every day.
I want to point to some issues that could affect our percentage. There is a buyback program in Quebec for licences that were administered by DFO and the associations. Mi’kmaq were never given an opportunity to participate in that. We were on the outside waiting for marketing agencies to post licences for sale as the only way to get buyback. So the buyback program in Quebec, which ended in 2023, I believe, what they were doing was buying licences, using funds the association has from a snow crab quota, using that money to loan to their harvesters. When one harvester wanted out, they would give a licence to a group. They would pay for it. It was the provincial funding agency supporting that purchase. Fishermen had to invest their own money. They would run the licence for eights years until all the loans were paid off, then DFO would kill the licence.
What happens now, there are fewer licences for us. We don’t have a market. We don’t know where to buy them because it is all internally through associations we aren’t a part of. Now the value of the licences has gone up because there are less and there are more catches. The buyback program, which ended in 2023, was a huge barrier in Quebec, especially for lobster. We are still learning about it. Definitely, we are in a regime right now that is very difficult for us to navigate and to get access. The old system rules kind of limited our ability to implement our rights with DFO.
Senator Cuzner: A quick question to Chief Gloade because you mentioned earlier that you are seeing some individual captains or members of the community who are interested in securing their own personal licence as well. I heard that just in conversation with Chief Terry Paul as well in his community.
Would the band be in a position to be able to help that individual should they decide to pursue that if a licence was available? Would the band step in and help with financing the purchase of a licence like that?
Mr. Gloade: We don’t assist them financially. They usually go to a bank or they go to an agency. What the band does provide is a long-term contract with the captains in order for them to support their intentions. That’s one thing they need: that stability to harvest. What we have done for a number of our captains who have gone down that road to purchase their own licences or boats — more the boats because the licence has to be a communal commercial — to buy them we entered into long-term leasing contracts with our harvesters. We do that with snow crab and lobster, so they can take that to the bank to finance their debt for their boat and their gear.
For snow crab gear or lobster gear, they can spend $80,000 to $100,000 a year to buy new gear. They have to replace the gear every few years. Then also they need to buy new ropes every other year, and all their other upfront costs they have to make. Then they have to hustle in order to make their payments. We do support our harvesters that way, and we work with them. But that’s the one way.
We don’t lend them the money, but we provide them with the letters of support and the contracts for that because when they came to us a number of years ago looking for sustainability in the long term, that’s what we did.
The other thing we are starting to do now for our fishers is that they don’t have pension plans when they are fishing. This year we are just in the process of creating an employment benefit package under the band’s operation to get them into that pension plan. When the time comes for them to step away, they have nothing. So they will go from an income to nothing very quickly.
That’s why when they first got in, they had no issues, but now when they are starting to age and get into their forties and fifties, now they are starting to think long term. So we have to create those mechanisms of support. That’s what we are doing now for our fishermen because they are always under contract, but we are able to create those initiatives.
A lot of our band employees and elected officials don’t have pensions. That becomes an issue for our community. We need to start being more mindful of that long-term sustainability and success for our members and our communities.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you very much.
Senator Prosper: Mr. Isaac, I just want to note that my grandfather, Frank Martin, came from Listuguj, and I was told that the Metallics and Isaacs are related to us. Maybe we are distant relatives.
I understand that June 11 is the forty-fifth anniversary of an incident at Listuguj. There is quite a bit of history there with respect to fisheries and the way of life of Mi’kmaq your community.
You mentioned section 4.1 of the Fisheries Act, and you commented on the Senate report Peace on the Water. Recommendation 1 of that report talks about a three-step plan where certain laws, regulations and policies within fisheries that are administered by the government align with international obligations, like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Constitution Act.
A second component of that is the use of section 4.1 of the Fisheries Act to enter into new nation-to-nation agreements and true shared decision-making; and finally, the third step related to that is a new legislative framework related to the full implementation of rights-based fisheries.
That’s the main first recommendation coming out of that report. In light of an incident at Listuguj, I wonder what you can provide with respect to that particular recommendation.
Mr. Isaac, before you begin on that, I have a second question for Mr. Gloade. I know these are extended questions, but I have been waiting for some time to ask them.
Chief Gloade, I understand you have been in discussions with Minister Thompson as far back as May of 2024 to get certain fishery officers with substantial DFO experience. They were formerly DFO officers, as I understand. You want to utilize section 5(1) of the Fisheries Act to get a designation of your officers under that act to undertake certain enforcement activities.
In effect, it would not replace federal authority, but it would activate federal authority through your Mi’kmaq fishery officers having dual accountability. I’m curious how those developments are progressing. Mr. Isaac, if I can start with you.
The Deputy Chair: Sorry, Mr. Isaac. Before you start to answer the question, we have a hard stop at ten o’clock. There is another group coming to use this room, so if the witnesses could be a little briefer with their answers. I’m sorry to impose that on you, but we don’t have a choice.
Mr. Isaac: Not a problem. I will be quick. Thank you, Cousin Prosper. I think the Sûreté du Québec was the lead of the violence against our community. In our community, we call that our Independence Day. There is a poem that one of our teachers at the Alaqsite’w Gitpu School, wrote: Today we honour the day we got stronger. That is when the community came together and we took a stand and created a salmon law. I was not born at that time, and I only know the history and stories that were told.
In terms of the issues with section 4.1 and the process, your recommendation, one key policy that limits everything is DFO has a 1993 Aboriginal policy that has not changed, and that is still the guiding policy used by DFO to negotiate our rights and reconciliation agreements, and that policy has not been updated, even with the Marshall ruling. That policy is a barrier, is outdated and does not lead to any good success in the negotiations of our rights implementation project.
Mr. Gloade: I received a letter from the DFO minister recently in regards to that status, and we will continue the dialogue. I do have two former DFO employees working for us as guardians within our community — Matt Glode and Ed Knight. Mr. Glode worked for DFO for 25 years as a DFO officer, and now he works with us. Justin Martin has just come on to work with Millbrook and our fisheries. We just sent another letter off to continue that dialogue and discussion. When I went to the AFN in December, I met with the minister and raised that issue, and it was a positive outcome and discussion. That is continuing. I’ll keep you informed, and it is always a pleasure seeing you, Senator PJ. Looking forward to our in-person conversations when you get back home.
Senator Prosper: Certainly. Take care.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much to all the witnesses. You can tell from the engagement that we are so happy you could be here to educate us on this really important and complex issue. Thank you for being here and helping us move forward with things that we can do to add to this policy and make it better for everyone.
If you have anything else that you want us to know about, please feel free to submit any further information through the committee clerk, and we can add it to the record.
(The committee adjourned.)