Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me start by thanking the committee for this invitation to appear before you this afternoon for your study surrounding the Fisheries Act.

Before I make two key points, let me briefly introduce myself and the organization and people I represent. My name is Derek Butler. As you know, I'm the executive director of the Nunavut Fisheries Association, or NFA. I've worked in the industry trade association side of the business for 20-plus years now, before which I worked in international political development with a Washington-based NGO. I started my career here in Ottawa with Foreign Affairs and, as they say, a stint on the Hill.

NFA is a typical or standard industry trade association, representing four companies that participate in the fisheries in Nunavut. The NFA member companies are the Arctic Fishery Alliance, Baffin Fisheries, Pangnirtung Fisheries/Cumberland Sound Fisheries Partnership, and Qikiqtaaluk Corporation, the birthright corporation. All companies are owned by the hunter and trapper organizations, the HTOs, communities and/or the Inuit of the Qikiqtani region of Nunavut. In short, these are indigenous-owned companies that participate in fisheries to the benefit of Nunavut.

NFA's role is to advocate to provide a unified voice for the commercial fishing industry in the territory to stakeholders, to the public at large and to the territorial and federal governments. We work closely with DFO, industry partners and our research partners.

On that last note, NFA supports a suite of fisheries and ecosystem science and research activities with various stakeholders in an annual research program, all in support of sustainable fisheries in Nunavut. We work on bottom impacts, bycatch surveys, assessments and more. We work with universities, research institutes and independent researchers. We collaborate with other industry participants. We also receive support from both the territorial Government of Nunavut as well as the federal government through CanNor, for which we are very appreciative.

I have two main points today as an association. The first is that DFO needs to fulfill the core mandate responsibilities of the department. DFO needs to ensure that they have the resources so we have the resources and so that Canada continues to maintain sustainable fisheries, which contribute so much to our livelihoods and to world-class healthy protein. You've heard the message before that the core mandate is imperative.

At the heights of COVID, there was some talk that the fishery wouldn't be able to run like a lot of business sectors, with concerns around the health and safety of our workplaces and our workers. I was confident, in my previous role, that we could adopt the best practices, keep our workers safe and provide world-class healthy protein. If the world was going to pack potatoes and bananas for us, we should pack fish for them. It's just food.

We did. We rose to the challenge. We were resilient, and we gave the world more healthy protein. We need to keep doing that, and we need to make sure DFO does the science and core mandate work in support of maintaining fisheries.

That's my main message today. We're not seeking legislative change in this review. We underscore what matters most: good science in support of sustainable fisheries. The world is getting more complex. DFO's mandate is getting more complex. I understand that, but you still need the foundation for the house to be strong, with core science and a core mandate in support of prosperous fisheries.

My second and final point relates to the review period of five years. We may say more in our future submission, I should note. As you'll appreciate better than anyone, Parliament maintains its prerogatives to change or amend the act with or without a prescribed review period. That's understood. I simply wanted to offer one additional perspective here today on that five-year review period.

To state the obvious, a review doesn't necessitate change. There can always be cause for change. You can hear the testimony of witnesses, review the submissions and consider and conduct your own analysis, and you might determine that no legislative changes are required. It might be redundant to say that, but it might apply. There are areas—policies, regulations, etc.—that may be appropriate to change as well, but a review does not in and of itself necessitate change. We've gone from an act that saw few changes in Canadian history to a prescribed five-year review, which is one every Parliament. That might be ambitious.

That's where we are as an association. I'm not here to suggest changes in particular today, but I appreciate the opportunity to address you for this study and to say that we support any renewed commitment we might have on the core mandate in support of commercial fisheries, with good science and with appropriate resources.

Thanks again to the committee. I look forward to any questions you might have. If I can't answer them today, I could perhaps follow up with the clerk in writing or put something in a submission later on.

Transcript

Discussions (0)