Fisheries Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Welcome to meeting number 10 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I want to start by acknowledging that we're gathered on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people and express gratitude that we're able to do the important work of this committee on lands they've stewarded since time immemorial.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to continue its study on the review of the Fisheries Act during the first hour and then to continue the study on the attribution of redfish quotas and exploratory lobster licences during the second hour.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, members are attending in person and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I would like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, particularly the interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

Pursuant to our routine motions, I would like to advise committee members that all witnesses appearing virtually today have successfully conducted their required technical testing, for both the first panel and the second panel.

I would also like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you before speaking. For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. Those in the room can use their earpiece and select the desired channel.

I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. For those attending via video conference, please use the “raise hand” icon on Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience in this regard.

With that, I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

Appearing in person, we have Michael Barron, president of the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association.

Joining by video conference, we have Bernie Berry, senior fisheries adviser, Coldwater Lobster Association.

We also have Claire Canet, project manager with the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie, appearing by video conference.

We're going to start with the opening statements of the witnesses for five minutes, beginning with Mr. Barron.

[Michael Barron, President, Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association]

Good morning, honourable Chair and members of the standing committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here.

My name is Michael Barron. I'm the president of the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association and a member of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters' Federation.

The decisions made in this room will shape the future of hundreds of coastal communities and a vital part of Canada's economy. If we want a fishery that is sustainable, fair and resilient, we must protect in law what is currently vulnerable in policy.

Today is personal for me. For the first time, I'm here with my son who works alongside me in our own independent, family-owned fishing enterprise. When you look at us, you're not just seeing industry representatives, you're seeing generations who lived this life and whose future depends on your decisions. As decision-makers, maybe you can put his face in your memory bank as you make decisions based on the future of Canada's fisheries.

I'm sorry for my voice, I'm a basketball coach, and we had a pretty intense practice the other day, so it's very raw. I apologize for that.

Why are we concerned? We are concerned because important decisions are being made behind closed doors, and the people who are most affected are being left out. That is not only concerning, it is unacceptable.

What must be done? One is to protect the owner-operator and fleet separation policies in law. These policies are the backbone of coastal Canada. They ensure that the wealth from our fisheries stays with the people who are actually fishing, not corporations, not distant investors. They keep small wharves open, businesses alive and communities thriving. Right now, these protections only exist as departmental policies. They can be changed or removed without public debate or accountability.

Our request is simple and urgent. Enforce the current Fisheries Act to legally protect owner-operator and fleet separation principles. Licences and quotas must be held by people who are actively fishing, with boots on the boat, and who live in the communities sustained by the resources. This is how we protect independent family enterprises and secure long-term coastal resilience.

Two, clearly define ministerial powers. We need a transparent framework that guides ministerial discretion. Decisions should be consistent, accountable and based on fairness, not confidential agreements.

Three, improve transparency and consultations, with no more decisions made behind closed doors. Agreements impacting fisheries must involve coastal communities, provinces and industry, not exclude them.

Four, strengthen science and knowledge in the decision-making. Science must guide fisheries management alongside local knowledge. That means better support for industry-led science and consistent application of precautionary principles.

What happens if we don't act? Since 2019, meaningful consultation has declined. Provinces are facing economic consequences they did not create. Some small fishing enterprises, families like mine, are at risk. In Nova Scotia, for example, moderate livelihood agreements have used banked licences and latent traps under the guise of conservation or buyback programs while violations of controlling agreements are ignored. Science is applied inconsistently when it supports a decision, pushed aside when it doesn't. This is eroding trust, eroding policy and eroding the foundation of the owner-operator fishery.

In closing, from harvesters waking before dawn to members of Parliament to officials at DFO, we share a responsibility for Canada's fisheries. We aren't asking for special treatment. We're asking for fairness, accountability and for rules that exist to be enforced, not sidelined for political convenience or job security. Our coastal communities are not statistics, they're people, they're families, they're history and future standing on the wharf, teaching their children and hoping their government will stand with them. You have the power to protect the future. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barron.

We'll now go to Bernie Berry for five minutes or less.

[Bernie Berry, Senior Fisheries Advisor, Coldwater Lobster Association]

Good day.

My name is Bernie Berry, and I am the senior fisheries adviser for the Coldwater Lobster Association located in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.

Our association represents the interests of independent lobster fishermen within LFA 34 along with some additional members from the adjacent LFA 33 and LFA 35.

I would like to thank the members of the fisheries standing committee for the opportunity to speak today concerning the review of the Fisheries Act.

Today I will speak to the owner-operator and fleet separation policies and how they are applied and enforced. The small boat sector and, in particular, the lobster fleet of independent small business owners still face pressures from corporate entities attempting to gain more access and control of the commercial fishery.

Independent lobster fishermen, who are all small business owners, are the economic backbone of nearly all of our coastal communities throughout eastern Canada. The lobster fishery is a limited entry fishery, meaning that the number of licences is essentially frozen; therefore, anytime a lobster licence is lost or the control of that licence is lost to a corporation, that is one less small business in the community contributing to the growth and development of that town or village. These small businesses are replaced by salaried workers working on company platforms with most of the profits going back to the company instead of being distributed and invested in the communities.

The independence of the lobster fishery must remain in the hands of fishermen. Their communities need every independent licence-holder to contribute to the economic viability of that area. Fisheries and Oceans Canada must ensure that all lobster licences are entrusted to independent fish harvesters. There can be no corporate control of any of these valuable licences.

To achieve this, a vigorous regulatory regime must be established to review all licence transfers and to evaluate all licence renewals. Over the last several years, DFO has intermittently made some attempts to investigate who has control of the licences. Unfortunately, these efforts are sporadic and not thorough enough. There needs to be a much more robust and consistent system applied to stop the leakage of licence control to corporate interest. Without it, this will lead to the demise of the independent fishermen in our coastal communities over time. Policy changes must twin with regulatory changes to put in place real enforcement capabilities concerning the owner-operator and fleet separation policies.

Everyone must be held accountable in this fraudulent transfer of licences to corporations. It starts with the companies that use monetary enticement to independent fishermen to sell their licences to them. Once that financial temptation is presented, the corporations then draft a misleading paper trail that gives the false impression that the licence is controlled by the fisherman who, by now, is no longer independent.

Such corporations then have their legal firms draft documents that appear to show that the licence is still controlled by the formerly independent fisherman. These legal firms are able to do this, as there is a grey area in the policy and there are no real penalties in the regulations that will hold these lawyers accountable. The legal firms know that the documents they're drafting are fraudulent, because fish companies are not permitted to own inshore lobster licences.

Fishermen knowingly sell their licences to fish companies for a few extra dollars in comparison to what is offered on the open market. The formerly independent fisherman will then possibly keep the licence in his name as part of the sale agreement and then fish the boat for a share of the catch. This type of agreement gives the impression that nothing has changed about ownership of the licence. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Another example of where the owner-operator and fleet separation policies are failing to meet their intended purposes is tied to the use of a substitute operator. The former licence-holder will keep the licence in his or her name and allow the fish company to designate a substitute operator to fish the licence on their behalf. This is achieved by the former independent licence-holder's obtaining a medical certificate from his physician stating that the patient, the fish harvester, is unable to go aboard the boat for medical reasons. It's a policy that allows each fish harvester up to five years to assign a substitute operator. The substitute operator is an area where an independent, DFO-approved medical professional opinion should be in place.

The owner-operator policy is also problematic when it comes to boat brokers, because they are aware of the type of sale that is not permitted but, when an inshore lobster licence comes up for sale, they have numerous fish companies' contact information on speed-dial to try to facilitate a quick sale to the company. While the boat brokers know this type of transaction is not permitted, they help to facilitate the purchase simply for a commission cheque and leave the details to the company's lawyers to give the appearance that the transaction is legitimate.

This type of activity is perpetuating fraud, and everyone should be held responsible and accountable. To do this, penalties must be put in place through the regulations to deter this type of activity by all participants. Penalties should range—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Mr. Berry, I'm afraid I'm going to have to interrupt you very briefly. Could you wrap it up? You're over the five minutes for your opening statement. I'm sorry.

[Bernie Berry]

I'll just finish this paragraph.

Penalties should range from the cancellation of the fishing licences, the forfeiture of monies gained in a fraudulent illegal scheme and the cancellation of licences for brokers who participate in activities against the regulations to investigating legal firms that are developing agreements circumventing policy and regulation that could have ramifications from the law societies if these allegations were proven.

Thank you. I welcome any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Berry.

Ms. Canet, you have the floor for five minutes or less.

[Claire Canet, Project Manager, Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, honourable members.

Thank you for the invitation to testify before this committee on such an important issue as the review of the Fisheries Act. My name is Claire Canet, and I’ve been the project manager with the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie since 2017. I’m a board member of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters’ Federation and the Coalition of Atlantic and Quebec Fishing Organizations. I also have a bachelor of laws and a bachelor’s degree in conflict resolution.

Fisheries management is a complex undertaking that requires consideration of a variety of factors to ensure fisheries resources are managed by the Minister of Fisheries in the interest of all Canadians. I’d like to remind the committee that these resources do not belong to the Minister of Fisheries or the Crown or a specific group of Canadians. These are common, public, strategic resources that are key to the economic, social and cultural vitality of our coastal communities. Fisheries resources change and grow within complex and evolving ecosystems where our knowledge is still developing. Any fisheries management decision based on insufficient scientific data and very limited facts could have a dramatic impact in a few years’ time on stock, the balance of marine ecosystems, and the lives of those who depend on our oceans. Fisheries management and access cannot be a subjective art—as we’ve heard—left entirely to the discretion of one individual or one administration without that discretion being objectively framed by fundamental principles. Otherwise fisheries management and access will become politicized and will be based on shifting and subjective criteria.

The Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie notes that since the Fisheries Act was amended in 2019, fisheries management has become more political, marked by a failure to apply fundamental principles, such as the protection of owner-operators and the principle of adjacency. We have also observed that the socio-economic impacts of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ fisheries management decisions on coastal communities are being overlooked, and the variable place of science in decision making.

Following last-minute amendments to the act in 2019, a number of agreements signed in confidence by the Crown established a new framework governing the exercise of the Minister of Fisheries’ regulatory obligations and responsibilities without any consultation with Canadians and individual fishers and without notifying Parliament. This new framework has facilitated the establishment of opaque advisory processes described by the federal court as unfair and inequitable and the multiplication of specific fishing plans for the same species, creating social tensions within our coastal communities.

To address this and ensure fishery resources are managed for the benefit of all Canadians in a fair, sustainable and prudent manner, the submission we sent the committee last week contains recommendations for amendments to the Fisheries Act that would affirm that fishery resources are strategic, public and common resources; introduce or reintroduce clear definitions of key terms; clarify the purpose of the act to create conditions conducive to the profitability, sustainability and adaptability of Canada’s various fisheries in the interest of all Canadians and coastal communities; clarify the framework for the exercise of the minister’s discretionary power; improve transparency regarding the agreements that may be signed by the minister and strengthen the consultation process; and strengthen the role of science and knowledge for sustainable fisheries management.

Among our proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act contained in our brief, we wish to draw your attention to proposed amendments to section 2.1, Purpose of Act; proposed amendments to section 2.4 on Duty of Minister; and proposed amendments to sections 2.5—we have heard a lot about these sections in recent days—and 34.1 on factors that the minister must take into account in making a decision. I also call on the committee to look at proposed amendments to sections 4.1, 4.2 and 34.2 on transparency of the minister’s actions and consultations. Lastly, I’d like to point out proposed amendments to subsection 43(1) and to sections 61.1 and 61.2 on the confidentiality of information and knowledge acquisition.

I’ll be happy to take any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

We are going to start our first round of questioning, the six-minute round, starting with Mr. d'Entremont.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the three witnesses who are here today. Mr. Barron is in the room with his son and his son's Danish friend who are taking in these proceedings.

I also want to thank Bernie and Claire for being here, because they've always responded when we've had challenges in districts 33 and 34 and overall with fishery issues in the Atlantic. I do want to thank Bernie directly for all the work that he does on behalf of the Coldwater Lobster Association along with Heather and the gang.

This is important when it comes to the fishery that we have, and the uncertain fishery that we're having in St. Marys Bay. The ongoing partnership that we've had with that organization has been instrumental in trying to move certain things forward. I don't know how far we've gotten forward on some of these things, but, ultimately, the input has been tremendous in moving a number of issues forward.

Today, we're here to talk about the act, and more specifically, from the first two presentations, owner-operator and fleet separation.

My first question will be to Bernie. In districts 33 and 34, we're talking about licences and licence transfers. We're not putting a number on that, but for the benefit of the committee, what is a licence and enterprise worth in districts 33 and 34?

[Bernie Berry]

It'll vary. In district 34, the value of a licence is somewhere between $700,000 and $800,000. That's not counting the value of the boat and gear. In LFA 33, it's somewhere between $450,000 and $500,000, again, not counting the value of the boat and gear.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Right, so if we add the value of the boat and gear, we probably could add another million dollars on top of that, depending on the age of the vessel and the amount of gear you're going to be having on it. Quite honestly, you're at $1.5 million to $2 million with the purchase of one of these vessels.

I'll ask the same question to Mr. Barron. What is the value of an enterprise in your districts?

[Michael Barron]

Actually, over the last two to three years, the catch rate in our LFA has increased, so the value of the licences went up. We're teetering pretty much between $750,000 and $900,000 for a licence alone. That does not include the vessel or traps. The one thing about LFA 27, where I harvest, is that we definitely have a smaller fleet of boats. However, you're still going to be looking at about $1.2 million to $1.3 million to get into an enterprise now with vessel and gear.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

At this point, what are the mechanisms to get the funding for something like this, because that's the challenge we're having right here.

Are the banks and credit unions able to lend this out, or are these purchasers having to go out and find funding from other places?

[Michael Barron]

Actually, the provincial loan board does lend to all new entrants. It's a little more of a relaxed process, but the board is starting to get a little stricter in its lending process because of the value of licences. In my LFA, it's a two-month season. If you're financing someone between $1.2 million and $1.3 million, and you're harvesting a natural resource, the risk is very high. The board wants to make sure it is well protected when it's lending money.

Banks are definitely a little stricter. It's usually around a seven-year term, so your payments are significantly higher, when you're financing through the bank. The loan board is a term anywhere from 15 to 20 years.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Mr. Berry, when it comes to our district—I'll say “our”, because it's also where I live—what are the challenges in getting funding for enterprises at this point?

[Bernie Berry]

One of the biggest stumbling blocks is actually the down payment. The chartered banks probably require, depending on the bank, 30% to maybe 35% or even higher, and you have to have a down payment based on the overall value of the purchase. If it's a $1.5-million purchase, some folks are going to have to come up with $500,000 or $600,000 as a down payment. It's totally unachievable at this point.

The loan board is a little lower; I think it's about 10% or 15%. They have different variances between what they want for a down payment for a licence as opposed to the boat, but still, that's a huge number. You're talking about a couple hundred thousand dollars for a down payment. That's one of the main stumbling blocks for the young entrepreneurs trying to get into it.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Basically, the rules that we have today were changed around 2019, I believe. Are they being acted on? Does it make these things easier, or does it make them more difficult?

I'll continue with Mr. Berry on that one.

[Bernie Berry]

In some instances, it makes it harder because the young individual trying to get into it is still competing against corporations for the same outfit; the door hasn't been closed on these corporations. It actually inflates the overall price of the licence and the outfit that's being asked for. It could be a lot better. The stuff that was initiated in 2019 still could close a lot of doors. The big thing there is to take all this stuff out of policy and make it part of regulations, along with much stiffer penalties when some of this fraudulent activity is proven.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

I would like to get into foreign ownership of these things, but I'm getting stared at by the chair, so maybe I'll get a second round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

You'll have to wait until the next round, I'm afraid.

Mr. Cormier, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Berry, I'm going to continue with you. Thank you.

Mr. d'Entremont already asked some of my questions, but when it comes to corporate entities taking control of lobster licences or any other kinds of licences, I'm seeing some of the same thing here. Just like Mr. d'Entremont said, some lobster licences here in my region can be sold from $1.5 million to maybe $2 million.

You were talking about the Fisheries Act. In your opinion, as we speak, there's not enough protection to make sure these things do not happen anymore. Is that right?

[Bernie Berry]

Yes, that is correct. Again, there have been attempts over the last several years, or even decades, to slowly but unsurely enforce the owner-operator and fleet separation. It just seems like folks are reluctant to actually lower the hammer, if I can describe it like that, and take out a lot of this stuff that's in policy. Anything that's in policy certainly can be circumvented very easily by lawyers. It's a gray area. There are really no penalties involved.

If you take a lot of this stuff that's in the owner-operator and fleet separation and put it into regulations, then it becomes the law. Then the onus becomes a lot higher on the legal firms because they'd actually be circumventing the law. They could be held accountable right there, along with all of the other participants in this type of activity.

Folks just have to be willing to finally say how serious this is and put forward a very strong response. That's the only way you're going to stop it.

Thank you.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Do you think the penalties or the fines, for example, are high enough for people who are caught doing these types of transactions?

Let me put it this way.

For example, let's say a fish plant has some transactions to buy a licence, and a guy goes to the fish plant and the fish plant gets involved. They do some deposits for him without anybody knowing. It's all well done and nobody can see it, and then, all of a sudden, there's an investigation and—oh my God—the fish plant gave like $500,000 to this guy to buy a licence, but it's tied to him right now.

Do you think the fines and penalties are high enough? Do you think we should maybe revoke the permit for the fish plant in this example? As you know, fish plant operation permits are given by the provinces. Is there a way to make sure that, with stricter fines and stricter penalties, we could stop this problem once and for all?

[Bernie Berry]

Yes, I think you do. In actuality, I'm not sure if there has ever been an instance where a licence has actually been cancelled or taken back because of this.

There have been a lot of investigations and changes made and stuff like this. The only case that's on record, I think, is a case out of Newfoundland: the Elson case. If I can be very frank, that was just a case put forward by some of the companies there as a trial balloon to see if they could set a floor for what they could get away with. That gentleman, I think, ended up losing that licence.

Outside of that, there has been no real enforcement in terms of loss of licence or penalties—monetary penalties—but there should be. Again, it takes numerous people to put together this kind of fraudulent act, as I keep calling it. You have the lawyers and even the fishermen who are selling the licences to these corporations. They know full well that they're participating in something that they should not be doing. They're simply selling the licence to the corporation for a few extra dollars, based on the market value. Corporations can certainly afford more money.

Again, until folks are made examples of...unfortunately, it's going to take something like that, somebody to be made an example of, whether it's a cancellation of a licence or loss of money and stuff like that, or lawyers' firms being held accountable, as I pointed out in my presentation, or even the brokers. They know the rules, yet they still send.... When something comes up, instead of trying to find a young gentleman within their community to sell the licence to—yes, I know it's hard to find financing and all that—the first call the brokers make is to a company. They know it's a quick transaction for them. The companies have the money, and they get a cut.

There's a lot of this stuff. A lot of people have to be held accountable.