Fisheries Committee on Nov. 18th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 12 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I want to start by acknowledging that we are gathered on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people, and I 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, members may participate in person in the room or remotely using Zoom. I see today, however, that everyone is here, in the room.

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 feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, but particularly the interpreters.

You will also notice a QR code on the card, which links to a short awareness video.

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

Those in the room can use their earpiece and choose the appropriate channel.

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

I would ask members to please raise their hand if they wish to speak. The clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated speaking order. Thank you for your patience.

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

First, we have Bruce Chapman, executive director, Canadian Association of Prawn Producers.

We also have Melanie Sonnenberg, president, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation.

From the Fishermen's Maritime Union, we have Carl Allen, vice-president, New Brunswick; and Martin Mallet, executive director.

Also with us is Colin Sproul, president of the United Fisheries Conservation Alliance.

Before we go to the opening statements, I just want to pass the floor to Mr. Arnold, who has his hand up.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to take up too much time, but as is the tradition, when the budget and the estimates are tabled, the minister comes to committee and addresses questions from the members. I'm just wondering if the chair or the clerk, or possibly the parliamentary secretary, may be able to provide us with any information on when the minister may be appearing before the votes on the estimates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Absolutely, Mr. Arnold.

Let me turn the microphone to the clerk to speak on that.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Maxime Ricard]

The minister was already invited for our next study on marine and coastal protection so if the committee wishes, I could extend that invitation for the minister to appear on both studies at the same time.

I'm in the hands of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Mr. Arnold, please go ahead.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Traditionally, the minister appears specifically on the budget estimates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you.

Mr. Morrissey, please go ahead.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Chair, we're okay with an invitation being extended. As usual, it's left to the minister to confirm.

[The Clerk]

Yes, she will be invited for supplementary estimates (B). We don't know the exact deadline for reporting because that's three sitting days before the last supply day, but I will mention what we know so far in terms of reporting deadlines to the minister's office.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Just to clarify, she has not been invited yet, but she will appear before that deadline?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

My understanding is that the minister has already been invited.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to our witnesses for opening statements for five minutes or less.

We're going to start with Mr. Bruce Chapman.

[Bruce Chapman, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Prawn Producers]

Thank you, Chair.

The Canadian Association of Prawn Producers represents offshore licence-holders in eastern Canada's northern shrimp fishery. Some 65% of these licence-holders are enterprises owned by indigenous groups and inshore fishers, and the remainder are typified by family businesses. This sector represents, in our view, a successful blend of indigenous and non-indigenous communities in the area.

FOPO's review of the Fisheries Act comes at a time of great economic uncertainty for Canada's fisheries. Our own sector is virtually entirely export-oriented. It's vulnerable to unsecured access to our primary market, which is China.

The cold-water shrimp resource and its fishery are also vulnerable to fluctuating environmental and ecosystem conditions. The threat is extremely serious in the form of reduced TACs and quotas, but it's existential if the average catch rate diminishes significantly.

As we continue to navigate these troubled waters, we desperately need greater stability from the Government of Canada. The current Fisheries Act, in our view, provides the minister with both the direction and the discretion necessary to deliver its mandate for the well-being of the resource as well as the fishery. It is not the time for legislative changes that handcuff our collective ability to adapt to these challenges.

We are extremely concerned about recent calls from environmental groups to amend the act that would limit commercial harvest stocks solely in the “healthy zone”. Sustainable harvests at lower levels would be closed unnecessarily. Any suggestion that the trajectory of fish stocks is determined exclusively, or even in some cases primarily, by harvest rates is outdated.

DFO should continue to be focused on promoting growth and mitigating decline through responsible harvest rates, with fisheries to be closed only when they are in the critical zone, and only if there are no alternative conservation measures.

Over the past couple of decades, DFO science has shifted spending towards oceans and ecosystem research. We believe DFO expenditures should be prioritized for applied science that should focus on sustainable utilization. We are asking DFO in this hard time to improve its stock assessment capacity and, if necessary, to finance that improvement through redirection of funds from other science programs. None of this requires a change in the Fisheries Act.

The review of the Fisheries Act also creates occasion for some interest groups to lobby for a change in quota allocations. The two most referenced allocation criteria are adjacency and historic dependence. FOPO has received presentations from some groups about their relatively low share of adjacent resource. At the core of that issue, the Independent Panel on Access Criteria concluded that, in the case of inshore fisheries, the application of adjacency is compelling. However, as the fishery becomes midshore and offshore fisheries, it's harder to justify, in particular when historic dependence is based on the premise that fishers who have historically fished a particular stock should enjoy continued access to that resource as well as that of the coastal communities from which they come.

To explain this more fully, each of the 17 offshore northern shrimp licences have been allocated an equal share of the quotas in each of the respective shrimp areas. The model was explicitly designed to achieve an economically viable year-round offshore shrimp fishery in areas mostly far away from local ports, facing seasonal ice coverage to a greater or lesser extent. Clearly, imposing adjacency on this model will render the model unviable.

The combination of allocation decisions and buyer-seller transactions over the past 30 years has, though, resulted in quota shares of indigenous and northern communities increasing from 27% to 77% of this northern shrimp complex.

Proponents who are advocating to include adjacency under the amended Fisheries Act have stated their interest to have quota shares that are comparable with the rest of eastern Canada.

Quota holders, though, based in the territory of Nunavut and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where these proponents come from, hold the highest percentage of share of quotas that are adjacent to their respective provinces, fully 75% to 80% of all species and sectors combined. Increases in quota shares for some participants are only achievable at the expense of other Canadians who also depend on the fishery, and in the case of the offshore shrimp fishery, at the expense of enterprises owned primarily by indigenous groups and inshore fishers.

We're facing reduced quotas, we're facing weakening catch rates and we're facing uncertain market access. Continued reinvestment in this fishery is at serious risk without a clear signal from government that quota shares are secure. This, too, does not require an amendment to the act.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Chapman.

Next we are going to Melanie Sonnenberg for five minutes.

[Melanie Sonnenberg, President, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

On behalf of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation, I want to thank you for your time today and for this opportunity to highlight our concerns and suggestions for the Fisheries Act review.

The review is a pivotal opportunity to secure a sustainable and equitable Canadian fishery. The federation has four core recommendations we would like to address today, highlighting key structural vulnerabilities, suggesting ways to strengthen the independent harvester owner-operator and protecting this vital national public resource through strong legislative action.

Strengthening the owner-operator policy, which is the economic engine of our coastal region, and safeguarding against corporate and foreign control and ensuring fishing wealth stays in local hands is of the utmost importance to our federation. The problem is that this foundational policy and the inshore regulation exist solely under departmental control and interpretation. This lack of legislative foundation makes it legally vulnerable and susceptible to interpretation, which poses an unacceptable risk to thousands of fishing families in their coastal communities and has created significant erosion through controlling agreements in our community.

Our clear recommendation is legal entrenchment. We strongly urge this committee to recommend the Fisheries Act be amended to explicitly define and legally mandate the principles of owner-operator and fleet separation. The act must ensure commercial fishing rights are held by individuals who are actively engaged in the harvest with boots on the boat and reside in the community. This must apply across the board, including indigenous commercial communal access. This amendment would provide the necessary legal stability to protect independent family enterprises and ensure long-term coastal resilience.

Another recommendation is to incorporate Canada's wild fishery as a strategic national asset critical for food security, sovereignty and cultural identity, because the act often manages it primarily through a narrow, short-term commercial lens. The problem is this short-sighted view fails to account for the fishery's broad national importance and value to the country as a whole. Our recommendation is a strategic asset designation embedded in the act. We propose introducing a high-level objective into the Fisheries Act that formally designates the resource as a national strategic asset, similar to what has been done with mining, which would be critical to food sovereignty and regional stability in coastal regions.

Furthermore, we require a new protection provision. Any major decision concerning the disposition of core fishing rights must undergo a rigorous national interest review. The review panel must include representatives from the inshore independent owner fleet. This mandates that management decisions prioritize a long-term public good and national interest over short-term private, corporate and foreign entities and protect owner-operators and our communities.

We need to ensure harvester knowledge is foundational in DFO science. Independent harvesters possess unparalleled local ecological knowledge. Harvesters are the eyes and ears on the water, which is indispensable for effective management. The problem is the current system suffers from a disconnect. DFO science often operates in isolation using complex modelling that has very little on-the-water input, leading to management decisions that are often impractical or inaccurate when applied to the realities of the water.

Our recommendation is an integration mandate. We propose legally mandating the integration of harvester knowledge into DFO's scientific assessment and management processes. We recommend the advisory committees incorporate a formal co-management subcommittee for all major fisheries that focus solely on science and information sharing between harvesters and the department. This sharing of information must then require DFO to explicitly document how harvester-provided data was incorporated and reconciled or, if rejected, provide the rationale for that decision. This process is essential to improve accuracy and increase the legitimacy of management decisions.

Lastly, we must include British Columbia in the owner-operator model. The problem is the absence of owner-operator protections in British Columbia has facilitated acute corporatization leading to massive quota concentration and severely eroding independent Pacific fishing fleets, draining economic value from our coastal communities.

Our recommendation is a national application. We recommend amending the Fisheries Act to state the principles of owner-operator and fleet separation be applied nationally to all federally managed commercial fisheries, explicitly including those on the Pacific coast. DFO must accelerate the discussion and collaborate with B.C. stakeholders to design a tailor-made implementation strategy and a B.C. owner-operator policy to decentralize ownership and revitalize independent fishing on the Pacific coast. This must be done in a more timely and efficient manner or there will be little left of our public resource for independent harvesters to sustain.

In conclusion, the four recommendations that we have presented here today are structural necessities for a sustainable future: legal entrenchment of owner-operator; strategic designation of the fishery; mandatory integration of harvester knowledge; and national application of owner-operator to include B.C., all embedded legally within the act.

By adopting these targeted legislative amendments, this committee can ensure that our coastal communities remain vibrant.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Sonnenberg.

We will now hear from Mr. Mallet, from the Fishermen's Maritime Union.

[Martin Mallet, Executive Director, Maritime Fishermen's Union]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and the committee for having us.

The Maritime Fishermen's Union, MFU, represents over 1,300 inshore owner-operator fishermen in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Since its inception in 1977, the MFU's mission has been to represent, promote and defend the interests of inshore fishermen in the Maritimes and their communities.

I have four recommendations today.

The first is strengthening owner-operator protections. In 2018, the MFU supported all proposed changes to the Fisheries Act that had to do with increasing protections to the owner-operator fisherman concept.

The MFU is also one of the founding members of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvester's Federation. As such, we fully support the federation's recommendations here today, as just cited by Ms. Sonnenberg.

The central theme for independent inshore fishermen is ensuring that the benefits of the fishery resource flow to the people who fish it, not to large corporations or outside investors. While the 2019 amendments to the Fisheries Act and subsequent regulations in 2020 put these policies into law, loopholes in the regulations and ineffective enforcement remain a problem.

As such, controlling agreements or other creative legal workarounds are still used by fish processors and outside interests to exert effective control over fishing licenses and the proceeds from the catch, undermining the independent fishermen.

It should be mandated to have stricter, more frequent and more proactive enforcement of the anti-controlling agreement provisions. This may include following the money to trace the ultimate beneficiary of the catch and increasing penalties like fines, licence suspensions and cancellations for confirmed violations by non-harvesters who exert control.

Another area that needs to be addressed is the indigenous commercial communal loophole. The Marshall decisions and subsequent indigenous fishing access transfers were never about bands leasing out fishing licences and quotas to non-native interests; they were about giving fishing access to band members so that they could pursue a livelihood in the fisheries.

Currently, bands can purchase and accumulate owner-operator licences, convert them into communal licences, and then lease them out, bypassing owner-operator protections. It should be made mandatory, through policy or regulations, to have indigenous participation in the prosecution of indigenous commercial access—boots on the boats.

My second recommendation is effective enforcement of the Fisheries Act. More effective penalties designed to dissuade would-be offenders—especially punitive for repeat offenders—are also needed for conservation-related offences. As some resources on fisheries have become more lucrative, financial penalties have not followed increased income levels from the fisheries. A review of appropriate penalties in all fisheries is required.

My third recommendation is enhancing co-management and consultation. Fishermen often feel that management decisions, particularly in crisis situations—such as the right whale crisis in Atlantic Canada and the Atlantic mackerel moratorium—are made for them, not with them.

While the minister may consider social, economic and cultural factors, these considerations are discretionary and not mandatory. If the act is opened, it should be amended to make the consideration of social, economic and cultural factors a mandatory requirement for the minister when making decisions related to the inshore commercial fishery.

To ensure that the expertise and livelihoods of commercial fishermen are fully integrated into the fisheries governance, the reviewed Fisheries Act must mandate more formal structured and ongoing consultation processes with fishermen and their associations.

I'll skip to my fourth recommendation in the interest of time: Review the current Fisheries Act for redundancies and inefficiencies. Since the last review of the Fisheries Act, it has become evident that the DFO workload has expanded significantly but without necessarily improving their results.

For example, among the additions to section 6 of the Fisheries Act, the part that mandates that the minister develop and implement fish stock rebuilding plans leads to management redundancies and focuses rebuilding of fish stocks on fishing efforts solely, whereas, in many instances, climate change and changing predation dynamics are the leading causes of fish stock collapse and of their inability to recover.

In some cases, fish stocks may never recover into historical healthy zone status according to the current outdated precautionary approach of DFO. These sections could be repealed and resources redirected to enhance holistic ecosystem science and resource management through current advisory committee structures.

Finally, the precautionary approach should be modernized to account for habitat carrying capacity changes related to climate change and other changing environmental factors.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much. You were right on time.

Last but not least, we're going to Mr. Colin Sproul for five minutes.

[Colin Sproul, President, Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance]

Good afternoon, Chair and honourable committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

The Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance, UFCA, is an alliance of commercial fishery stakeholders calling on the Government of Canada to establish clear, lasting, responsible regulatory oversight of all fisheries: commercial, food, social and ceremonial. We represent thousands of independent multi-species commercial fishermen and fishery associations from across the Maritimes. Our membership also includes small to medium-sized businesses that are directly or indirectly tied to the Atlantic Canadian commercial fishery.

For thousands of Atlantic Canadians who work on boats and wharves, in processing plants and throughout the supply chain, the commercial fishery is their livelihood. For rural communities and governments, the fishery represents jobs, a tax base and an economic impact that helps to provide vital services for all residents.

Unfortunately, regulatory uncertainty is causing anxiety and concern among fishers and other stakeholders over the long-term sustainability and prosperity of the industry. Clear rules, compliance and enforcement are needed. To achieve this, we need to work together.

We want to collaborate with the Government of Canada and first nations to inform and understand viewpoints and ultimately establish regulatory certainty. The UFCA believes that indigenous and non-indigenous fishermen can work side by side in the future like they do today in the commercial fishery. We recognize and acknowledge the importance of co-operation with indigenous communities and that indigenous fishermen have a right to fish for commercial, food, social and ceremonial purposes.

Just as commercial fisheries operate today, there is room for diversity. There can be differences within allocation structure, administration and process; however, rules must ultimately and clearly form part of an integrated set of regulations that conserve fishery resources for generations to come and ensure a fair and respectful fishery for all. The UFCA continues to advocate on behalf of commercial fishermen and all those who rely on a sustainable fishery.

Our members have serious concerns surrounding proposed changes to the act. Regulatory authority within the act is already sufficient to achieve well-managed, sustainable fisheries. What is sorely lacking in the management of Canadian fisheries today is the application of science-based decision-making in collaboration with fish harvesters and respect for existing law. These processes have been replaced with ideological and political calculation at the peril of all communities that rely on healthy fisheries.

Potential changes most relevant to the UFCA's membership are those proposed by first nations governments and environmental non-governmental organizations, ENGOs. Changes proposed to indigenous commercial fisheries by the department and some Atlantic first nations governments are a clear departure from the scope of rights ratified by the Marshall decisions.

They would see the minister abdicate her authority, an authority that has been clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada, and they would further exclude rights holders from participation in fishing. The wanted changes are a road map for corporatization and vertical integration within rights-based fisheries. They would only serve to dramatically increase the leasing of fishery access to non-indigenous corporations, access that was granted expressly to implement Marshall rights. Most ominous to our members are proposed changes that would create a back door for a corporate takeover of the fishery in our own communities through nominal first nations ownership.

Also of concern to our members is the growing and inappropriate influence of ENGOs in fisheries management. Today, these groups routinely sit at stakeholder tables, where they have no business as stakeholders, while using their considerable resources to drown out harvester voices. Many of these groups gain the majority of their funding from foreign sources and then use that money to lobby against the sustainable economic development of Canadian resources. Meanwhile, the federal government boasts of its collaboration with these groups while holding out their alliance as social licence for management decisions that unnecessarily hurt fishing communities.

Fisheries management in Canada has lost its way. Any proposed changes to the act cannot solve all of the key problems facing us today. They can only be solved through transparent collaboration with real stakeholders. Ideology and politics must be rejected by the leadership of the Department of Fisheries. Science-based decision-making and respect for the law must be embraced again.

Thank you. I invite questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sproul.

That ends our opening remarks. We're going to go right into our first round of questions, starting with Mr. Arnold for six minutes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses for being here for this important study.

Mr. Sproul, on November 18, 2020, five years ago, 516 days after Bill C-68 received royal assent to amend the Fisheries Act, former minister Jordan, the minister at the time, was asked about reports of irregular landings of lobster in and around St. Marys Bay in 2020. She told this committee that “The fluctuations in landings in St. Marys Bay are consistent with those across all of the LFAs, so we do not see a conservation challenge right now. The stocks are healthy.”

In your opinion, what effect did the 2019 changes to the act have on irregular lobster landings in and around St. Marys Bay?

[Colin Sproul]

I would immediately dispute former minister Jordan's opinion on it. In that time period, we'd seen a huge reduction in lobster landings within St. Marys Bay, and the out-migration of at least one-third of the fishing access to other points within the fishing area where people can still make a living.

We also saw the closure of Riverside Lobster, one of Nova Scotia's largest lobster-processing plants, and the resultant loss of 200 jobs in the community.

As I said in my comments, and I will echo it again, this isn't about the act; this is about respect for law, respect for existing licensing policy and the application of law enforcement in our communities.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Since 2019, have you been able to raise the concerns about irregular landings of lobster with one or more of the fisheries ministers?

[Colin Sproul]

Yes, we've raised those concerns extensively with all of the fisheries ministers since 2019.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

And what were the responses?

[Colin Sproul]

Well, given the 10 years of extreme poaching and organized criminal activity within our communities, responses mean nothing to our membership anymore. The only things they will judge are action and results, and for a long period of time, we've seen neither.

This has resulted in huge damage to the sustainability of the resource, the outbreak of violence in our communities, and I think most importantly of all, a gulf being driven between indigenous and non-indigenous fishermen that never existed in the past.