Fisheries Committee on May 1st, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, meeting number 98. Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, April 16, 2018, we are doing a review of Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.

Before we get to our witnesses, I would just like to tell committee members that we have to do a little bit of committee business to approve budgets for the fall, and I'm wondering if we can take five minutes off of each hour and do 10 minutes at the end of this session.

Do I have consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, we are, by our count, I think, on meeting three on C-68, and we have yet to see the complete witness list. We're wondering if it is possible to give that out to the parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Yes, Mr. Doherty, we will have that circulated.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Just on that note with the master list, we all, I believe, submitted our lists in priority, and I've been looking at some of ours, and I'm not sure how the witnesses have been called. Certainly when we look at the ones we've had come to committee, it doesn't seem to be in the priority we submitted. If there's some rationale on the master list, it would be helpful to figure out how they get chosen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

We can address that when we go into committee business.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you.

We'll get started today with our witnesses. In the first hour we have, from Fish, Food and Allied Workers, Keith Sullivan, president, by video conference.

We also have, from the Mining Association of Canada, Pierre Gratton, president and chief executive officer, and Justyna Laurie-Lean, vice-president of environmental and regulatory affairs.

We also have, from Oceana Canada, Joshua Laughren, executive director.

We're going to start this morning with Mr. Sullivan for 10 minutes, please.

[Keith Sullivan, President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers]

Thanks, everybody. Thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak today. I'm not sure if I was the number one pick by Mr. Donnelly, but anyway we're going to get going. I hope everyone will appreciate the comments. I would have loved to be there today in person certainly.

My name is Keith Sullivan, and I'm the president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union. We represent workers in more than 500 communities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and most of those people work in the fisheries. About 10,000 of those are actually harvesters.

Many of the communities actually existed for centuries. The whole reason people live in these communities in these places in Newfoundland and Labrador is the fishery. I grew up in the small fishing community of Calvert. There were six generations of harvesters in that area before me, and that's not unlike an awful lot of stories of our members as well. I was lucky enough to be working in a fishing boat for many years of my life as well.

The inshore fishery has been the primary economic driver of coastal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's the real backbone of the middle class in those rural communities. Without the inshore fishery, the rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador wouldn't actually survive.

Our industry has gone through a significant transformation over the last number of years, particularly the last 20 years. Our ability to adjust, transform, and reinvent ourselves has been an amazing show of resilience and innovation in the inshore fishery. Now we're going through another transition and we're seeing a dramatic impact on our fishery once again. We're seeing warming water temperatures that have resulted in generally a decline of shellfish stocks, very valuable shellfish stocks, and we're seeing a resurgence in many groundfish species. While we see that there are new opportunities on the horizon, in the short term our members, whether they're in harvesting or in fish processing, are going to face significant challenges.

In order to rebuild a groundfish fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and sustain those coastal communities, we have to have management that's based on the principles of ecological sustainability, of course, and social sustainability, but also economic sustainability is important as well.

The recently tabled amendments to the Fisheries Act provide much of that critical foundation required to achieve those objectives. Most of my comments today are going to focus on the fisheries management provisions in Bill C-68, specifically the preservation and promotion of the independent, owner-operator fishery.

In our province it is not an exaggeration to say that the owner-operator principle and fleet separation are the two most important economic development principles we have in our coastal communities, particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador. These two policies have kept a viable inshore fleet in place and have injected significant wealth to all areas of the province. Again, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say those two policies combined are the most important economic development tools that our province has to offer, and I would say it would be similar in many areas of rural Atlantic Canada. It's because of the critical role that owner-operator and fleet separation play that the FFAW has been lobbying for 20 years to make sure that these policies are enshrined in law.

While inshore fish harvesters, their families, and their communities recognize the importance of these policies, there are some who do not see the value of safeguarding the independent owner-operator fishery. In the past, we've seen that corporate interests have influenced and interfered with the application and enforcement of the fleet separation and owner-operator policies. As a result, corporations have gained control of licences and are siphoning the wealth and the benefits not only from fisheries and fishery participants but really from our coastal communities and entire regions of our province.

The attack on the owner-operator principle, led primarily by large fish-processing companies, over the past 20 years has had serious economic repercussions for the fishery and our coastal regions. Of particular concern is the impact that trust agreements have had on the cost of fishing licences, which has made it extremely difficult for young people to enter the fishery. This is becoming more and more prevalent, and is really a key consideration for the next generation of harvesters. It's also important to note that harvesters who are actually in these trust agreements receive less for their catch. The same competition doesn't exist for these harvesters, so they're paid lower wages, in many instances.

The fleet separation and owner-operator policies have been remarkably easy to circumvent in recent years. They're extremely valuable, but at the same time they've been easy to get around. Legal teams for companies have developed trust or controlling agreements where the licence-holder must transfer the beneficial interest of a licence to another party that's not legally entitled to hold one—namely, most times a fish-processing company or a larger corporation. In such transactions, control over how the licence is used, sold, or managed is really granted to this third party as well. Again, for the licence-holder whose licence is owned or held in name only, the total control over that and the benefits are going to these outside corporations. That can be someone from outside of Canada, for that matter, just because we don't have the enforcement to back things up. Really, this is why the enforcement powers are so critical to ensuring that the owner-operator fleet is protected.

The independent owner-operator fishery is a strategic asset to Canada's economy. Amendments to section 43 of the act that give the minister authority to make regulations to enforce the owner-operator and fleet separation are key. With the force of law, these policies will become more robust, with legal consequences for corporations holding fish harvesters in controlling agreements.

Just the policy alone, as we saw, is insufficient to safeguard the social, economic, and cultural future of coastal communities. These policies deserve to be in legislation, and are the pillars, as I said before, of economic development for hundreds of thousands of people and their communities in Atlantic Canada. Over the years, there have been many discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on how to better enforce these policies, but little progress has been made. The policy for preserving the independence of the inshore fleet in Canada's Atlantic fisheries—PIIFCAF, as many in the business would know it—is an important policy initiative that's been in place for almost a decade but that's had modest results. It's an important and well-intentioned policy, but again, they've had the ability to circumvent that policy without the force of law.

In the end, PIIFCAF and the enforcement of the owner-operator and fleet separation are undermined because the activity they're regulating is not illegal. Owner-operator and fleet separation are not law, and violating them does not result in any specified punishment.

The proposed amendments to section 9 of the act should address the current lack of punishment by clarifying the minister's authority to act when the law is violated. These provisions give new authority to suspend or cancel licences if the minister determines that the licence-holder has entered into an agreement that contravenes any provision of the act or regulations.

Protecting the inshore fishery is one of the best ways to build a strong middle class in hundreds of coastal communities—much like Calvert, the community I grew up in—and to create jobs and protect and strengthen the economy. We actually have a very highly sophisticated, independent owner-operator fleet that is capable of harvesting all species on our coasts. It's able to bring that fresh product to our communities, but we need to make sure we have a strong policy and legal framework to ensure that the benefits of the fishery come back to the people who fish and to the adjacent coastal communities.

We can no longer afford to make fisheries decisions in silos, nor can we afford to ignore the wealth of knowledge offered by people who spend their days and countless hours in fishing boats.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. I'm sorry, I have to cut you off there. That's your 10 minutes.

Next we'll go to the Mining Association of Canada.

Mr. Gratton, go ahead for your 10 minutes, please.

[Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada]

Thank you, members of the committee. On behalf of the Mining Association of Canada, Justyna and I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today.

As some of you may know, when I spoke to your colleagues on the environment committee about Bill C-69, I said I was mad, mad because in the same bill, the transition provisions for mining projects under CEAA were not the same as those for NEB projects.

In the latter, the government ensured that all projects undergoing an assessment begun by the NEB under CEAA 2012 would remain under the NEB, but not so for mining, which faces the uncertainty of switching acts midstream.

Guess what. I'm mad about Bill C-68 for a very similar reason. In our appearance before this committee on November 14, 2016, we stressed the importance of adequate departmental capacity for implementing the act and managing transition. We described the significant challenges we encountered with the transition resulting from the amendments introduced in 2012. Over and over we emphasized to the department that they had to do a better job of managing the transition this time around.

We appreciated your recommendations, particularly 21, 22, and 25, that advocated for investments in hiring field personnel and meaningfully resourcing the monitoring, compliance, and enforcement components of the department. We are pleased that the government has materially increased funding for DFO.

However, here with Bill C-68, we find once again a failure to address the problem of transition. While the provisions proposed in subclause 53(1) provide an orderly transition for authorization applications that have been deemed complete, they do not recognize directions given to proponents by DFO in response to a request for review or to guide an application for authorization.

What does this mean exactly? I'll explain.

Determining whether a large and complex mining project will impact fish habitat, gathering information on potentially impacted fish habitat, and examining mitigation or avoidance options takes time. Field studies take time, and must account for seasonal constraints. If an authorization under the Fisheries Act is required, additional time is needed to gather all necessary information, assess offset options, seek input from affected communities, particularly indigenous communities, and otherwise conform to the applications for authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act regulations. The cost of the complete authorization application package can range from hundreds of thousands of dollars for small projects to millions of dollars in the case of large projects, and can take several years.

Thus, requesting a review and preparing an application is not a trivial or a quick undertaking. Mining projects are also subject to federal and provincial environmental assessment processes. These can take three or more years, and application for an authorization under the Fisheries Act cannot be submitted until these assessments are completed. The case of one MAC member is particularly troubling, and exemplifies the importance of our request for amendment.

The project entered federal environment assessment in 2012, and the proponent had to completely revise its original Fisheries Act-related plans when the new Fisheries Act amendments came into force in late 2013. In the case of this project, it is unlikely that the environmental assessment will be completed in time to allow an application for authorization to be submitted before this bill, Bill C-68, and its amendments, come into force. This proponent would then be required to revise its application all over again, because the extensive direction given by departmental officials over the past six years would suddenly be deemed invalid.

I'm sorry, but we find this simply unacceptable. We therefore urge you to amend subclause 53(1) as suggested in our brief to you, to prevent responsible proponents from being forced to redo field studies, project design, offset design, and application development.

I should emphasize we have met with the department on this matter, and we believe we've been heard, but again, we strongly encourage this committee to consider our proposed amendment seriously, because, members of the committee, our sector has practised due diligence. Unlike other sectors that believe their activities were no longer regulated by the Fisheries Act, over the past six years we have fully complied and engaged with departmental officials to understand the requirements of the 2012 amendments to the Fisheries Act.

Indeed, officials, by their own admission, confirm that most authorizations today are for only the mining sector. Few others, removed from the scrutiny of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and, thus, removed from the scrutiny of DFO, have bothered to seek authorizations even though their activities can, and do, harm fish.

Yet we find it is the mining sector that, by following the directions received, now may be penalized for our due diligence and engagement with the department if the directions received are invalidated through inadequate transition provisions, and duplication of effort is required to re-engage following the coming into force of new amendments.

The change we are requesting is not wholesale grandfathering. In fact, we believe the number of projects that would be affected by the proposed change is small. Morever, the requested change to the transition provisions would not affect the health of Canada's fish habitat. We do not believe there has been a deterioration in the protection from inadequate stringency of reviews and authorization applications for mining projects—and I believe the department could confirm that, as well. If there has been a deterioration, it is due to the lack of scrutiny of the activities of others. We are asking for relief from unnecessary administrative burdens on responsible project proponents and DFO regional staff.

Let me now turn to a second issue, which relates to cumulative effects.

When addressing the environment committee on Bill C-69, I spoke about how CEAA 2012 has penalized the mining sector by making us responsible for the cumulative effects of others not subject to CEAA. With Bill C-68 we face a similar situation with the requirement in proposed paragraph 34.1(1)(d) that the minister consider cumulative effects before recommending regulations or exercising any power.

Consideration of cumulative effects is necessary in making decisions that may impact aquatic ecosystem health. Fisheries are under federal jurisdiction, and the Fisheries Act contains a comprehensive range of regulatory tools for the discharge of that jurisdiction. DFO, thus, has the tools for monitoring, assessing, and managing cumulative effects.

However, based on our experience with CEAA 2012, the department may default to erroneously and unfairly place the burden of managing cumulative effects on a few mining projects rather than taking the steps necessary to address the root causes of cumulative fish habitat deterioration.

You recently heard from Margot Venton of Ecojustice Canada, who said:

...fish habitat is degraded not only by major projects, but also through the impact of smaller-scale works, undertakings, and activities. To stem the tide of incremental loss of habitat, DFO needs to do a better job of considering and addressing this cumulative loss of habitat....

Yes—guess what—I'm agreeing with Ecojustice, and not just with them.

The recently published “Watershed Reports: A national assessment of Canada's freshwater”, by the World Wildlife Fund, highlights the complexity and diversity of stresses on Canada's watersheds. It supports our concern that these stresses cannot be addressed by focusing the department's attention on a few mining projects. Activities affecting fish and fish habitat must be fully assessed by the party that caused the effect. Mining projects should be responsible only for project-related effects, as our industry has no control over effects related to non-mining activities, such as forestry, agriculture, hydro, and municipal works. In short, the act must be applied consistently for all works, undertakings, or activities.

Project proponents should not be held accountable for the cumulative effects of non-regulated activities, as contemplated in proposed subsection 34.1(1). As the legislation is drafted, a project proponent could be required to avoid, mitigate, or create offsets for fish habitat to compensate for the harm to fish habitat caused by other industries.

These concerns could be partly addressed by amending proposed paragraph 34.1(1)(d) as spelled out in our brief.

To conclude, if the transition provisions in subclause 53(1) are amended as requested, and if you help balance the responsibility for cumulative effects, the impacts of the revised Fisheries Act proposed by Bill C-68 on the mining sector are expected to be manageable. Of course this is contingent on how these are interpreted and implemented by DFO.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you very much.

You still had 30 seconds left, so you did very well.

Mr. Laughren, go ahead for 10 minutes, please.

[Joshua Laughren, Executive Director, Oceana Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members.

Thank you for the opportunity for Oceana to appear today on Bill C-68, and thank you for your continuing good work.

Oceana Canada is collaborating with the other environmental groups that have been in front of you as well. We're regularly consulting with first nations on how to strengthen Bill C-68. We support the priority amendments that you've heard from others on environmental flows and cumulative effects. First nations groups, in particular, have emphasized the importance of developing habitat banking in the act in co-operation with first nations, and of referencing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the act.

Our top priority, as Oceana, and our area of expertise is the rebuilding of fisheries. It's our view that Bill C-68 as worded is missing one really crucial element, and that's a duty to act when stocks, populations are depleted, with an aim to restore the fishery back to healthy levels. Other nations require this, which I'll show. Canada has committed to it in international agreements, and it already exists in departmental policy. We believe that enshrining this duty in law is the single most important thing we can do as a nation to secure the future for our fisheries and all who rely on them.

This is a word on who we are. Oceana Canada was established in 2015 as an independent, science-based organization. It's part of the largest international group focused solely on oceans in eight countries plus the EU. We believe the oceans are essential to helping feed the nine billion people projected to be on earth by 2050. By rebuilding Canada's fisheries, we can strengthen our coastal communities, reap greater economic and nutritional benefits, and protect our future. Oceana Canada wants the same things we think everyone in this room wants: robust, healthy, wild fisheries and all the cultural and economic benefits that come with them.

Turning to Bill C-68, for the first time since the Fisheries Act was created in 1868, Bill C-68 includes provisions specific to rebuilding. That's good. Unfortunately, as currently worded, the provisions fall short of what we know from global experience is necessary to effectively rebuild stocks. It falls short of our international agreements, and it will not keep us commensurate with other nations' laws.

Bill C-68 requires the minister to consider whether there are some unspecified measures to rebuild stocks that, in his or her opinion, are in the critical zone when making management decisions. I want to pause on that for a moment. “Consider” whether or not there is some measure in place only once the stocks are at or below the level the government's own policies and management measures are designed to never let it get to.

I've heard it argued that we shouldn't worry about this, that the regulations will be where this detail will be put in. We agree, of course, that regulations will be necessary, and that's where a lot of the detail can lie. We fundamentally believe the act has to provide clear guidance to those responsible for drafting the regulations and to stakeholders and rights holders on what the intent of those regulations will be. That guidance is currently missing.

What constitutes a measure to rebuild stocks? If there aren't measures to rebuild depleted stocks, what then? Rebuild to what? Is it to maximum sustainable yield or to upper reference points or just rebuild them back to the edge of the critical zone and leave it there? In what time frame? Bill C-68 falls short of the international standards, right at a time, too, when Canada is seeking to play a global leadership role in fisheries and oceans management.

I want to give you some quick examples from other laws around the world, edited for brevity. In the U.S. the law says, “Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.” It goes on to say that any fishery management plan, with respect to any fishery, shall contain measures necessary and appropriate to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks.

In the European Union it says that the common fisheries policy “shall aim to ensure that the exploitation of...resources restores and maintains populations....above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.” It goes on, “Multiannual plans shall be adopted as a priority...and shall contain conservation measures to restore and maintain fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield”.

In New Zealand the law says the minister shall set a total allowable catch that enables the level of any stock whose current level is below maximum sustainable yield to be altered in a way and at a rate that will result in the stock being restored to that level.

In Japan the law says the state shall take measures “aiming at the maintenance or recovery of fishery resources to the level that enables maximum sustainable production.”

Canada has required this of nations in the new NAFO convention that we've signed on to. Some other nations and we ourselves signed on to it.

In each of these cases there are regulations and further guidance that's developed that clarifies how governments can and should take into account economic and social considerations, how to take into account interdependent stocks, and how to adjust plans when nature doesn't respond the way we think it will. That's appropriate and necessary. You can't legislate biology. But in each case, the intent of the legislation is clear: when stocks are in trouble, governments must respond, not “consider” responding.

Of course, this matters because the need to rebuild our fisheries has probably never been greater. We really have halted some of the worst cases of overfishing that happened in decades past, but many of our fisheries remain depleted, often decades after collapse. We are left in the vulnerable position now of being highly dependent on only a handful of species to support the bulk of the economics of the fishing industry, like lobster, crab and shrimp, obviously.

Canada's marine fish populations have declined, as you've heard, by 55% since 1970. That's over a half of our biomass of fish in my lifetime. According to DFO's most recently published numbers, there are only three rebuilding plans in place for the 21 stocks that DFO has confirmed to be in the critical zone. DFO often continues to allow directed fishing on stocks in the critical zone even in the absence of a rebuilding plan or management reference points. Northern cod, of course, which collapsed in 1992 and has been under a moratorium for 26 years, as this committee noted, is still without a rebuilding plan, and there is no identified upper reference point. Nonetheless, management decisions continue and allow fishing levels to increase on a fragile stock, giving it the dubious privilege of being the largest groundfish fishery, I believe, in Atlantic Canada right now, while still under a moratorium.

It is our view that this historical lack of priority on rebuilding, despite policy commitments to do so, and on implementing rebuilding plans is directly attributable to the lack of legislative guidance and a legal duty. This committee has the opportunity to fix that. There is strong evidence, I'll add, too, that adding a legal duty to create rebuilding plans makes a difference—a big one. For example, since the United States legally required rebuilding of depleted fish stocks, 44 stocks have been classified as rebuilt since 2000, generating, on average, 50% more revenue than when they were overfished. In the EU, the number of stocks with a total allowable catch, based on science to produce maximum sustainable yield over time, has gone from two, in 2007, to 53, in 2016. Cod, of course, once collapsed in Europe as in here, has recovered in the North Sea, in Norway, and in the Barents Sea.

Canada has committed to rebuilding international agreements like the United Nations fish stocks agreement, the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the NAFO convention. It's already departmental policy. What we're missing is the legal guidance.

We recommend that you amend Bill C-68 by including a legal requirement for the minister to develop rebuilding plans when stocks have fallen into the critical zone; to set a target to rebuild stocks out of the critical and cautious zones and back to healthy levels as advised in the sustainable fisheries framework of DFO right now; and to include a timeline and guidance on timelines for rebuilding.

Obviously, this is not a silver bullet. This kind of duty needs to be matched by good science, good management, strong enforcement, and it should be done in partnership with the communities and people who rely on and are deeply connected to our oceans. Countries that have this positive legal duty to act have healthier and more stable fisheries than those that do not. Surely that's what we all want.

In our brief we will provide specific wording for the committee to consider.

We look forward to your support and discussion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Laughren.

Going to the government side for the first seven minutes, we have Mr. McDonald, please.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses who are appearing in person, and of course, Mr. Sullivan, who's appearing by video conference.

It's good to talk to you again, Keith. I know we met one day last week for a brief chat.

You spoke about the owner-operator and the importance of it to the fleet. You mentioned you represent about 10,000 harvesters. FFAW represents plant workers; people involved in the fishery, both inshore and offshore; and people who work on the vessels. This is part of who you represent in the fishery. You have a wide catchment. You're speaking for everybody, basically. When it comes to the owner-operator, you mentioned what's been happening, and hopefully it will change in the bill going forward. What do we do to correct what's already happened? Do you foresee any way to reverse what's taken place with regard to corporate ownership versus owner-operator?

[Keith Sullivan]

Yes, absolutely, I do. I think there have been some small steps made to investigate where some of these obvious trust agreements and controlling agreements have been taking place, so these agreements that right now are outside policy should be illegal and hopefully will be soon.

What's got to happen is more resources and investment. I know there's some money made available to help implement this bill, so it will be important that we have the investment to see who is going out and really undermining this important economic policy. What it really comes down to is putting some work, time, and investment into it, because, for places where companies will be losing a licence, for example, that may have value of a million dollars, $2 million, or $3 million. There are pretty significant penalties. That's not a very safe investment to people willing to just leave those hanging out there.

Really, it's good to have it in policy and now in legislation and regulation, but you really need to follow up on such an important economic cornerstone for our provinces, particularly Newfoundland. As you said, we absolutely depend on it, and it's the biggest game in town for most of our rural and coastal regions. It goes right from the harvester to the plant workers, to anyone who's trucking, to all the existing businesses there, right down to what our municipal governments run on, the value from the fisheries. It is absolutely key, and that's why these are some of the most significant changes we've seen for some time.

The follow-up investment is the part that I was going to end off on if I'd timed myself a little better. That is the other key element in this.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

In saying that, Keith, you mentioned, too, about young people being able to get into the fishery, but in many cases, you hear tell of a corporate entity buying an enterprise or a controlling interest in an enterprise through these trust agreements and paying millions of dollars for it to any particular fisherman or any particular enterprise.

How can we make it affordable for the new entrant or young person to get involved in the fishery at that level when the quotas are so expensive? It's only the big corporations that have the ability to pay that kind of money. How do we make it so that the fishermen, the people in the boats, can afford to buy those quotas and those enterprises?

[Keith Sullivan]

Really, what my experience has shown is that, if there's a good ability to make a living and raise a family in the fishery, people will invest. It's not like any other business. You have to have a business case that makes sense, and people will get into it. People really want to live in the rural parts of our province, and fishing is a great livelihood a lot of times.

What we've seen in the past are young people, maybe off the deck of a boat, a young person who's grown up in this community, had an opportunity to get a licence, but these companies, who very obviously have deep pockets—sometimes national, sometimes international companies—always had the ability to outbid other groups. If you're a person just going to the bank and trying to get that money together, they're always able to out-compete people, and their business plan was totally different. They were able to make up the value in other ways, such as by not paying people as much when they got control of the licences. Really, removing those puts young harvesters on a level playing field. We can certainly look at other things for young harvesters as well.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Laughren, you mentioned something that I guess is pretty hard for an MP from Newfoundland and Labrador, the northern cod moratorium that started back in 1992—it's 26 years now—and the lack of a proper rebuilding plan and maybe a poor management plan to start with. As Mr. Sullivan said, the fishery is very important economically and socially for some 500 communities in just Newfoundland alone.

What do you say to those people who depend on the bit of quota they do have to have a make-or-break year? With the cod being in the critical state that it is, even though there's a moratorium and there is some fishing taking place, do we cut it off completely? How do you balance that with the communities and the survival of the stock?

[Joshua Laughren]

The obvious point we all agree on is that overfishing of stocks, including cod, has done far more to hurt communities in Newfoundland than any conservation or conservationist has. These are tough decisions. The idea of developing a proper plan and setting goals in advance actually means you need to have that discussion, and it's a tough one. Have it before, not after, you reach these thresholds. We're in the position now of expecting a decision from the minister on cod shortly, and nobody has any guidance or sense of where he's going to go with it because there's complete and utter discretion on it, with no plan to guide us. Twenty-six years after the collapse, we still don't have agreement on where we're trying to go with the stock or at what levels we will start to allow fishing. Those are tough discussions that we ought to have, and we ought to have them before we get to this stage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you, Mr. Laughren.

We'll move to Mr. Doherty now for seven minutes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you to our guests.

I want to follow up with Mr. Laughren on your question. If you followed the testimony from previous committees, this is something that is a big issue for me. In my opinion, it is management.

I would like your opinion. We have had DFO appear before this committee time and time again, whether it is this Parliament, the previous Parliament, or the Parliament before that. For 26 years, we have had DFO appear before the committee, before parliamentarians, and promise to do better, to be better, to get our fish stocks beyond the critical level. What is the issue that we seem to have? Is it an institutional issue, or is it strictly a management issue within DFO?

[Joshua Laughren]

I think it's certainly more than just a management issue within DFO. When you see the same thing happening over a generation or more, then you start to look at fundamental drivers, as opposed to one person making a bad decision.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Right.