Fisheries Committee on June 16th, 2021

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I believe you referred to a permanent licence transfer. What do you define as “permanent”? Permanent to me seems like a long time. It's permanent.

[Adam Burns]

In my opening remarks, I was referring to a permanent quota transfer, as opposed to a permanent licence transfer. All licence transfers are permanent.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Well then, that's fine. They go to a permanent quota transfer. What do you mean? What's “permanent”? Define “permanent”. It sounds like a heck of a long time.

[Adam Burns]

It's probably a poor use of words.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Could you clarify, then, your poor use of words?

[Adam Burns]

The difference would be that a temporary quota transfer would be for one season only. The permanent one would effectively be permanently moving some of that quota from one licence to another—so each year that it's reissued.

If I have 100 tonnes of something, for example, and somebody else has 100 tonnes, in certain fisheries the rules would permit me to transfer a portion of my quota, let's say 10 tonnes, to that other licence holder, either temporarily for this year only, or permanently, so that going forward, I would have 90 tonnes, and that other licence holder would have 110.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

We'll now go to Madame Gill, for two and a half minutes or less, please.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask about something we were told at the last meeting. Despite what we're hearing now, witnesses were telling us about difficulties in applying policies and regulations because of the lack of resources. They were saying that it makes the work of the department difficult. These were people in the business.

Do you think that that is the case?

Just now, we were told two things at the same time. First, we were told that is not possible to get around the regulations and, second, we were told that people are concerned that some do succeed in getting around them. Then again, we are told that everything is overseen and everything is going well, while, at the last meeting, we were told there are a lot of difficulties with oversight and that resources are inadequate. In a word, a lot of things have gone by the board. For 40 years, blind eyes have been turned to things that are actually happening.

What is your opinion, Mr. Burns, Ms. McCready or Mr. Whorley?

[Adam Burns]

Thanks for the question.

Prior to the coming into force of the inshore regulations, we were working with a policy, which is a different beast to implement. We now have the inshore regulations, which are, I think, what folks were referring to when they were referencing resources. The difference we now have—and this isn't related to the offshore—is that those inshore regulations prescribe licence eligibility related to being an independent inshore harvester and maintaining the rights and privileges of that licence themselves. There's an eligibility requirement in order to have a licence issued to you. If you are not compliant with the eligibility requirements, a licence cannot be issued to you.

In the prior circumstance, with PIIFCAF, that wasn't the case. It wasn't a regulatory eligibility requirement but rather a policy, and so the timelines were much more protracted. It is true that some harvesters would be under review, which is what it was called under PIIFCAF, for an extended period of time.

Under the inshore regulations, if there is a question around eligibility and around the separation of those rights and privileges from the licence-holder, then that licence-holder would need to demonstrate their compliance with the regulations before a licence could be reissued to them. The moment their licence expired, their ability to fish would cease until they rectified that and a new licence was issued.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madam Gill.

We'll now go to Mr. Johns for two and a half minutes.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are a couple of things.

Madam Gill, I think, summed it up by talking about turning a blind eye. My concern is that here we hear the department. Two years ago we got the report about stopping the transfer of foreign licences on the west coast. There's been no action so far. We want a public database so we can even know who owns the quota. I don't think this is rocket science; I think it's something that Canadians deserve to know.

If the government doesn't take action on these really important clear steps that this committee was united behind, if government doesn't have a backbone, basically we're going to lose all our fisheries to corporate and foreign interests. Do you not agree?

[Adam Burns]

Chair, unfortunately I don't have much of a response.

I do apologize, Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

We haven't seen any action. I'm just reinforcing that. You're here, and you haven't gotten any answers. It's been two years. We're looking at the U.S.-based Pacific Group, for example, on the west coast, which bought up the processing. Our fishers are getting half of the amount per pound that goes to fishers in Oregon and Washington, just to give an example.

I think the department really needs to do a socio-economic analysis of each fishery and plug these economic leakages. You haven't brought any sort of idea that the government's looking at that, that they're working in conjunction with the provinces.

What is the department recommending to the minister? Is this something that you're looking at?

[Adam Burns]

Sorry, just for—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I mean both coasts. We're seeing the leakage on the east coast in the processing, just to clarify.

[Adam Burns]

With respect to the processing sector on the east coast, certainly discussions on a variety of things relating to the management of the fishery occur at the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, in collaboration with their provincial counterparts. It is their jurisdiction. It's outside of DFO's jurisdiction to intervene in the ownership structure of processing companies.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

So DFO is saying that it's not their problem, that economically it could just be happening? Harvesters are basically getting robbed blind on both coasts and it's not the department's issue? It's not their issue—is that what you are saying?

[Adam Burns]

It's not within our jurisdiction to intervene in provincial jurisdictions. We don't have the tools—they exist in provincial jurisdictions—to regulate the processing sector.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

That sounds like a big breakdown.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Not to pick up for Mr. Burns, but processing on the east coast is totally provincial. If it's the same on the west coast, the feds don't get involved in the processing at all on the east coast. It's done provincially.

Mr. Arnold, go ahead for five minutes or less, please.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Burns, I'll start with you this time around. In the Pacific region, DFO created [Inaudible--Editor] class licences to support indigenous harvesters. What percentage of those licences are in long-term control agreements with investors, processors or foreign interests?

[Adam Burns]

I don't have that number. I'm not sure that we could provide it. I could work with my colleagues in the Pacific region. I wouldn't even want to speculate if the answer would be greater than zero.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

The reason I ask this is that we've been told that indigenous harvesters have to go through processors to access most of these licences.

Is this concerning to you?

[Adam Burns]

Again, I don't have specific details around this particular issue.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Do you have any information on it? If you don't, it's troubling that we would know about it as committee members, but you, as senior DFO officials, have no knowledge of it.

That's concerning to me and I think concerning to this entire committee.