Fisheries Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We now go to Mr. Kelloway for five minutes or less, please.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Well, that's a hard position to follow from.

First and foremost, Mr. Goudie, thank you for being here.

I also want to welcome MP Lightbound, MP Collins and MP McCauley.

There are a couple of things before I go to you with questions. One thing that I think tends to get lost in a lot of this is that this is a good-news story for Newfoundland and Labrador. After 30-plus years of not fishing northern cod, this is an amazing story with respect to the rebound of the fishery over a long period of time and the suffering, the tenacity and the patience of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We felt the moratorium in Cape Breton back in the early nineties. Lots of men and women fishers and their families went through an incredible ordeal.

That said, I want to talk a little bit about.... When we're done with the study, which will be today, we will meet in in camera sessions to discuss the report, and we'll be here to discuss recommendations that go in the report. Mr. Goudie, I think you started it off very well in your opening remarks in terms of where the recommendations would go, but I want to give you an opportunity to hold the pen right now and write some recommendations or, in this case, talk to us about what you would want to see in a report from this committee. That's the first question.

The second question I'm very interested in is about the economic impact of this quota allotment. I'm wondering if you can speak to that. You also mentioned future allotments. This might be in your recommendations, but what kind of economic impact would that bring? I think both you and MP Collins talked about the cultural and historical significance. I'm wondering if you could talk about the economics of it as well.

[James Goudie]

I guess for the first part of your question, I'll say the same thing I told DFO at the very first meeting I had with them, which is that I want it all, 100% of everything in 2J3KL, you name it. They told me I was crazy and started laughing at me, but I was dead serious. For 150 years.... My great-grandfather was the steward of the Newfoundland fleets when they came up this way. Let's give it all to us. We'll share some with the Innu. And then, in 150 years' time, let's have this conversation again, and then we'll all talk about sharing it once upon a time.

The resources that are off the Nunatsiavut coast aren't benefiting the Nunatsiavut people the way they should be. The same can be said for turbot. The same can be said for shrimp. The same can be said for crab. I don't understand why we're not here having a meeting about shrimp and the offshore—but hey, that's just me. We're the only ones who fish it inshore.

That being said, on the economic impact for this year, obviously, we went from one designated fisherman to 12. All of those small communities are 100% isolated. There are no roads, so it's just fly in, fly out, or ferry it in, in summertime. That's a major impact to even the grocery store there.

Hopefully next year, the plant that processes our turbot and crab will be able to process the cod as well. That should somewhat extend either the overall workforce or the season, so you have more dollars pouring into that community in particular. I would like to see more designated fishermen in smaller vessels so that they can go out on day trips to fish and then land to the plant. We're hoping that'll have a massive economic impact as we can designate more people to fish cod under the allocations that we get.

In terms of the dollar figure, I can't give that to you right now. There are lots of things that need to be assessed and brought forward to me. However, the cod allocations that we do get from the federal minister are certainly having and will have an impact on the economy in Nunatsiavut.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

You mentioned the ability to go from inshore to offshore, or both. I'm just curious about the ability to do that. Do you have the vessels to do that? Do you have arrangements made? Can you unpack that a bit for us here on committee?

[James Goudie]

Yes. In order for us to have the ability to do that, we would essentially lease to the offshore. It would be a big offshore player. In regard to cod—and there are probably people on this panel who can correct me if I'm wrong—I think at this point OCI is probably the major player in groundfish species offshore.

We haven't delved into that too much, because we didn't need to. We fished it inshore. However, again, we want to reserve the right if we decide to do that or if we have problems. It's the prerogative of the Nunatsiavut Government and our cabinet to see an inshore fishery. However, we certainly don't want to see fish left in the water that we could help build our economy on, and/or the quota distributed elsewhere if we're not able to fish it. We don't think that's fair. We don't think the fishery in the past for Labrador Inuit was fair. We certainly don't think it's fair to the other indigenous group, who aren't quite as set up as we are to have that inshore fishery piece.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

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

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier, you said that you didn't have a lot of trust in DFO science. At the forum we held last week in Caraquet, we were told that there was a difference between the measurements taken by DFO and those taken by fishers on the ground.

Do you agree that greater consideration should be given to the scientific data of fishers who are on the front lines and who may be in a better position to assess the biomass and the presence of fish stocks on a daily basis? DFO often takes its measurements at the same place, even though the fish stocks move around. That is more or less what people criticized at the end of last week. Would you agree?

[James Goudie]

I think I got the translation right. For clarification, is that in terms of guiding DFO in their way of thinking?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

What people criticized at our forum last week is that DFO takes its measurements at the same place on the same date, when it is well known that fish behave differently based on different variables and move around. They could be found elsewhere if measurements were taken at different places. DFO is criticized for sticking to the same approach when it should perhaps lean more towards what fishers themselves observe.

Are you seeing the same thing where you're from?

[James Goudie]

Madam Vice-Chair, I don't disagree with you. I certainly think that, if I could guide DFO in any way, I would be exercising that power of persuasion every day of my life, because it doesn't seem as if DFO listens to me in any other aspect of my conversations with them.

I absolutely agree that DFO should be more flexible. I think there needs to be more work done on all species, not just cod—certainly in the Labrador Sea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll now go to Ms. Collins for two and a half minutes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks again to the witness.

I have a question about the special allocation. You mentioned that it should go to the true indigenous nations and be split between the two. Have you received a response from the government about your criticisms, or about suggestions on how the special allocation seems unfair?

[James Goudie]

No, I have not, in terms of a formal response. There have been conversations with DFO. Some DFO staff say, “We have always treated them as an indigenous group, so this is why they have a special allocation.”

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

If they are treated like an indigenous group, wouldn't the government put them into the indigenous allocation? I'm curious. Have you lodged formal complaints with the government? Are you still waiting for a response from them?

[James Goudie]

At this point, we haven't lodged any formal complaints. The reason it's a special allocation, and not termed an indigenous allocation, is that the two indigenous organizations in Labrador do not recognize this as an indigenous collective in any way. It's certainly not an Inuit group. The national Inuit organization and all four of the land claims organizations that represent Inuit in Canada do not recognize this as an Inuit group.

I assume this is the minister doing her part in terms of trying to appease everyone without creating greater controversy between the two indigenous groups in Labrador.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I only have a few seconds left, so I'll end with a comment.

It seems as if it should be up to indigenous communities to decide who is included as an indigenous group. I hope your voice is heard by the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I want to say thank you to Mr. Goudie for appearing before committee today and for testifying and answering all those wonderful questions.

We're going to suspend now to set up for our next panel.

I want to say a big welcome to Ms. Collins, who is representing Ms. Barron here today, and to Mr. Lightbound, who's filling in for Mr. Cormier, I believe.

Also, welcome, Mr. McCauley. You can pass that on to Mr. Genuis as well. It was good to have him here for the few minutes that he was here. You don't have to, if you don't want to. You can take all the praise yourself.

Again, we'll suspend for a few minutes now to switch out panels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Welcome back.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, February 8, 2024, the committee is resuming its study on the review of the Fisheries Act.

Welcome to our witnesses in the room.

From the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, we have Tim Kennedy, president; and Mia Parker, executive board member. Also with us is Francis Bradley, president and chief executive officer for Electricity Canada.

Thank you for taking the time to appear today. You will each have five minutes or less for opening statements.

For the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, I believe Mr. Kennedy will do the opening statement.

You have the floor for five minutes or less, please.

[Tim Kennedy, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee.

The more than 60 companies and 17,000 people working in the aquaculture sector whom I'm representing here today are directly engaged in almost all of the issues this committee addresses, so we are grateful for the opportunity to share our views with you. I think it's been many years for us.

For most Canadians, the aquaculture sector is out of sight and out of mind. They enjoy our oysters, our mussels and our Atlantic salmon but rarely link them all back to our farms or the people who work there. However, we are, indeed, farmers, and just like farmers raising cattle, sheep or pigs, we raise our animals from their earliest life stages and feed them, care for them and bring them to markets across Canada and the world. We raise our animals in water, but we are farmers just the same.

Right now, over 50% of the world's seafood is raised through farms. We are the path to growth for seafood production. With the longest coastline in the world, Canada has the opportunity to be a global leader for job creation, affordable food production and sustainable food security for Canadians. In many countries, our competitors operate under the auspices of national aquaculture legislation that provides support and operational certainty for farmers. In Canada, the only reference to aquaculture in a federal statute is in the Bank Act.

No, Mr. Chair, that is not a typo. The Bank Act does actually define “aquaculture”—inaccurately, I might add—and confirms that aquaculture operators may use their infrastructure and fish as security for bank loans. Beyond that, federal statutes are silent with respect to our industry, in a way that is completely out of step with how Parliament considers almost every other part of the agriculture sector and the industry more generally.

This situation presents considerable challenges for our sector. It creates an atmosphere of uncertainty for our operations and investments. It creates an uneven playing field across Canada and puts far too much discretion in the hands of ministers and bureaucrats, and it deprives aquaculture of the support and clarity that the rest of the agriculture sector enjoys across Canada.

This situation needs to change. In the longer term, Canada needs purpose-built modern national aquaculture legislation that is centred on our role as food producers. In the more immediate term, we believe that five minor changes to the Fisheries Act could start the legislative ball rolling and position the government to more effectively support and steward the sector.

First, we believe that aquaculture needs to be properly defined in law. It would be helpful to include a definition in the Fisheries Act along these lines: “aquaculture is a form of agricultural production designed to produce food and/or food products for human and/or animal consumption and includes the rearing of privately owned plants and animals in captivity throughout their life cycle.” This would provide clarity and certainty for the sector and for DFO efforts to regulate it.

Second, we believe the word “aquaculture”, defined appropriately, should be added to the list of topics in section 43, which deals with regulations. This would allow for the design of regulations specifically focused on aquaculture directly, rather than via the current backdoor approach using regulatory structures designed for other purposes.

Third, the act should be revised to direct the minister to develop a precautionary approach policy or framework specific to aquaculture. Unsurprisingly, the act is designed to bring the precautionary approach to bear with respect to commercial fisheries and related habitat concerns. This approach is not suitable for the regulation of the site-based, high-technology operations of our sector. A more realistic and appropriate approach is needed and should be guided by law, not by ministerial or bureaucratic whims or inclinations.

Fourth, given that aquaculture is a form of agriculture, the act should be revised to drive collaboration between DFO and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the agriculture governance system more generally. Ultimately, we would like to see AAFC assuming a mandate for aquaculture in a way that would lead to more effective federal support for the sector and remove the perceived conflict of interest in the current DFO position with respect to our sector.

Fifth, on a note that applies beyond just the aquaculture domain, we strongly believe that the act should be modernized to increase decision-making transparency and transform the current black-box approach the minister and DFO utilize. It's essential that all Canadians and, certainly, our sector are aware of the scientific data and information the minister uses in making decisions with respect to them. A Fisheries Act amendment requiring the minister to publicly share such information would dramatically increase decision-making integrity and credibility and focus debates on real issues rather than political posturing.

Mr. Chairman, our sector is a heavily regulated, technology-driven and ecologically sustainable industry of vital importance to the economic and social well-being of coastal and rural communities across Canada. There is tremendous opportunity ahead, despite the unfortunate and unnecessary headwinds at present. It needs and deserves a more constructive, predictable and fair legislative base than the Government of Canada has put in place to date. Our five recommendations would be important first steps in this regard, and I would of course be more than happy to address any of them in more depth with the committee here today.

Thanks very much for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

We'll now go to Mr. Bradley, for five minutes or less, please.

[Francis Bradley, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electricity Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Francis Bradley, and I am the president and CEO of Electricity Canada. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today as part of your study on the Fisheries Act.

Electricity Canada is an association that represents the country's power companies, the companies that generate, transport and distribute electricity in every province and territory in the country.

Mr. Chair, let me start by cutting to the chase. The fundamental issue is that we now have a fish act, not a fisheries act.

First, let me put this in context. Canada is experiencing a rapid increase in electricity demand. We expect demand for electricity to double or triple by 2050, and to meet this, we need to build at a pace not seen since the 1950s. According to the Canada Energy Regulator, this will require increasing hydroelectric generation by more than 25%. To do this, we need a regulatory environment that is predictable, and it's urgent.

As it stands now, the Fisheries Act does not offer this. The 2019 changes to the act shifted the focus from protecting fisheries to a narrow focus on individual fish. This has resulted in project delays and increased costs to Canadians, without significant benefits to fisheries. When the changes were originally debated, our industry raised concerns that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would be overwhelmed with an influx of applications for FAAs, Fisheries Act authorizations. This has been the case, and the department has not been resourced adequately to manage the volume of applications.

It was suggested that, prior to implementing the changes, a pathway to compliance be developed alongside alternative compliance mechanisms. Unfortunately, here we are, five years later, and key regulations and guidance materials have not been developed and no clear pathway has been established for the hundreds of facilities that became non-compliant overnight. How did they become non-compliant overnight? It's because they were designed to protect fisheries, not individual fish.

Some of our members have more than 100 years of experience operating their hydroelectric infrastructure. They take every possible step to be responsible stewards of the local fisheries, from the design of their facilities to developing best practices and entering into local conservation partnerships. They have time-tested processes to mitigate the impacts of routine, low-level projects. Fisheries Act authorizations should be reserved for activities that have a higher potential for adverse impacts.

We have always worked and will always work collaboratively with government to find solutions. In fact, right now, our stewardship committee is in Ottawa for a workshop with the DFO on ways to improve the implementation of the act. While these engagements are necessary for productive industry-government collaboration, we need to get moving on improving the regulatory environment if we want to meet our climate and economic goals.

To enhance regulatory certainty, promote the sustainability of fisheries and better enable economy-wide electrification, we recommend, first, that the purpose of the Fisheries Act should be restored to the protection of fisheries instead of individual fish. This ecosystem approach would be in line with the original intention of the act and allow DFO officials to set reasonable and realistic targets based on the resources they have available. This can be achieved through modest amendments to the act or the development of an electricity-specific regulation that reflects the unique realities of our sector.

Second, the minister should issue an operational directive with guidance to the department on the development of compliance mechanisms for low-risk, routine activities. This will ease the burden on the department, as well as improve implementation for the industry.

Finally, DFO should continue to work to implement the cabinet directive on regulatory and permitting efficiency for clean growth projects. Taking a cross-government approach is how we will achieve the regulatory harmony and efficiency we need to get critical clean electricity projects built.

To conclude, it's the impacts of climate change that present the most existential threat to fisheries. Getting clean electricity infrastructure built is critical to reducing our emissions and mitigating these impacts, ultimately protecting Canadians and fisheries.

Mr. Chair, you will find in the brief that we presented 11 specific recommendations in appendix B.

Thank you for the opportunity to join you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you. You cut your time pretty close.

We'll now go to Mr. Small for six minutes or less for questions, please.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Kennedy, do threats exist to existing aquaculture or future expansion of aquaculture from things associated with the current government's commitment to 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030 in terms of marine protected areas or national marine conservation areas?

Is there any threat posed to aquaculture by those initiatives?