Fisheries Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 132 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. This meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders.

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

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. Please address all comments through the chair. Today, all of our witnesses are on Zoom, and we also have some members on Zoom.

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

I will welcome the witnesses for our first panel.

From Oceans North, we have Susanna Fuller, vice-president, conservation and projects, and no stranger to this committee. From M-Expertise Marine Incorporated, we have Lyne Morissette, a doctor of marine ecology and a fisheries and marine mammal specialist. We also have Richard Williams, a fisheries consultant.

Thank you for taking the time to appear. You will each have up to five minutes for your opening statement.

Ms. Fuller, you have the floor.

Ms. Fuller is frozen.

Mr. Williams, I'll go to you first for five minutes or less.

[Richard Williams, Fisheries Consultant, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the invitation to appear today.

Over my almost 50 years of fisheries research and consulting work, I have been privileged to support the development of what is arguably the best-managed, most economically robust and most sustainable coastal fishery in the world. It's not perfect by any means, but it's still a huge strategic asset for the rural coastal regions of Canada.

This current review of the act offers an opportunity to further advance sustainable development in the fisheries by addressing strategic issues and gaps where stronger legislative and regulatory governance is needed. In my view, the most significant failure in current fisheries legislation, regulations and licensing policy is the great disparity in support for coastal communities and working fish harvesters on the Atlantic versus the Pacific coasts.

In the Canada Gazette in 2020, the DFO minister articulated the government's rationale for new licensing regulations for Atlantic fisheries.

It reads:

Progressive fisheries policies that prevent vertical integration between the fishing and processing sectors and that prevent the concentration of licences in the hands of a few corporations or individuals have been pivotal in the maintenance of the wealth distribution across the [Atlantic] region and small communities. Without these policies, wealth from fishing licences would be concentrated in the hands of ineligible third parties resulting in fewer or lower paying fishing jobs available in rural coastal areas and in a decrease of economic benefits being maintained in the coastal communities.

These are the words of the minister.

This sets out in clear, concrete language why the Atlantic owner-operator policies were put into law. Importantly, it also describes in detail the negative outcomes we are seeing in British Columbia in the absence of fleet separation and owner-operator protections—that is, the concentration of licences “in the hands of a few corporations” or individuals, and “fewer or lower paying fishing jobs available in rural coastal areas and in a decrease of economic benefits being maintained in the coastal communities.”

StatCan tax filer data confirms the poor performance of the British Columbia fishery from 2010 to 2019. Average income from fishing employment, captains and crew on the Atlantic coast improved by 68%, while B.C. harvesters saw only 4% growth in earnings, even though total landed value in B.C. grew by 36% over the period. The wealth didn't go to fishermen. More up-to-date DFO licensing statistics show that, from 2014 to 2023, the fisheries labour force in British Columbia shrank by one-third—a loss of 1,954 jobs—while harvester employment in Atlantic fisheries had a slight uptick.

There have been 800 fishing jobs lost in B.C. since this committee's “West Coast Fisheries: Sharing Risks and Benefits” report was completed in 2019. Two major FOPO studies in 2019 and 2023 examined these issues in great depth and called on DFO ministers to initiate the transition to a made-in-B.C., owner-operator licensing regime. To date, however, only limited steps have been taken. DFO Pacific region is currently conducting yet another engagement process to consult not on how to fix the licensing system but on whether a fix is needed and what it might possibly look like.

I therefore urge the committee to recommend amending the Fisheries Act to establish fleet separation as the default licensing policy for all owner-operator coastal or small boat commercial fishing fleets in Canada, the template being the fleet separation rules currently in effect in designated Atlantic fisheries.

Thank you, and I look forward to the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We'll now try Ms. Fuller again.

You have five minutes or less.

[Susanna Fuller, Vice-President, Conservation and Projects, Oceans North]

Thank you for inviting me to speak today.

I want to recognize the importance of this five-year review of the Fisheries Act, the first one ever. The 2019 modernization of the act marked its first major overhaul since 1868. It's one of the most important laws in Canada for both our environment and our communities. It's an act we should be proud of, and we should continue to implement it to the fullest extent possible. If we do that, the act will ensure future Canadians benefit from our freshwater and marine ecosystems, which sustain cultures, livelihoods and economies for so many indigenous and non-indigenous communities.

Two of the major upgrades to the act in 2019 were the inclusion of section 35 of the Constitution and, as Dr. Williams referenced, the enshrining of owner-operator policy in Atlantic Canada in law.

Oceans North staff have been active participants in many fisheries advisory committees over the last five years, and we also support Canada in its representation on international fisheries bodies, such as NAFO and ICCAT. We work collaboratively whenever possible with the fishing industry's owner-operator and offshore fleets.

I want to touch base on three major aspects of the act, and I hope you will consider them in your review. The first two are areas where implementation is happening or is needed—rebuilding depleted fish populations and proactive protection of fish habitat—while the third includes a recommendation for a surgical change to the act to ensure fisheries decision-making includes climate change and biodiversity as factors to be considered.

On fish stock rebuilding, with the addition of section 6 of the act in 2019, Canada joined other developed fishing nations in legally requiring depleted fish stocks to be restored. While there may be different perspectives in terms of timelines and measures to reach rebuilding, I think we can all agree that the most important factor in economically sustainable fisheries is having healthy fish populations. Without any fish, we have no fisheries.

As of November 2024, Canada has largely met the requirements of this section of the act. The majority of rebuilding plans are complete, although not all are public. Now we must adhere to these plans and ensure they yield the results we need. Oceans North has conducted economic studies with a focus on forage fish like mackerel and herring that demonstrate how valuable these fish and fisheries can be to our economy and the marine ecosystem if we take the time to allow these populations to rebuild. It will require patience, adherence to scientific advice and consideration of future generations, who deserve an opportunity to fish.

Pending the approval of the next major batch of fish stocks currently in the Canada Gazette part I, rebuilding provisions will apply to 95 stocks in Canada. This means we have safeguards in place for when stocks decline. I know you've all been hearing and speaking a lot about northern cod. It's one of the greatest global population declines of all time, so we have a particular responsibility to get rebuilding right, not just rebuilding above the critical zone but also achieving healthy stocks.

The second area I want to bring to your attention is an aspect of the act that has yet to be implemented. In 2012, amendments to the Fisheries Act allowed for the proactive protection of fish habitat and the establishment of ecologically significant areas. This was maintained in the 2019 act. Under subsection 35.2(2), ESAs can be established by the minister. Canada has over two million lakes and rivers that support indigenous food fisheries and recreational activities and that provide water sources for many of our communities. Despite this ability to designate ESAs and ensure prohibitions to activities other than fishing that could negatively impact such habitat, to date, Canada has not made use of the powers of this act. In October 2024, St. Mary's River in Nova Scotia was announced as the first candidate ESA in the country. That's the first of over two million bodies of water. We're not expecting all of these to be fully protected, but we think we need to make progress. We can and must do better in developing an effective and efficient regulatory process that allows us to protect more fish habitat.

Finally, our marine and coastal ecosystems are changing. The Gulf of St. Lawrence on the east coast is nine degrees above the long-term average. Mahi mahi are being seen off Newfoundland. Whales are shifting their migration habits. Lobster catches in southwest Nova Scotia, one of Canada's most valuable fisheries, are declining as lobster move north in search of colder water. All of this is due to the 90% of excess heat that our oceans absorb as a result of global warming.

Fisheries will change and are changing as a result of climate change, so climate change must be incorporated as one of the factors to be considered in decisions. This can be done by amending section 2.5 to include climate change, which would ensure that ecosystem-based management, to which Canada committed in 2004, includes addressing climate and is fully implemented. This is also a key aspect of the recently released 2030 nature strategy, which commits us to sustainable fisheries under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Changing ecosystems will change our fishing communities, and planning ahead will reduce the impact of those changes over time. Working with the fishing industry and indigenous communities on ecosystem-based management can meet the needs of the ecosystem and incorporate on-the-water knowledge to insure future fisheries.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective, and I look forward to questions at the right time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to Lyne Morissette for her opening statement of five minutes or less.

[Dr. Lyne Morissette, Doctor of Marine Ecology, Fisheries and Marine Mammal Specialist, M-Expertise Marine Inc.]

Hello, everyone.

My name is Lyne Morissette and I am the CEO of M‑Expertise Marine.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my experience as a fisheries specialist, advocate of integrated approaches, and environmental mediator.

With its three oceans and diverse ecosystems, Canada possesses unique natural wealth. Yet our management of these resources is constrained by outdated approaches. The Fisheries Act, despite its 2019 update, exemplifies this lag with its lack of concrete implementation and interdisciplinary vision.

The first issue I want to address is the lack of interdisciplinarity in our departments.

Interdisciplinarity has become a cornerstone in academic settings. Researchers collaborate across disciplines to tackle complex and interconnected challenges, such as resource management and climate change. This approach, widely recognized as vital for innovative solutions, is also gaining traction in some federal departments. But at Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, it remains a concept waiting to be embraced.

DFO often operates in silos, with fragmented, discipline-specific approaches that struggle to integrate external knowledge. Interdisciplinarity could greatly enrich policymaking and fisheries management, but it is largely absent from departmental practices. As a result, decisions are made without fully leveraging the wealth of external expertise, be it scientific, community-based, or traditional indigenous knowledge.

This is not to say that DFO staff lack competence or commitment. However, it is hard to ignore a certain implicit attitude in their internal processes: a belief that their “science”, framed within the Fisheries Act, holds a higher status than others, whether from academics or fishers. Consultations, when they include external experts or stakeholders, often feel more like validation exercises than genuine dialogue. And as for fishers, whose expertise is forged by a lifetime at sea? Their knowledge is often dismissed as anecdotal, if not outright ignored.

This posture is not only counterproductive; it is a barrier to progress. Managing fisheries and marine ecosystems requires an open, interdisciplinary approach. Continuing to act as though ecosystems, disciplines, or, worse, knowledge itself can be compartmentalized is a mistake. To build modern and effective management, it is time for DFO to step out of its ivory tower and join the collaborative table.

Rebuilding Canadians' eroded trust is essential to collaboration.

Another major issue is the lack of trust, which depends as much on just measures as it does on honest relationships. According to Statistics Canada, as of 2023, less than 30% of Canadians believed the government was effectively protecting the marine environment. This erosion in trust is fuelled by errors in implementing measures.

Take a recent example from 2024. Last summer, fishers in the Maritimes refused to remove their traps from a closed zone intended to protect a North Atlantic right whale. Why? Because the decision, poorly communicated, was based on incorrect boundary definitions. On site, fishers found that the whale was not even in the designated area. Such arbitrary decisions undermine government credibility and weaken conservation efforts.

Studies such as those by the FAO, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, demonstrate that integrating local knowledge not only improves policies but also strengthens community buy‑in. Yet too often, fishers and indigenous communities are invited as token participants, not as active partners.

This must change if sustainable management is to be achieved.

All the briefs I have seen for this meeting point to an urgent need for collaboration and mediation.

Finally, it is time to embed mediation into the Fisheries Act. With its diverse stakeholders and interconnected systems, Canada cannot afford sterile conflicts.

Other jurisdictions have shown that this is achievable. Quebec's environmental quality act and New Zealand's resource management act both include mediation mechanisms to diffuse tensions. These tools foster collaboration, reduce conflict and rebuild trust. Mediation should not be seen as an option but as a prerequisite to any formal dispute.

DFO could lead the way by establishing regional committees to involve all stakeholders before decisions are finalized.

In conclusion, the Fisheries Act should be more than a piece of legislation.

It should embody an ambitious vision: protecting our ecosystems while respecting the communities that depend on them. Today, that visions feels out of reach. But by incorporating tools like mediation, fostering interdisciplinarity, and valuing local knowledge, we have the opportunity to transform the act into a model of sustainable and collaborative management.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We'll now go to our first round of questioning, and we'll start off with Mr. Small for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing today.

My question is for Ms. Fuller.

Ms. Fuller, your organization celebrated the closing of the mackerel fishery in Atlantic Canada. How has closing the mackerel fishery in Atlantic Canada and being such a success story for yourself helped you in your international fundraising endeavours with groups like the Pew foundation?

[Susanna Fuller]

I'm not sure that it's relevant to any fundraising. I don't think it was a celebration at all. I think it was a recognition, after years of declining catches and science advice, that in order to rebuild the mackerel fishery in line with the Fisheries Act and the requirements.... We worked very closely with the fishing industry on this, as well as first nations. We know it's a very difficult decision, but it's not for fundraising. It's actually to rebuild fish for Canadians—

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

Thank you very much. My time is short.

You mentioned that you want to incorporate on-the-water knowledge. How much of the $13 million, which you had in your spend last year in your financial report between staff and projects, was spent in your on-the-water observations of mackerel from Maine to Hopedale? You mentioned the 9° warming of waters and, obviously, you expect that the range migration pattern of species has changed. How much of your budget do you spend in trying to figure out why there's such a disconnect between on-the-water observations by fish harvesters and the stock assessments by DFO?

[Susanna Fuller]

We don't do our own science on mackerel. However, about 50% of our budget goes back out to communities to conduct research, science and work that they feel is important, and so...happy to collaborate on any research that is brought to us by the fishing associations. However, I think we follow DFO science, which is really what most fisheries industries rely upon. That is why we are advocating for more discussion to be had so that it does include harvesters' knowledge. A lot of discussion happens at the advisory committees, as you know.

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

Thank you.

You follow DFO science. Last year, and over the last number of years, DFO science stated that it was safe for the capelin stock to have the very tiny capelin fishery that exists—about 25,000 tonnes in all of Atlantic Canada—but at the same time, seals in Atlantic Canada are said to consume a million tonnes of capelin.

You spoke about your interest in biodiversity. What efforts have you made to help the fishing and the sealing industries develop markets to have an ethically sourced seal harvest to aid in restoring biodiversity?

[Susanna Fuller]

As you know, we've attended the seals advisory committee meetings. I think you have had discussions with my colleague, John Couture, on this. I think you know that we are supportive of any fisheries that are ecosystem-based and healthy.

It's not our role to sell fish, but we are certainly not against a sustainable seal harvest, and we understand some of the barriers to those markets. One of those is the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act, as you know, and we are not able to change laws in other countries.

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

You mentioned your participation in stock assessments. We know that stock assessments are a key component of the Fisheries Act.

Why are stakeholders—and what I mean by “stakeholders” are fish harvesters and fish processors—so upset that you received stakeholder status versus remaining as observers in a situation, like what happened in Gander last year during the stock assessment? What happened during the capelin stock assessment in Gander last winter?

[Susanna Fuller]

Mr. Small, we've been part of fisheries advisory committees for the better part of a decade, and we have been very welcomed by the fishing industry. We have a lot of shared goals in common.

I think what happened at that particular meeting was that the terms of reference had not been sent out to everybody. It was a very unfortunate situation where our staff person actually had to be protected by conservation protection officers because of the reaction. However, we have had good discussions with Fish, Food and Allied Workers since then to better understand their concerns, and we essentially received an apology for that behaviour. I don't think that will be the case going forward. I think that we have good relationships.

I grew up in a coastal community. I have sympathy for inshore fishermen. I think the best thing is to be around the table so that you can come a common understanding.

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

Thank you.

Labrador is seeing mackerel on the coast for the first time in history as far north as Hopedale. They're all around the island of Newfoundland and Labrador right on down from the northern gulf to the southern gulf. There were mackerel in Nova Scotia this summer right on down to Maine. I consulted heavily with stakeholders. How about if mackerel have returned? Look at what you've done to the fishing industry stakeholders that depend on mackerel. What are you doing to improve any recovery in mackerel? Do you believe there's any recovery in mackerel?

[Susanna Fuller]

We hope there will be. We don't do stock assessments, but we're happy to talk with you further about what decisions in the future could be made when the stock recovers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Morissette, you mentioned the problem that arose with a whale. That was in my riding. If you followed the news, you saw that some very questionable decisions were made. If I had not stepped in and secured the fishers' collaboration, there would have been a fisheries crisis, as we saw last year. As you said earlier, it is very important to consult fishers and consider what they have to say.

That being said, you noted that resource management is stuck in outdated approaches and that there is a lack of interdisciplinarity at DFO.

I think you consider yourself a scientist, and I think you are. Do you think the scientists at the department listen to your opinions on fisheries and resources, for instance, when you take part in their meetings?

Do you think you are taken seriously and what you say is truly considered? Do you get the sense that your suggestions go in one ear and out the other, as the saying goes?

[Dr. Lyne Morissette]

I hold a doctorate in fisheries from the University of British Columbia, so I do consider myself a scientist. I also have two postdoctorates. Unfortunately, at some meetings with DFO officials, it did not seem that I was taken seriously. In fact, it felt like I was just decoration because I was not among the elite scientists who work for the government.

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

Do you get the same sense when you are speaking with other scientists?

Do your colleagues get the same impression when they speak with DFO scientists?

[Dr. Lyne Morissette]

I am much better known in academic circles than I am at DFO.

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

In short, your colleagues also get the sense that their concerns are not taken into consideration.

Is that correct?

[Dr. Lyne Morissette]

Yes, that's true, but not all the time. It is most of the time though. I cannot speak for other scientists, but I think that scientists in the academic world do feel that way in general in terms of the attitude of government scientists.

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

As you know, the Fisheries Act is being updated. You are here to take part in our study, and I'm sure you have recommendations as to what should be included in the act or excluded from it.

Let's get back to whale management. The Fisheries Act says a lot about protecting the habitat of our resources, fish, but hardly ever refers to protecting our communities, which depend on those resources. To my mind, those things go hand in hand.

In terms of protecting the whales' habitat, measures were taken a number of years ago. We are talking about the same things. A report was produced about that, and you also appeared before the committee to suggest solutions in that regard.

Could we relax those measures to protect whales without harming them or our markets, while also continuing to protect our communities? Is that feasible?

I would like a clear and fair answer.