Fisheries Committee on June 5th, 2023

[Mark Waddell]

I didn't necessarily say “non-active”. I'm sorry. I said that 77% hold only one licence, and 18% hold only two to three licences.

I don't have the breakdown in terms of which of those single-licence or multi-licence-holders would be holding non-active fisheries.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Okay. What I'm trying to understand is the 20% who didn't respond. Do we have any information about that 20%?

[Mark Waddell]

Seventy-nine per cent of licence-holders responded, and we have information on 88% of licences. Ultimately, it's only 12% of licences on which we have insufficient information through the survey. However, we still have a line of sight on those through our own systems, and we'll be doing follow-ups on a case-by-case basis.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

What will that follow-up look like?

[Mark Waddell]

That will be subject to what we find in our own databases in terms of holdings. Once we have a better sense of the total quota that is associated with the 88% of licences that we have information on, it will further narrow the gap in terms of what is in play.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Have you been hearing any concerns from fish harvesters around the lack of accountability of those who have not responded to the survey? Might there be some vital and key information not made available in this survey with regard to those who haven't responded?

[Mark Waddell]

I am privy to those concerns being expressed both to this committee and to ourselves at the departmental level.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

How will this be navigated once the results are being presented around the survey?

[Mark Waddell]

Again, the survey was meant to inform and establish a baseline understanding of information. I think we are in a markedly improved posture with regard to understanding what is transpiring on the water. Case by case, we will be doing follow-ups with licence-holders who elected not to respond to the survey.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

Are there any thoughts around the fact that when the survey was sent out, there was more of an incentive not to respond to the survey—even though it was listed as mandatory—than there was to respond to the survey? In hindsight, would there have been any changes to the process that would have further incentivized harvesters and fishers to respond to the survey?

[Mark Waddell]

I'm stumbling a bit, perhaps, with the notion of incentivizing response. I don't think we could have done anything further to incentivize response. We probably could have taken a more proactive communications posture with regard to this and reached out more assertively to licence-holders, fisheries associations and the like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming here today.

My question is for Mr. Waddell, I guess.

Mr. Waddell, what would you say is more important to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: implementing marine protected areas to meet the government's commitment to its 30 by 30 arrangement with the United Nations, or addressing recommendations from reports like the one we're talking about here from 2019?

[Mark Waddell]

I think the minister's mandate letter has outlined a number of priorities for our department, which we are all dutifully working to advance.

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

Mr. Davis, I heard you say to Mr. Hardie that DFO has two employees evaluating the recommendations of the 2019 study.

Of the 5,000 new employees the department has hired since 2015, how many are working on the marine protected areas file versus how many are working on looking at the recommendations of reports coming out of this committee?

[Neil Davis]

Maybe I can offer a different summary of my comments to Mr. Hardie, which is that while there are several staff dedicated to this file, there are quite a number of others who will have contributions to make to their pieces of it. They manage particular species, etc., and therefore have the expertise.

In the work we've done to date and the work we expect to do moving forward, there will be a much larger number of staff who are implicated or involved in the work on this file.

Similarly, we have staff who are dedicated to working on advancing our various green conservation target commitments, and then a larger number in other teams with primary responsibilities—say, around managing fisheries—who make contributions to our advancing of that file.

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

Again, Mr. Davis, why is this taking so long?

You just indicated that your department is going to ramp up its work as it relates to this 2019 study. This is 2023. A lot of livelihoods have been adversely affected in the fishing industry as a result of the lack of commitment that has been shown to the recommendations that came out of that report.

Why has this taken four years for some indication now that the department is going to ramp up its commitment to this report?

[Neil Davis]

As I was describing earlier, we knew very early on that these were very wide-ranging recommendations. There were some that we could do work on immediately and others that we would have to prepare a foundation for to be able to advance work, so that's what we've done. We've staged our work to advance the recommendations where we saw an opportunity and had the resources to do so. In other cases, we have been preparing the ground with some of that early outreach to identify what the diversity of views is and what some of the key considerations are, and to gather some of that foundational information that could support an informed discussion or informed engagement around the issues and, therefore, what the options are to address them.

I think this is much along the lines of what we expected to do, and we'll take, as you say, subsequent steps to do more in-depth engagement on some of the other recommendations where we've been moving that foundational work.

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

Okay.

Mr. Chair, I have one more question for Mr. Davis.

What push-back have you had from people who are accused of participating in corporate concentration that may be connected to foreign ownership? Have you had any push-back on the recommendations that have come out of this report?

Would you mind explaining if you have? Perhaps, if we don't have time, you could provide that in writing to the committee.

[Neil Davis]

Certainly, and thank you for the question.

I think what we know and have heard is a diversity of views. We know that some groups, individuals and organizations very much support the committee's recommendations from the 2019 report, and we know that there are a number of organizations and individuals that have expressed concerns about the implications of the committee's report.

I mean, those might be for a variety of reasons, but I would say some of the key concerns that I have heard have to do with some version of unscrambling the omelette. For decades now, we have operated and managed fisheries under a certain sort of regime where we have not set out specific constraints or limitations on things like who can hold a licence. There are some constraints, but not constraints that might be in place to achieve socio-economic objectives around how quota might move between licences. With some of the history on how fisheries have been managed in that respect, there are all kinds of arrangements in place. For us to make significant change.... I think people who are participants now are asking hard questions or expressing concerns about what that may mean and how it would change their own participation in the fishery. For example, if they are, say, partners in the holding of a licence and its associated quota, and if we were to implement changes like the ones this committee has recommended for something like owner-operator, how would they unwind that?

In other cases, we have said that there's too much capacity in fishery A and that fishery needs to rationalize through things like the introduction of transferable quota, which allows quota to move between licences and which can create and has created inactive harvesters, who have moved their quota to another licence that is actively fished. There are things like that. If we were to implement requirements for how a licence is fished, how do those things unwind and what does it mean for those who have been a part of those arrangements?

Those are some of the most common kinds of questions that I've heard about the implications of some of the committee's recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small. You've gone way over time. I'll have to get that back from you somewhere along the way.

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

My questions will be for Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis, you made a statement earlier about the department working on “grounding the truth of the assertions”. Could you elaborate for the committee on what assertions have been made in the committee that the department does not feel were truthful?

[Neil Davis]

I don't know if I would suggest that any of them haven't been truthful, just to clarify on that point, but I think what we've heard is a lot of concern from folks who have participated in these hearings in the past, or directly to the department through our advisory processes, etc., about some of these dynamics regarding things like foreign ownership and corporate concentration. This committee has been looking at that issue as well recently, I know.

I think what we have been trying to do is bring the data to that, to the extent that we can, recognizing that historically we have not collected a lot of that data, and build on what information and details we have to generate a more complete or comprehensive picture, which we think will be helpful to pointing us at what the key issues are and what the viable solutions to those may be.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I'm not sure we landed on the same spot there.

You also referenced that the department would require “further engagement”. Could you expand on what “further engagement” from the department is and explain what that process would involve? The focus of this committee is on foreign ownership and the lack of control from the independent harvesters. Could you briefly explain to the committee what that engagement process looks like in the department?

[Neil Davis]

Sure.

Looking back to the 2019 report, I think the recommendations were quite broad. They did address the topics you covered, as well as a number of others that go beyond the context of foreign ownership and have economic implications for participants in the fishery. Therefore, I think we are conscious that before taking steps to make changes, we would want to comprehensively collect the views and input of those who may be affected by any changes we make, to be informed by their input.

We are also conscious of the fact that first nations are significant participants in commercial fisheries. We have commitments to them. We have a priority placed on reconciliation and want to ensure that we are also leaving enough space to engage with them.