Evidence of meeting #72 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recommendations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Given that our fishery is basically a common resource and is federally regulated, would it be fair to say that anybody from offshore who comes in to buy licences or quota would fall under this federal framework, ultimately?
Director General, Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Business holders, licence-holders, can elect to register their corporation either at a federal level or at a provincial level, so there would be provincial jurisdiction that could apply here. Equally, they do not have to register as a corporate entity. They do so typically for tax purposes and the benefits derived therein, but they don't have to register as a corporation.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I would presume that even the amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act wouldn't necessarily cover an individual from offshore who comes in and, just with his own funds, in partnership with nobody else, buys licences or quota.
Director General, Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I am wracking my brain as to the extent of knowledge I hold on Bill C-42, which is not sufficient to address the question that you're putting to me, I'm afraid.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
That sort of begs the question, are you going to become familiar with Bill C-42? In light of the recommendations that came out of the 2019 report, and in light of the conversation we've had today, would DFO be prepared to wade into a committee study or debates on Bill C-42 to see if it needs amendments to be more effective?
Director General, Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
To my understanding, the preponderance of corporations that are found within all fisheries nationally are registered within their provincial area of jurisdiction. They would be registered under provincial law. There has been a heightened effort across the country, with a number of jurisdictions undertaking work on beneficial ownership and establishing or seeking to establish beneficial ownership registries akin to what is pursued through Bill C-42.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Going back, I mentioned earlier that the fishers at two community meetings basically tagged their priorities for action out of the 20 recommendations.
I want to draw your attention to recommendation 3, which I believe was referenced earlier: “That Fisheries and Oceans Canada permit the separation of stacked (or 'married') licences for sale by the licence owner”. At the time, we were told that this was low-hanging fruit, that this could be done.
Has it been done? If it hasn't been done, why not? When will it happen?
Regional Director, Fisheries Management Branch, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I can take that question.
This is something that the department has attempted to do in several fisheries in the past. The reason for that is that we have changed our management approaches and don't necessarily need restrictions on stacking or marriage, or, for that matter, vessel length, for the purposes we have used them in the past.
What we have encountered in trying to make those changes is very divided views among fishery participants in terms of support for those changes, the reason being that people may have invested and benefited from those restrictions or spent money to acquire a licence based on something like its vessel length or the other licences that it has married with it.
We have made attempts. We have encountered fairly divided views on this and, in the face of those divided views, have not to date taken steps to remove those.
I think the department's view remains that there are a number of instances where those could be removed without compromising the conservation performance of the fishery, so we are interested in pursuing those.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Yes, it's like you're immune to it.
That concludes our rounds of questioning. I know we have a bit of time left, but I don't know what kind of time our officials have to spend with us. They've been here now for a little over an hour and a half. If they do have a bit more time, I'd give everyone a rapid-fire question for each side, or we'll adjourn. It's one or the other.
Okay. I want to say a big thank you to the departmental officials for coming again today and sharing their knowledge with the committee. Mr. Davis, Mr. Waddell and Ms. Mooney, you've made yourself available to the committee for probably longer than most people do here. We want to thank you for that, and hopefully we'll get to move something forward.
Mr. Arnold, go ahead.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll thank the witnesses, but I would also like to mention that we've heard, over the weekend, of four deaths on the shore of a former colleague of ours. Marilène Gill, a former long-term member of this committee, lost four individuals when the tide came in very quickly. I'd like to pass on our thoughts to her and her community while we're here today.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Waters can be very dangerous at times. We can never take it for granted.
Mr. Hardie, go ahead.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Mr. Chair, I really appreciate the support of all of our colleagues here to make this particular session possible, with more hopefully to come in the future on other items that we've brought forward through studies.
In light of the session that we've had today, and with everybody's approval, I would like to move a motion that, based on what we've heard today, a letter be sent to the minister outlining what we've heard, identifying the gaps and suggesting action.
Liberal
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I believe we've agreed that what we heard today would be part of the current report—the study and report that we're doing. Is that correct? Are you suggesting that we write a separate letter as well?
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Yes, Mr. Arnold. The current study involves corporate concentration and foreign ownership, but the scope of the 2019 report certainly went a lot further. That doesn't mean we can't incorporate some of what we've heard in the current study, but there are other aspects of this—things that could be done sooner rather than later, if the minister signals a very strong agenda that it be done. These are the sorts of things I think we could cover in a letter.
Liberal
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I'd be in support of that. I only take the opportunity to say that so I can say that I would like to say something after we're finished this, before we conclude the meeting.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay.
I'm not hearing any dissension on that. We'll assume that's a unanimous decision.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That will be done. Something will be sent to the minister on this.
We'll now go into something that Ms. Barron has to bring up.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We never have extra time, so I'm going to take a quick opportunity to bring to the committee's attention that I have put forward a motion for a study, which is being translated. I just want to give notice that it will be going out to everybody for review.
If we had unanimous consent, I'd be willing to talk about it now, but I'm also willing to wait the 48 hours that it normally takes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I haven't seen it yet, so other members probably haven't either.
It's probably better that we leave it for a couple of meetings, or a meeting at least, to let everyone get it and decide whether they're for or against and whether they think it's good or bad.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
All right. Hearing nothing else, the meeting is adjourned.
Thanks, everyone.