Fisheries Committee on June 5th, 2023

[Neil Davis]

I was not.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Are you aware of how they have prioritized the things they would like to see action on sooner rather than later?

“No” is a good answer if you—

[Neil Davis]

I don't think so.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay, that's fine. We'll certainly pass those along, because I think that will help inform where resources are sent. I'm going to go through some of those priorities in questioning now and hopefully a bit later. My colleagues have threatened to be very generous in terms of donating their time.

You mentioned, and it has been mentioned before, that the recommendations are broad and some of them really do involve massive changes. I've heard that you and perhaps one other person have been tasked over time with responding to this report. I guess a fair question is, has the DFO allocated the resources and does it have the resources to move these recommendations forward expeditiously?

[Neil Davis]

If you'll permit me, I'll address that in two parts. The first is what it would take to do the consultation and undertake work on any potential changes, and the second is the implementation phase.

With respect to the engagement and the development of any proposals for change, yes, we have staff that are dedicated to this file, but more importantly, because—

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'm sorry, sir. How many staff are dedicated to the file? Do you know?

[Neil Davis]

We have one person who is a manager and oversees this file. They in turn have a staff person whose sole responsibilities relate to the work on this file.

Because the recommendations are so broad, they will necessarily implicate all kinds of staff across a variety of our fisheries management groups and teams. I expect that as we move forward with this work, we'll also be drawing on parts of their time to understand, do the analysis and engage with their particular stakeholders, etc. It will very much be a team effort to be successful in this regard.

Part two of your question has more to do with the implementation. Depending on what comes out of the engagement process and what gets put forward in terms of recommendations for change, and in turn gets approved, there certainly can be implications for the resources the department would require to implement any changes over time. In that respect, I think we can learn from what other regions have done to address objectives similar to what the committee has identified here.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you for that.

One framing piece that has come out very clearly since we tabled that report, and indeed during the witness testimony that informed the report, is the need to look beyond the economics to the socio-economic or the social, cultural and community-building impacts.

Is this new territory for the DFO? Certainly, in the previous government prior to 2015, it seemed to be more about economics and managing fishing effort as a way to basically manage the fishery.

[Neil Davis]

I will answer for my region. I think it is fair to say that in the context of the Pacific region.... I mean, conservation is the department's number one priority. That will always be the primary focus for us. In the Pacific region, I would say that this focus has been paired with work that has also focused on supporting the economic viability of fisheries. This connects to what have been some of the key or persistent challenges in Pacific fisheries, one of which is overcapacity.

If you look at some of the changes that have been made to commercial fisheries management over the past several decades, they tend to address these two issues of conservation or sustainability and how able we are to effectively manage the fishery, together with making changes to support the viability of those who participate in the fishery.

With respect to the social and cultural aspect, I think our primary focus in recent years has been in an indigenous context in that regard. It's been supporting the transition or shifting of fisheries access to first nations to support their aspirations for participation in commercial fisheries, recognizing the importance that fisheries have to many coastal communities and inland communities that are next to anadromous streams and rivers.

Yes, in certain contexts I think we have had programs and work that have focused on supporting those objectives. The way I understand it, the committee's interest is more broadly in the entirety of the commercial fishery. In that respect, it has been less of a focus in this region.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie. Your six minutes are up.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here; we appreciate it.

I have many questions for the three officials joining us today.

The Committee heard from people who wanted to testify without revealing their identity. That’s quite worrying, since we’re talking about food sovereignty, the socio-economic protection of villages and societies that live and depend on fishing, as well as the protection of resources. It all goes together.

Aren’t you afraid that time is against us in the process at our disposal? I believe the last study took place four years ago. Don’t you feel that we should be sounding the alarm more insistently, to alert the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the danger of losing our food sovereignty, altering our resources and having less control over our fisheries? Is time working against us?

[Neil Davis]

I would offer two things in response. The first is that we've recognized a lot of the concerns raised and have been quite intentional on how we've tried to respond to them.

I may turn to my colleague, Mark Waddell, to speak more about the beneficial ownership survey in this regard, but the first thing we've done is really try to gather information to validate or ground the truth of some of the assertions that have been made about where licences and quota are going, to put ourselves in a better position to respond appropriately and assess what our policy options are.

The second note I would make, before I turn to Mr. Waddell for anything he wants to add, is that the minister does retain discretion over where licences and quota are issued. That is an important and powerful tool that remains at her discretion, or is available to her at any point in time, so if, out of this exercise, there are issues identified that the department is asked to take action on, then we have the tools necessary to implement change.

Maybe I'll turn it over to Mark Waddell to see if he has anything to add.

[Mark Waddell, Director General, Fisheries Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thanks, Neil.

I would build on that. Neil is spot-on. We have taken time to gain the evidentiary basis to understand what is actually transpiring on the water and get a better perspective on that, so that we can subsequently engage our fish harvesters, our licence-holders, and have an informed discussion. Certainly that is what we undertook with the beneficial ownership survey.

We've heard of that previously at this committee, a couple of weeks ago, and I believe that's the testimony you are referencing, Madame Desbiens. We very much look forward to those results going back out, as we anticipate they will go out in the coming weeks, and we'll have an opportunity to engage with licence-holders on those and have further informed discussion.

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

The response rate was 80%. To what extent can we verify whether the 20% who didn’t respond are precisely those dealing with foreign-owned companies? Is there any way to find out?

[Mark Waddell]

You're correct. In the Pacific region, we had a 79% response rate. That 79% comprises 88% of licences, though, so it's a smaller delta. Then, of the parties who did not respond, over three-quarters of them, 77%, hold but a single licence. What we experienced in the course of the survey was a number of licence-holders engaging the department to ask us whether or not they needed to be responding to the survey, recognizing that their fishery had been closed, so some of these licence-holders are not active. The fisheries have been closed or are under moratorium by the department; ergo, licence-holders did not respond.

That is part of it, but we will be doing spot checks.

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

Will the report produced four years ago tie in with our current report? Will you also be able to take into account the knowledge and recommendations we’ll be sharing over the coming weeks? Do you think you’ll have any additional information or guidance to help you speed things up a bit? Are you open to that idea?

[Mark Waddell]

We're certainly open to whatever this committee would elect to provide in terms of recommendations and guidance and we look forward to receiving that.

Ultimately, we are going to be in a much more informed position with the results of the beneficial ownership survey to have that discussion with licence-holders as to what they are experiencing on the water, and we look forward to pursuing that conversation with them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

My first question would be best suited to Mr. Waddell, I believe, as it relates to the survey.

Building on my colleague Madame Desbien's questions, specifically at the outset of this survey construction, were you part of the development of this survey from the outset?

[Mark Waddell]

Yes, I was.

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

Great. Thank you.

Can you clarify to the committee today if there were any concerns that were brought to your attention around the construction of the survey or the questions that were within the survey, that were to go out?

[Mark Waddell]

We developed the survey in conjunction with the forensic auditors at PSPC, as well as through consultations with industry, federation members, the Fisheries Council of Canada and others, to gain perspective. The intent of the survey was to gain as much information as possible on beneficial ownership structures with the lightest administrative touch on respondents, recognizing that most of our respondents are not accountants and are not practised forensic experts.

One of the early things that were flagged was the leasing of quota. That was an issue that was raised by Pacific region colleagues from both FCC and the federation. Admittedly, we all came to the conclusion that this was going to be a very complex issue to ascertain through the survey, particularly in an attempt that was meant to have a lighter administrative touch on respondents. We collectively elected to set it aside for the time being, recognizing that it would require additional work. We still have a very keen interest in better understanding the licensing and leasing arrangements that are practised in the Pacific region.

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

Thank you.

Based on that, do you have any concerns that the responses received will be misleading?

[Mark Waddell]

Because of the way the survey was structured, while we will not drive to the nature of any lease arrangements in terms of the granular detail of how these are structured between the lessee and lessor, we will have an acknowledgement as to whether that type of arrangement is in place. We will have a count, in essence, of how many leasing arrangements there are in the Pacific region. That will allow us to better ascertain the scope of the issue.

We also undertook a pilot project with Ecotrust for them to develop and articulate to us the typical corporate structures that are employed in the Pacific region. I think, in their own work, that proved to be far more complex than they had initially believed, so that is a piece that we're still working through with them.

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

Thank you.

In your response to my colleague Madame Desbiens, you mentioned that some of the 20% who did not respond to the survey were not active harvesters. What percentage is not active?