Fisheries Committee on June 5th, 2023

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

You're going to do consultation to hear what your consultation should be to put out a report to say what you heard, and then the Gardner Pinfold study outlines another stage after that, which is when you put out a second report saying what you think you should do.

Is that what I'm hearing the process is, that you're doing a consultation on what the consultation should be?

[Neil Davis]

That's not what I intended. We have done early consultation. We have a general understanding of some interests and views, but to really dig in to talk about what it would take if we were to implement the kinds of changes proposed warrants further consultation because of the significance of the implications of making those changes.

I expect that out of that process would come some summary of what we heard and advice that the department would generate for the minister to consider what kinds of changes could respond to the issues that have been raised. What does that mean in the context of what we've heard from the people who are a part of the commercial fishery? We need that so that she has the benefit of input from all interested parties and the department's analysis to support any kinds of decisions.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Then would you go directly to policy recommendations to take through the system, or would you put out a paper saying,“This is where we think we should go, and let's do a consultation on that” before you a take policy to cabinet?

[Neil Davis]

I think we'll see how the next stage goes. For example, if we get very diverse views and no convergence on major policy ideas, that may warrant a subsequent step to try to bridge that. If there's a lot of support for certain ideas, that may make it much easier for something the minister could decide to advance.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It's taken us four year to get to this point. How much longer will the next phase take?

[Neil Davis]

We plan to get engagement under way on the details in the coming months, and I think we have an interest in making that process efficient so we have some next steps or some ideas proposed.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

The aquaculture consultation was less than six months. Are you proposing something like that or longer?

[Neil Davis]

This is a much broader set of recommendations that have implications for a variety of dimensions on the fishery side. I don't think we're anticipating that we can get through all of this in six months, but I do think we want to be efficient. Trying to get through that in a year or so is probably a more reasonable time frame, but we'll finalize that once we have some additional direction. It doesn't preclude us from getting it under way, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Perkins, you're right on time. This is probably a first for anyone around this table.

We'll now go to Mr. Kelloway.

I think Mr. Kelloway has conceded his time to Mr. Hardie.

You have five minutes or less, please.

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

My goodness, I owe a shipment of smoked salmon from the coast to everybody who's been so generous over the last few meetings, except for Ms. Barron, who has her own source, I'm sure.

We have the picture of trying to move a whole industry on the west coast to a new model, which is like trying to move a skyscraper a couple of blocks down the block. Is it not possible to take more of a modular approach to this? Mr. Waddell might be the best to answer this, but Mr. Davis, you can if you want to. Is it possible, tomorrow, to say that there will be no further sales or transfer of licences or quota to non-Canadians?

[Mark Waddell]

I won't speculate on “tomorrow”, but I do agree with the concept that it is modular. We are capable of moving in a modular fashion.

Again, on the foreign ownership piece, I think that is a piece where frankly we could move in a more nimble fashion, recognizing the completion of the survey and that we have policies already in application on the east coast in Atlantic Canada. We could have an informed discussion with west coast licence-holders as to what level of foreign ownership they would deem to be appropriate, and we could establish that bar.

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

That would also have to entail knowing who the beneficial owners are. We understand that the survey that DFO put out was somewhat flawed because it didn't really ask the right question the right way.

What about ensuring that any licence renewal must include information on the beneficial ownership of whoever is renewing the licence?

[Mark Waddell]

Again, that could be a decision that the minister could elect to pursue, subsequent to discussion and consultation with stakeholders.

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

Why would it have to be subject to that?

[Mark Waddell]

Reflecting on the survey itself, and setting aside the concepts or the discrepancies that people have highlighted with regard to the survey and how it was undertaken, there was still a commitment made by the department that we would return and have an informed discussion with parties about the findings of that survey. I don't necessarily see that taking a large amount of time, but there is that commitment, and I think we would seek to adhere to it.

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

Reflecting on Mr. Perkins' questioning, it looks like we are always at risk of “analysis paralysis” here. In fact, brave decisions can be made with almost immediate effect that will move us along to what the very broad consensus on the coast is: that is, to start the first steps of getting foreign ownership out of licences and quota.

I'll leave that as a comment. You don't need to react to that.

Again, instead of moving the whole industry to an owner-operator and fleet separation, a suggestion that has been made by one stakeholder I've heard from is that we could start small. What about a first nations owner-operator model? When a first nations community is given a licence, it has to be fished by somebody with boots on the deck from that community.

Could that be made to stick?

[Neil Davis]

I can offer a response to that.

Strictly speaking, it could be implemented. I think there are important questions that we would want to explore with our indigenous partners about their interests. I know that, right now, the communal commercial licences are used in different ways. In some instances, they are actively fished. In other instances, the community has decided that it is in their best interest to, for example, lease the quota on that licence for it to be fished elsewhere, in order to generate economic revenue to support the community's priorities.

That's something we would need to explore with them.

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

I agree on that point. It is a sensitive area.

Mr. Davis, you mentioned there are conflicting interests and views that your work has uncovered so far. In the time remaining, can you go into a bit more detail? What do those conflicts look like?

[Neil Davis]

The key examples that I hear most often have to do with this phrase we have used before of “unscrambling the omelette”. There are arrangements that have been in place for some time. What would some of the proposals for change, such as fleet separation or owner-operator, mean for unwinding some of those arrangements?

There are, as I think this committee is aware, instances where processors hold licences, and there are instances where we have a variety of arrangements in terms of who holds licences and quota. They're large corporate entities and otherwise.

What are the implications, and what kinds of disruption may result from making these kinds of changes? That is the most common source of concern that I hear about some of these proposals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

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

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start off with Mr. Davis, but if someone else has the answer, that would be fine as well.

At our meeting on June 1, officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs were asked who in their department was focused on protecting Canadian fisheries from too much or inappropriate foreign investment or corporate concentration that resembles a cartel. Foreign Affairs officials deferred that question to the “experts” at DFO.

What branch of DFO contains the experts in protecting our fisheries from cartels or the laundering of money from overseas?

[Neil Davis]

I'll begin, and then we'll invite my colleague Mr. Waddell to add more.

As I mentioned, on the Pacific coast, historically, we have not had constraints in place that would limit the participation of corporations or foreign interests in the holding of commercial licences. There are two kinds of licences on the west coast: party-based licences and vessel-based licences. For vessel-based licences, the department assigns the licence to a vessel. Transport Canada is the primary regulatory authority for overseeing who holds the vessel.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Is it your department that's responsible for this, then? Which department is responsible?

[Neil Davis]

In the context of these two licence types, there would be potentially multiple regulatory authorities implicated.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Is that within DFO?