Fisheries Committee on June 5th, 2023

[Neil Davis]

It's DFO and Transport Canada that have the primary regulatory authority over vessels.

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

Transport Canada has no regulatory authority over licences and quotas, which is really what the problem is.

I'm surprised that after this much time the department is still having trouble wrapping its head around what the real sources of the problems are here.

Have you read Peter German's 2019 report, produced for the Attorney General of B.C. and entitled “Dirty Money—Part Two”?

[Neil Davis]

I've only read small sections of it that were relevant to fisheries, and I've received very short briefings on some of its key findings.

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

Do you know if the minister has read or been briefed on this report?

[Neil Davis]

I don't know.

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

This report contains details on how foreign money is used in a targeted fashion in B.C.'s fisheries, and it's relevant. I'm surprised that you're not even aware—especially if this is your realm—if the minister is aware.

Previously, you mentioned that the minister retains the decision-making power to decide when or where licences or quotas are issued. What criteria related to foreign ownership or corporate concentration would factor into not issuing a licence or quota? I'm asking you to be quite specific.

[Neil Davis]

As I mentioned, we don't currently have limitations on corporate concentration or foreign ownership in Pacific fisheries, so we do not apply criteria to assess that.

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

So the minister doesn't retain decision-making authority over issuing those licences and quotas, contrary to what was stated earlier.

[Neil Davis]

I wouldn't characterize it that way. I think it's more accurate to say that we have a current management approach that we implement, which does not entail those constraints on who holds licences or quota. If we were to choose a management approach that had those constraints, then, yes, I expect we would have to develop some kind of approach or assessment that would allow us to validate who is participating.

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

I'm shocked that after this many years of British Columbia harvesters raising the alarm bells on this, the department is so slow to react and has such a poor grasp of the actual problem to start addressing it.

Earlier, you mentioned that you're doing “staged” work to move quickly where possible. Recommendation 2 of the report was:

That based on the principle that fish in Canadian waters are a resource for Canadians (i.e. common property), no future sales of fishing quota and/or licences be to non-Canadian beneficial owners based on the consideration of issues of legal authority, and international agreement/trade impacts.

Has any action been taken on recommendation 2. If not, why not?

[Neil Davis]

I'll invite my colleague Mr. Waddell to respond to that.

[Mark Waddell]

This is exactly why we pursued the beneficial ownership survey. In advance, and in recognizing the recommendation from this committee, we extended the application of that recommendation nationally and sought to do a review of the department's portfolio of foreign ownership policies.

The inshore licence-holders in Atlantic Canada are of course subject to 100% Canadian ownership. The offshore and midshore fleets in Atlantic Canada had a 51% Canadian ownership requirement in policy, which we updated and extended to the entire corporate chain. It's no longer just the first licence-holder but the entire corporate structure above that supports that, ensuring that there's 51% Canadian ownership.

We have not historically had a policy in the Pacific region. That's why we undertook the survey, to get a better factual lay of the land.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

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

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, all, for appearing today.

First, I want to go back to recommendation 5, which was on prioritizing “the collection of socio-economic data for past and future regulatory changes”.

Mr. Davis, in this recent study, socio-economic concerns have certainly been a common subject, and how socio-economic benefits are interpreted by different stakeholders, including between the fishing community and DFO. I wonder if you could expand on how you're responding to this recommendation and how you anticipate socio-economic considerations will be incorporated, along with conservation objectives, into regulatory changes.

[Neil Davis]

As you alluded to, one of the things we're doing is attempting to collect better information about the socio-economics of the fishery. If you'll permit me, there are a few pieces here. It may take me a minute or two to get through them, but this has been an area where we have done a fair bit of work.

There have been several socio-economic surveys initiated. The first is to implement a reoccurring cost and earnings survey. This is to collect information that will allow us to better ascertain where the direct benefits of commercial fisheries accrue, to understand things like coastal community reliance on fisheries. This was conducted in November 2022. We're now completing the analysis of that data and expect to be engaging with industry about it in the months ahead. We are also talking about how frequently we want to re-collect that data. That's the first piece.

The second piece we are doing work on is something called an annual price survey, to improve price accuracy and to fill some gaps in where we didn't have price data. We shared some plans for the design of this survey with commercial fishery stakeholders in the fall, and we expect to be implementing the survey later in 2023 and sharing those results and talking about their implications.

The next piece I want to mention quickly is the commercial support services study. This is to provide an overview of commercial fishing support sectors, things like fuel services, gear, vessel repairs, supplies and moorage to get a better picture of the community reliance on fishing activities in different places. We've contracted some work to estimate revenues from the commercial harvest to support those sector businesses for nine different regions of the province.

These are examples of different ways we're trying to collect more information that will provide a basis for making decisions that would reflect what we understand about the reliance on commercial fisheries.

The other piece, then, is how we structure policy or regulatory frameworks to reflect socio-economic considerations. That is something I expect to come out of the engagement we have planned for a more in-depth review of some of the committee's recommendations. We do have some examples in other parts of the country that we've been alluding to this morning, which could give us some places to work from.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Since I only have about a minute left, I'm going to jump to another question, which is slightly off-subject but takes advantage of your presence as regional director for B.C. and Yukon.

Last week, I met with the Yukon Salmon Sub-Committee. They were meeting in Dawson City, and I was Zooming in. There were two key questions from them. One was about overall capacity for them as an organization to address this complex and critical area of Yukon salmon populations, and the other one was about funding from the PSSI, which apparently still has not worked its way in to support the committee or other work in the Yukon.

I wonder if you can comment on whether you have sufficient staff capacity to ensure that Yukon's priorities, as part of the west coast ecosystem, are being adequately addressed. You can also comment on PSSI funding for the Yukon.

[Neil Davis]

I should be clear that the PSSI funding can support salmon restoration, rebuilding, etc., in both B.C. and the Yukon. I know that we have just gone through a round of reviewing project proposals that could support indigenous transformation, which I think would be particularly relevant in the Yukon. We expect to be communicating with those who have submitted proposals about what kind of funding is available this year. I also know that we have work under way related to assessing what it would take to advance a review of the salmon allocation policy in a Yukon context.

Those are just a couple of examples of places where we are doing work to address matters that are relevant to the Yukon context.

I also know that we have staff who are dedicated to working on the PSSI file in the Yukon, so I think we have the pieces in place. It's just a matter of moving those forward in a way that brings others along with us and responds to some of the priorities that are identified.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Davis or Mr. Waddell, how can we ascertain whether the survey answers are accurate?

[Neil Davis]

I'll invite my colleague to respond to that.

[Mark Waddell]

Thank you.

To validate the responses, we provided all of that information to the forensic auditors over at PSPC, who are able to use a lot of public-source information to cross-reference and validate the survey results, identify inaccuracies or things that seem unusual to them as experts, and then provide that information back to us. We are, in turn, linking that information, those findings, with our own quota databases to determine who holds what extent of quota for various fisheries. There is a variety of ways we can cross-check, and where there have been discrepancies, we have sought to do follow-up questions with the respondents.

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

Were there many discrepancies?

[Mark Waddell]

There were certainly a number of touchpoints over the course of the survey submission window—when it was open for respondents to submit their information—where they sought additional insight from us as to the nature of the questions and what we were seeking to have provided. We did a lot of work with licence-holders to help them respond.

At this point in time, though, I'm not certain as to the extent of cases that have been specifically identified by the forensic auditors and that we have started follow-up on.

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

Can anyone tell me why some people wanted to testify anonymously during our study?

[Mark Waddell]

I think that would be a matter of speculation on my part, but it's probably pursuant to their own particular business arrangements that they feel may be at risk due to their taking a proactive stance on certain facets of those arrangements.