Fisheries Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

That's perfect.

Mr. Berry, I have a quick question before I go to Mr. Barron. Do you think organized crime is in this business as we see it right now?

[Bernie Berry]

I'm not sure about the buying of the licences. I think there is possible involvement of that type in other instances, but not in the buying of the licences.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Okay. That's perfect.

Mr. Barron, quickly, because I don't have too much time, if I understand it, you're a fisherman. You were talking about an agreement that was made between different kinds of groups, maybe more on the side of first nations.

We're talking a lot about agreements being done nation to nation, and I understand that. I know that we have to respect the rights of first nations. We all understand that. If we want to make a better future for all fisheries, don't you think that if we all sit down together at the table and talk about those issues we all have—first nations, commercial—we will be more successful in advancing fisheries?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Mr. Barron, if you'd like to provide an answer to that question afterwards in writing, the committee would much appreciate it, but I'm afraid we're going to have to move on at this point.

Mr. Deschênes, you have the floor for six minutes or less.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

I’d like to thank all the witnesses for their great presentations.

I have a question for you, Ms. Canet, as you speak to us from Chandler.

Thank you very much for your brief, which features a number of strong and targeted proposals for amendments to the Fisheries Act. I understand the general idea is to provide a framework for the Minister of Fisheries' discretionary power and also to consider socio-economic factors in decision-making. You’ve shared a lot of insights on allocation.

Can you expand on your idea for the committee? What amendments would you like to see to the Fisheries Act?

[Claire Canet]

You’ve defined the goal of our proposal to provide a framework for the minister’s discretionary power perfectly.

Currently, we have a situation where some Canadians have superior constitutional fishery access rights and the wording of the Fisheries Act does not require the minister to take the socio-economic and cultural needs of all coastal communities into consideration because section 2.5 does not constitute an obligation. The same applies to section 2.4 and the purpose of the act. The minister is not required to consider the socio-economic and cultural importance of access to fisheries for all coastal communities, groups and Canadians, and this creates an imbalance in terms of access, but also in terms of consideration of the various factors in the impact of management decisions.

That’s why we’re proposing that the purpose of the act be clearly refocused on fisheries management that benefits all Canadians and not one group in particular. Section 2.5 must require the minister to consider socio-economic impacts on coastal communities and those who depend on fishery, including independent fishers and our coastal villages, and this framework must be clarified in the purpose of the act and in subsection 34(1) of the act, as I recall.

The goal here is to restore a balance so that the fundamental principle of fishery management for the benefit of all Canadians is fully considered, which is not the case now. The current wording of the act does not accomplish that goal. We have seen that in various aspects in recent years in agreements and consultations. Distribution of access across various communities clearly shows that at present, the resource and access are not managed for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

You also have proposals on transparency. Could you clarify your proposal?

[Claire Canet]

The issue of transparency mostly has to do with knowledge. Fishery management should be based on all knowledge, whether that knowledge is from indigenous peoples, scientists, or fishers. As a group, Canadian independent fish harvesters spend thousands of hours observing conditions at sea. It’s worth noting that this knowledge is not taken into consideration and that indigenous knowledge is confidential, which means that fisheries managers rely only on partial factors to properly understand activity in our oceans and to make informed management decisions.

The other part is on—

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

I’m afraid I’m going to have to interrupt you, but I’m running out of time and I only have a few seconds left.

Over the past few weeks and days, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has heard a lot of testimony that either fisheries officers are terrified at the thought of taking action or they will not take action.

What’s your point of view on that?

[Claire Canet]

I’ve had occasion to personally witness instances where proceedings for acknowledged offences—whether in public or courtrooms—were dropped under circumstances that strike me as rather unusual.

While fisheries officers do their work as best as they can even though they are understaffed, they cannot monitor the entire province of Quebec. Fisheries officers do successfully carry out their duties, only for some court cases to be discontinued.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I’m afraid I’m going to interrupt you. We’re out of time.

We’ll now begin our second round.

Mr. Small, go ahead for five minutes or less.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome the witnesses to this very important study today.

There have been requests, in this study, by various ENGOs, to modify subsection 6.1(1) of the act. The effect it would have is that 65% of Canada's fish stocks would not be fishable, because it recommends that fisheries could only take place when stocks are in the healthy zone.

First to you, Mr. Barron, do you agree with that recommendation that some other groups have made before this committee?

[Michael Barron]

As a harvester, it's hard to be told when you can fish and when you can't fish, according to what the stock assessment is.

I'm going to go back to Ms. Canet's statement. When industry-based knowledge is being overlooked, but you're using ENGOs knowledge to help determine some of what the stock assessment should be, or should actually be harvested at, it's very disheartening because they do not have the same amount of time on the water, or for a lack of a better term, skin in the game.

The harvesters that are invested in this are not looking to abuse it to the bitter end. We want to make sure that it's sustainable and that it's fished as economically as possible. No, I don't really agree with them having too much input.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you.

Mr. Berry, just quickly, do you agree with having the precautionary approach changed or strengthened?

[Bernie Berry]

I certainly don't agree with the ENGO approach. Again, because we have three zones—the healthy zone, the cautious zone and the critical zone—to Mr. Barron's point, as long as you have fishermen putting in their points of view, along with science, once you get into the cautious zone, fishermen know how to manage a stock.

If you had to have the proper science advice, they could do that.... Again, they just simply have to be brought to the table, together, maybe not with ENGOs because I'm not sure what they bring to the table. Fishermen, though, are the ones with the knowledge and stuff like that. You can manage a stock, properly, below the healthy zone.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Berry.

Mr. Barron, I heard you reference transparency versus confidential DFO agreements. Would you like to elaborate a bit on that?

[Michael Barron]

I'll go back to my example of where they're using banked licences that were bought back through a government buyback in 2009 and, I think, in 2013. I may be wrong about 2013. When that came out, we were told that it was being done under the guise of conservation for the stocks to remain healthy and to be harvested. Then, lo and behold, no new access was going to be granted, so they turned around and used these banked licences that were bought out of this buyback program, and not only that, but also latent traps from a partnership licence. In my LFA, if you stack two licences together, you're allowed to fish 413 traps instead of 550. Therefore, for those traps that are not being used, the department decided to take those traps that are unused and put them in use for the moderate livelihood agreements.

For me, if I were someone with a stacked licence who made that investment to purchase that second licence, I'd be pretty upset if the government were to turn around and use some of my investment to help someone else make a living. To be honest, with the way the loan board is set up and the banks are set up, first nations can go through the same process as I can. They can go to the bank, and they can finance a licence and purchase a commercial licence to become an actual harvester.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Barron.

Mr. Berry, do you think there's foreign ownership of fishing licences in Atlantic Canada through these various controlling agreements?

[Bernie Berry]

Yes. For example, over the last, we'll say, 10 years, there's been quite a presence now, especially in southwest Nova Scotia and in other portions of Atlantic Canada, where Chinese entities have bought local companies, lobster-buying companies. These companies, the local companies, do have some of these agreements in place, fraudulent agreements, so basically, they're just swept up in part of the purchase agreements for some of these Chinese companies.

It basically guarantees a certain amount of product by doing this. Yes, absolutely, and it's not only foreign ownership but also private equity firms—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm going to have to step in here. We're over time again.

If there's more that you'd like to add to that answer, please do submit that in writing to the committee, Mr. Berry.

Next, we go to Mr. Morrissey for five minutes.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

My first question is to Mr. Berry.

Do you have documentation or evidence to provide to this committee to verify the fraudulent transfers of licences? You've referred to it a number of times. Could you provide the committee with any documentation to back up what you're telling the committee?

[Bernie Berry]

No. Basically on the shore, you know when a transfer's taken place, when an independent fisherman has sold his licence and his boat out. Certainly we're not privy to any of the paperwork.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Berry.

I agree. It's a practice that should stop, but often you hear the rumour—I get these comments from time to time—but the department can only act on evidence. I thought if you did have the information, you could provide it to the committee, but you don't.

Mr. Barron, do you recall the question Mr. Cormier asked you that you didn't have the chance to answer. It was on commercial versus first nations.

[Michael Barron]

We were asked whether it would be a valuable option if industry, first nations and government could all sit at the same table.

It would be a valuable option, 100%, because right now as an industry, we're feeling like we're being left out in the dark. We're going to be the ones who bear the brunt of the decision that's made behind these closed doors. Why would we not be involved in part of the decision-making process?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

Could you recommend to the committee ways that you feel the act could be strengthened that would compel the department to be more transparent when it's making decisions around quota allocations?

If you can't think of it now, you could provide the committee, in written form, how you feel the act could be strengthened that would compel the department to provide all the background information into making decisions.