Fisheries Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number eight of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I want to start by acknowledging that we are gathered on the ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people and by expressing gratitude that we're able to do the important work of this committee on lands they've stewarded since time immemorial.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to commence it's study on the review of the Fisheries Act. Work on this important matter was started in the 44th Parliament. As you know, the committee has agreed to bring forward the testimonies and submissions from last year and to continue hearing witnesses for at least five additional meetings.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we begin, I would like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will also notice on the card a QR code, which links to a short awareness video.

Pursuant to our routine motions, I would like to advise committee members that all witnesses appearing virtually today have successfully completed the required technical testing.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French.

For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

We appreciate everyone's patience.

Before we go to our witnesses, Monsieur Deschênes, I understand that you have something you'd like to raise quickly with the committee.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to raise a question of privilege.

At our last meeting, which was last Tuesday, I believe one of the witnesses misled the committee. When I asked specific questions, the answer given was incorrect.

I therefore wanted to raise this question of privilege at the earliest opportunity, as required. I suggest you look into this matter at some point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Deschênes.

I know we've talked about this. We'll try to get that out of the way before we're no longer in public, if we can.

With that, I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

Joining us by video conference is Andrew Campbell, counsel, from the firm Cox and Palmer. In the room, from the Northern Coalition Corporation, we have Alastair O'Rielly, executive director, and Garry Best, board member.

We also have Normand Déraspe, vice president of the Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles. He is joining us by video conference.

We'll start with the opening statements of the witnesses, each for five minutes or less, beginning with Mr. Campbell.

The floor is yours.

[Andrew Campbell, Counsel, Cox and Palmer]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you to the standing committee for allowing me to speak today about some inconsistencies and ambiguities related to legislative changes to the inshore fisheries regulations made in April 2021, and the fact that the legislative changes deny fishers the full benefits, privileges and corporate structures that were intended under the legislative amendments. I've encountered these in dealings with the Atlantic fishery and maritime provinces' fishery regulations.

My name is Andrew Campbell, as you stated. I'm a lawyer with Сox and Palmer, and I practise law in rural Prince Edward Island, in the western part of P.E.I. My areas of practice are mainly real estate, corporate, commercial, wills and estates and, of course, fisheries. I have represented individual fishers, local fishing groups and buyers. I've represented all of them and have gained a good appreciation and understanding of the fisheries in the Maritimes. I began doing fisheries matters 34 years ago, when a good friend of mine bought a fishing fleet. I grew up with fishermen and have known them all my life. I've played hockey with them, and many of them are good friends.

I was part of a panel regarding changes to the inshore fisheries regulations in 2020 and 2021, which were made in April 2021. These regulatory amendments were made to strengthen and better protect the independence of the inshore fisheries and bring into force many of the policies, such as those on owner-operators, independent core fishers and new entrants, into the Atlantic fisheries regulations and maritime provinces fishing regulations. The panel also recognized the importance of inshore fisheries in our rural communities, the benefits received by family members from fishing, corporate structures being used by fishers and other corporate structures that should be available to fishers, like any other professional organization.

The regulations created a new eligible criteria known as the inshore family fishing corporation, or IFFC, to recognize the importance of families who contribute to the fishing enterprise and to allow fishers the same corporate structures as other professional groups, such as lawyers like me. DFO emphasized the criteria in a pamphlet, which I have submitted, called “Inshore regulations implementation: Guidance on corporate structures” that outlined the following criteria for the inshore family fishing corporation.

Inshore licences must be issued in the name of an independent core harvester or in the name of a wholly owned corporation. The licence-holder must own all voting shares issued by the company. The licence-holder must be the only director or trustee of an inshore family trust. The only individuals who can be part of an inshore family fishing corporation are family members, and they can own only non-voting shares. Non-voting shares can be issued only to family members as defined in subsection 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, and individuals who qualify are set out in the pamphlet by DFO. They are mainly spouses, children, brothers, sisters and common-law spouses.

DFO has also brought out new forms, which continually change. I think they've changed no fewer than 10 times in the last four years. I've included one of those questionnaires as well. These forms identify the independent core fisher, the operator of the vessel and the vessel being used in fishing. It also requests information on the shareholders of the corporation, the director and family members who have shares. There is full and absolute disclosure to DFO when dealing with inshore family fishing corporations. All of this information is also posted on the local, provincial or federal website when you're dealing with the Business Corporations Act.

Here is the issue that has arisen in relation to the act. Subsection 19(1) of the Atlantic fisheries regulations states—and DFO has continually stated—that a licence can be issued only to an individual fisher or a wholly owned corporation by the fisher. It does not allow a licence to be issued to an inshore family fishing corporation, which, I would submit, was the true intent of the legislation and was an oversight during the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up. There will be more time to go deeper during questions from members.

[Andrew Campbell]

Sure.

My point is that adding the words “an approved inshore fishing family corporation” to subsection 19(1) of the Atlantic fishery regulations and to section 29.2 of the maritime provinces fishery regulations would give fishers the full and absolute benefit of the legislative amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell.

Next, we will be going to Mr. O'Rielly.

You have the floor for your opening remarks for five minutes or less.

[Alastair O'Rielly, Executive Director, Northern Coalition Corporation]

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Northern Coalition's proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act.

My name is Alastair O'Rielly, executive director of Northern Coalition. I'm joined by Mr. Garry Best, who is the CEO of the Nunatsiavut Group of Companies and is one of our board members.

The members of the Northern Coalition are based in Nunavut, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut and southern Labrador. I hope you have an opportunity to view the member listing and perhaps the websites that I've provided.

All members are community-based indigenous organizations. These firms have been engaged in the northern shrimp and the Greenland halibut fisheries since Canada declared the 200-mile exclusive economic zone in 1977. These companies have successfully engaged in these fisheries for almost 50 years, generating substantial profits that have been reinvested in infrastructure, economic diversification and community services. Collectively, roughly 40,000 residents in 52 coastal communities share in the surplus revenues and associated benefits of these fisheries, which currently approximate $50 million annually.

Our member firms and the communities they represent are firmly committed to achieving an equitable share of the fisheries resources in their adjacent waters. These would be NAFO areas 0 and 2. At present, less than 50% of the northern shrimp resource is for the benefit of the north. Northerners' share of Greenland halibut is about two-thirds. However, there are some significant imbalances. For example, while 70% of the 2+3K Greenland halibut quota is harvested off of Labrador, only 10% or 15% of this resource is harvested by Labrador-based vessels.

Similarly, the recent reopening of northern cod provides all quota holders in Labrador, in NAFO area 2J, with 22% of the available quota, even though over 50% of the resource, the biomass, is located off Labrador. Throughout all southern coastal regions of Canada, fishery resources are primarily for the benefit of those who live adjacent to these resources.

In accordance with Canada's northern and Arctic policy, the indigenous reconciliation policy and, most importantly, Canada's long-standing access and allocation policies, northerners should receive access to adjacent resources to a comparable degree as licence-holders and quota holders in Canada's other marine regions.

We provided a few key references to the stated, but not always applied, access and allocation policies of the department. Your committee recently heard DFO's senior director of resource management, Mr. Todd Williams, describe the vague art of applying adjacency, historical dependence and economic benefits as considerations in decision-making. You have also heard from witnesses that the extent to which these principles are applied isn't evident. Amazingly, there currently is no requirement for ministers to even consider these principles or to report on their application.

Our board is concerned with references that arise within DFO and within the industry to the concepts of “willing buyer, willing seller” and “stability of access”. As defined, these concepts would entrench existing allocation keys, would remove the minister's discretion in access and allocation decision-making and would in effect cause Canada's common property fishery resources to be treated as permanent property rights. Access and allocation should be based on a predictable, coherent and consistent policy framework that not only offers a reasonable period of assured access but also enables the minister to optimize the public good when responding to substantive socio-economic and ecosystem shifts.

Accordingly, we recommend that section 2.5 of the act be amended to require that the cornerstone principles of adjacency, historical dependency and economic benefits to be incorporated as mandatory legislative considerations in all access and allocation decisions, and that the minister must report how these principles have been applied. These amendments would improve consistency, predictability, transparency and accountability in access and allocation decision-making without fettering the minister's discretion.

We note that these proposed amendments are consistent with the 2019 amendments to the fish stocks provisions of the act, which require ministerial actions and responses to sustainability risks.

Thank you for your attention. We welcome your questions and comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. O'Rielly.

Mr. Déraspe, you now have the floor for five minutes.

[Normand Déraspe, Vice President, Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles]

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Normand Déraspe. I've been a fisherman for 30 years. For nearly 20 years, I have held a commercial lobster fishing licence in area 22, near the Îles de la Madeleine in Quebec. As vice president of the Rassemblement des pêcheurs et pêcheuses des côtes des Îles, or RPPCI, I want to thank you, on my behalf and on behalf of more than 200 fishers—325, in fact—for inviting us to this meeting to hear our views on the Fisheries Act in Canada. To my knowledge, this invitation is a first. Here, then, are our challenges and recommendations for the commercial fishery.

Fisheries management in Canada is about regional fairness. Over the years, commercial fishers have observed that Fisheries and Oceans Canada's enforcement of acts and regulations isn't equitable from one region to another. This perception of inequity is reflected in several aspects related to licence management and the regulation of fishing activities.

For example, the cost of a commercial lobster licence varies by region. While fishers in the Gaspésie and the Îles de la Madeleine carry out the same activities, the cost of licences differs between those two regions of Quebec. This disparity creates a sense of injustice within the Îles de la Madeleine fishing community.

In addition, the enforcement of Fisheries and Oceans Canada regulations is perceived as variable between the different regions. By way of illustration, the deployment of the e-log isn't consistent across Canada. For example, cod fishery is allowed in the fall in Newfoundland, while it remains banned in Quebec during the same period, which heightens the feeling of unfairness among Quebec fishers.

To remedy this situation, it would be desirable for Fisheries and Oceans Canada to standardize its regulations and ensure that the legislation of its own department is applied consistently and equitably for all regions of the country.

I'll now talk about reporting lost or retrieved fishing gear at sea. First, we would like to draw your attention to the requirements imposed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada regarding the reporting of lost or retrieved gear at sea by commercial fishers. This issue is of great importance to our community, as it has a direct impact on our practices and responsibilities for the sustainable management of the marine resource and on the time spent on this activity.

We call on Fisheries and Oceans Canada to be flexible in reporting lost or retrieved gear at sea. Specifically, we propose to increase the number of replacement traps allowed on board vessels during the fishing season and to extend the period allowed for the recovery of lost traps. For example, if a fisher loses eight traps, they should be able to have eight replacement traps on their boat during the recovery period.

I will now turn to the issue of the distinction between commercial and recreational or food fishery. Another area of focus for us is recreational commercial fishery. We stress the importance of distinguishing these two types of activities and highlighting their implications for commercial fishers in our region. Over the years, commercial fishers have demonstrated good practices and sound management of commercial fishery. However, we are concerned that there could be an imbalance in fish and shellfish stocks if food fishery were to be authorized by the department.

Furthermore, it would be appropriate for Fisheries and Oceans Canada to consider various avenues, such as establishing defined quotas for commercial fishers or extending the fishing season in the fall, for example for the cod fishery, for those who practise food fishery, also known as a recreational fishery.

Now I'll talk about cohabitation with right whales and gear adaptation. This issue of cohabitation with right whales is also crucial. It implies that special attention is paid to adapting fishing gear to the fishing area and the characteristics of the seabed. Equipment needs to be modified and adapted in order to reduce the risks to these marine mammals as much as possible. Practices must therefore be adapted to a specific environment in order to promote better coexistence between fishing activities and the preservation of right whales.

We propose that Fisheries and Oceans Canada adapt the regulations according to the area and the type of fishery specific to each region. For example, we fish in a migration territory to nutrition zones between June and August, while our fishing season takes place from April to July. We are right in the transition zone, which results in closures of areas that are unnecessary and, in our opinion, too long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Mr. Déraspe, you're out of time. Can you wrap it up?

[Normand Déraspe]

We feel that it's very important to continue to do scientific monitoring, given climate change.

We're also asking Fisheries and Oceans Canada to provide financial support for research projects, through a program like the Quebec fisheries fund, for example, to better understand our marine environment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Déraspe.

That finishes our opening remarks.

We're going to move to the six-minute round of questioning, starting with Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses here today.

We have a comprehensive submission from a group of ENGOs that are mostly foreign-funded. Most of their funding comes from the United States. The list of ENGOs includes Oceans North, Oceana, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Ecology Action Centre. The list goes on. The number one recommendation these groups are putting forward is to have subsection 6.1(1) amended so that all fisheries are managed in the healthy zone.

Mr. O'Rielly, you mentioned turbot and northern shrimp. What would be the impact to these stocks of exclusively being managed in the healthy zone for your harvesters and coastal communities?

[Alastair O'Rielly]

In the case of Greenland halibut and the shrimp stocks, they are already in the healthy zone.

You will be familiar with SFA 6, off the northeast coast of the island in the southern part of Labrador. That stock was in the critical zone for some time, but fishing laws allowed it to continue at a modest level during that period, which helped sustain the fishery and maintain operations and allowed us to learn more about the status of the resource.

In the proposal you just referenced, that opportunity would not be there. It would be unduly restrictive in terms of being able to operate the fishery and sustain the communities and the people who are dependent on it.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

I understand that areas 4 and 5 shrimp are not in the healthy zone. They're both in the cautious zone. What would happen to those fisheries?

[Alastair O'Rielly]

No, actually, they are both in the healthy zone. The PA framework is going through a fairly significant and rigorous revision. The new science that's been worked on for the past couple of years has changed the arrangements of the analysis to two fishing areas, as opposed to the seven we currently have for assessment purposes.

At present, the findings of the science community are that both of these regions are in the healthy zone.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. O'Rielly, these groups like Oceana and Oceans North have consistently lobbied for the complete closure of forage fisheries. Take a species like mackerel, which is not an alpha predator but is pretty close if it consumes the larvae and the spawn of every other species. What would the impact be of the population of a species like mackerel becoming out of control? This is what we're seeing in our areas in Atlantic Canada, which I'm sure you're pretty well aware of, with your vast knowledge of the local ecosystems.

What would the impact be on cod, capelin, herring, lobster, mackerel, shrimp and so on? All spawn rises to the top of the water column and the larvae hatch there, and then the mackerel comes along in immense quantities and consumes that larvae.

What would the impact be of a stock like mackerel being out of control?

[Alastair O'Rielly]

You're right. That could have significant detrimental effects on a number of species.

You mentioned predator relationships. Shrimp is a species that is consumed extensively by groundfish. These ecosystems, as you all know, are very dynamic and very complicated and have been highly erratic over time in terms of shifts in biomass. We do not have the knowledge base or the expertise to have arbitrary rules, such as closures, when we determine that we're in the healthy zone or the cautious or critical zones at any particular point in time. It requires a level of engagement with industry, science and managers to take prudent and practical decisions.

What you just outlined would be arbitrary rules with little or no opportunity for industry engagement.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

This amendment, Mr. O'Rielly, to section 6.1 poses a bit of a threat to those who make their livelihoods on water. If this goes through, would we see a northern cod fishery right now?

[Alastair O'Rielly]

It's difficult to know what the implications would be, other than that they would be negative. That's for certain.

In 2019, the amendments to the fish stocks provisions attempted to bring into place a situation where the minister had to either act to ensure sustainability or explain why that wasn't being done. It sounds as though the NGO community is now wanting to go further, back to where they hoped to go in 2019, to take away discretion from the minister and force decisions that are oftentimes based on very weak, inadequate and incomplete analysis.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

I have just a quick question on the 30 by 30 marine conservation area desires of the federal Liberal government.

How would that impact you if it came to full fruition that 30% of the waters that you fish are protected and not accessible to you? Do you agree with the 30 by 30 principle?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Please give a very short answer.

[Alastair O'Rielly]

The concept is okay. The practical application of it is challenging. We went through a fairly extensive process in 2017 to get the first 10% to 14% of protected areas. That was relatively straightforward. The next part would be absolutely painful and very restrictive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Small.

Next, we'll be going to Mr. Morrissey for six minutes.