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.