Fisheries Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2025

[Alastair O'Rielly]

Thank you for the question.

I like the thought, because it depends on how one defines adjacency and historical dependence. How it's been articulated over time would suggest that, in line with your question, those living adjacent to the resource would be the primary beneficiaries. That's what we seek to achieve. Could the language be strengthened and could it be more definitive? Yes, to the extent that's necessary.

You have to strike a balance in a legislative requirement. The minister can't be completely tied and removed from any discretion in making decisions. In that context, what we propose allows for that but still accords the priority to adjacency, which ought to, over time, provide fair and equitable access and deal with the issues such as Mr. Best described, where it's 30% instead of what it should be.

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

Mr. Best, you said that you were assigned a shrimp quota of 22% of the total allowable catch and that it wasn't enough. As I understand it, you want to increase that quota. That's normal.

What is your basis for saying that you should have a larger share of the quotas?

[Garry Best]

Thank you for the question.

It was actually 32% of SFA 4 and less than 29% for SFA 5. If you were to look across the region, Atlantic Canada and, indeed, both coasts, I don't think you'd see that elsewhere. Other indigenous populations have used litigation to make that point known to the Government of Canada. I don't believe the Nunatsiavut Government has gone there yet, but it certainly is impinging on our ability to plan for future investments. As I said earlier, I've had many individuals from different regions look at partnering. Everybody looks at, obviously, a quota or what could be emerging in groundfish, for example.

Unless and until we see a fair recognition, if you will, of our rights under the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement for a more fair and just pathway to achieving an equitable share of what we consider our natural and adjacent resource, then we're not going to get there, and we will not be in a position to create better and more favourable economic conditions for the people we serve. Our company is owned by the 7,000 Nunatsiavut beneficiaries, who are my stakeholders and shareholders, so we're obligated to not just operate profitable, sustainable companies. We're looking at, in this particular case, a resource that's been with us that we've harvested for years and years, way before the other foreign fleets, and we're going to be here for millennia.

That's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

Your time is up, Mr. Deschênes.

Given we got started a little bit late, I want to give an opportunity to both a Conservative and a Liberal to ask one question each of the witnesses before we go to the second panel.

I understand, Mr. Gunn, you're next on the list here, so I want to give you that opportunity, and then I'll give the same to a Liberal member.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for Mr. O'Rielly.

Do you support the ENGO submission to change section 6.1 of the Fisheries Act to essentially close Canadian fisheries that aren't in the healthy zone?

[Alastair O'Rielly]

We haven't spent a lot of time focusing on that amendment yet, but I am quite confident in saying we do not agree that ought to be imposed at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you.

I want to give the same opportunity to a Liberal member to ask one last question before we move to the next round.

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

My question is for Mr. O'Rielly.

As we look at the Fisheries Act and the changes that are forthcoming and we look at the newer harvester that will be coming into the fishery, can you talk to us a little bit, drawing on your vast experience—I know you well, and I know you have that—about what that new harvester will look like vis-à-vis what the new Fisheries Act may look like?

[Alastair O'Rielly]

Thank you for the question.

Like most sectors, we are dealing with a huge demographic challenge in the fishing industry, and we have to provide an industry environment that offers a greater level of sustainability, confidence, profitability and viability. We need predictability, security, fairness and equity in terms of access. That's not there in the current legislation, and it creates a volatile and uncertain environment, which is really not conducive to inducing and encouraging youth to participate in the industry and have confidence in their futures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Earle.

That will complete our first panel. I want to thank our witnesses for being here, both in person and by video conference, and for sharing their testimony. This will be very helpful as we put together our report and recommendations on the review of the Fisheries Act.

I'd like to briefly suspend while we welcome our next group of witnesses to the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I want to make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of their screen, between floor, English or French.

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

I would like to welcome our witnesses for the second panel.

We have Véronique Chadillon‑Farinacci, professor at the University of Moncton. She is joining us by video conference.

In person, we have Mr. Jason McLinton, president, Fisheries Council of Canada; and by video conference, Mr. Colin McMillan, chair.

I know it's early, so thank you for participating.

I'd also like to welcome Ms. Kim Elmslie, the senior campaign director for Oceana Canada. She is here in person.

We're going to get started.

Each witness will have five minutes for their opening remarks.

Ms. Chadillon‑Farinacci, you have the floor.

[Véronique Chadillon-Farinacci, Associate Professor of Criminology, University of Moncton, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you.

My name is Véronique Chadillon‑Farinacci. I am an associate professor of criminology at the University of Moncton. Before becoming a professor, I worked in the policing field in analysis and intelligence, a career that has been recognized with a number of awards. I developed and tested, in real time, analytical tools that helped advance difficult investigations. Those innovations modernized the analytical practices used to support investigations, and that experience has taught me to identify courses of action in complex systems.

That interest in navigating complex rules led me to become interested in the commercial fisheries in Canada's maritime provinces, where I'm now based. Fishing structures coastal life, and it engages fishers and control officers in a complex system of rules where everyone can be a target, an offender or a steward of resources. My research aims to better understand those roles and propose fairer solutions based on dialogue between communities and authorities.

In recent years, I have studied the discrepancies in reporting of lobster-related offences between officers and citizens, the internal Fisheries and Oceans Canada exchanges on illegal elver fishing that led to the 2023 fishing season closure, and the ways fishers organize themselves when the regulatory authority is absent or discredited.

My current research suggests two ways to build trust and improve the system.

My first recommendation is to create a code of conduct for people in positions of authority with major discretionary power. Fishery officers have major powers, but there is no binding code of conduct enforced by an independent entity to regulate their work. Such a framework would clarify the officers' roles and responsibilities. It would help protect the public in the event of a breach and support officers in the performance of their duties as a way to limit the influence of external pressures.

In developing such a code and, more broadly, in managing the conservation and protection program, it's important not to simply copy police approaches, since those are ill suited to the specific realities of the work that fishery officers do.

A similar framework should also be considered for resource managers, since their discretionary power directly affects how decisions are perceived. That can undermine public confidence in the system.

My second recommendation is to clarify the rules, implement an effective reporting mechanism and tailor sanctions. The rules need to better reflect the realities on the ground. For example, theft of in-season equipment can compromise fishers' activities and contribute to illegal fishing. It isn't like stealing a lawnmower. When an offence involves both the Criminal Code and the Fisheries Act, it can cause confusion and leave situations unresolved.

In addition, implementing an appropriate reporting mechanism should enable a timely response when an offence is in progress or a situation is at risk of getting worse. A clear distinction between the roles of Fisheries and Oceans Canada officers and those of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers is also essential to ensure an appropriate response.

Finally, some species attract more crime because of their value or conservation status. The act could recognize a special status for species vulnerable to illegal markets, which would make it possible to add a tailored sanction that would be comparable to a victim surcharge.

In closing, I would add that the Fisheries Act should provide a framework not only for resources, but also for relations. Effective legislation also depends on the legitimacy of those who enforce it, the trust of those who live with it and the clarity of the principles that guide it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Professor.

We will now go to Mr. McLinton.

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

[Jason McLinton, President, Fisheries Council of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee members for the opportunity to speak to this review of the Fisheries Act.

The Fisheries Council of Canada, or FCC, and its members believe that changes to the Fisheries Act are not necessary at this time. Rather, they believe that the Government of Canada should prioritize the most effective use of existing regulatory and policy tools.

FCC is the voice of the Canadian fish and seafood industry. FCC members include small, medium and large businesses, which create jobs in coastal communities and provide an economic base that supports and creates other local businesses.

FCC and its members do not recommend reopening the Fisheries Act at this time. New legislative and regulatory requirements would add challenges and administrative burdens at a time when industry is already working to adapt to numerous challenges, including global market uncertainties and tariffs. The sector doesn't need additional change as it wrestles with these challenges. This includes provisions around fish stock provisions, which allow the Minister of Fisheries to tailor fish stock assessment recommendations specific to each fishery. This also includes the provisions surrounding licensing policy, which currently and correctly are adapted to meet the needs of the unique circumstances of the Pacific.

Instead of reopening the act, FCC and its members recommend, first, that the Government of Canada make the most efficient use of tools, both in regulation and policy, that are already in place to address the most critical issues facing our sector. These issues are the need for stability of access and allocation of Canada's fishing resources, as predictability and stability are key to investment and long-term growth in the fisheries sector, as it is with any sector.

Second, we are calling on the Government of Canada to work with FCC and its members on marine conservation and take socio-economic considerations into equal account to avoid the negative and completely avoidable impacts that well-intentioned but misinformed closures have on our sector.

The third is the need for the Government of Canada to conduct robust core fisheries science, which is essential for sustainable fisheries management.

There are, of course, other issues facing our sector today, including market access and tariffs, as well as the need to attract skilled labour, often in remote areas. The issues I have outlined above are most directly linked to the committee and its mandate.

In short, FCC and its members do not feel that amendments to the Fisheries Act need to be prioritized at this time, but rather that the Government of Canada should prioritize the most efficient use of existing regulatory and policy tools to address the most pressing issues facing the industry today.

Thank you once again. I would be pleased to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. McLinton.

To complete our opening statements, I'll hand the floor over to Ms. Elmslie for five minutes or less.

[Kim Elmslie, Senior Campaign Director, Oceana Canada]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

I am the senior campaign director for Oceana in Canada. Our top priority is the rebuilding of healthy fish populations and resilient fisheries. We believe the oceans are essential to help feed the nine billion people projected to be on earth by 2050.

Oceana wants the same things that a lot of people in this room want: robust, healthy, wild fisheries and all the cultural and economic benefits that come with them.

Canada's fish stocks have been severely overfished in past decades, with devastating consequences for communities. Today, only a third of Canada's fish stocks is considered healthy. We are at a turning point in fisheries management in Canada, which, if done well, can restore Canada's depleted fish populations. This can be done and achieved only by a strong Fisheries Act.

In 2019, new fish stock provisions created by this committee were added to the Fisheries Act. These new provisions, supported by regulations, required that the minister implement measures to maintain major fish stocks at sustainable levels and to develop and implement rebuilding plans when stocks fell into the critical zone.

This historic change brought Canada in line with other leading fish nations, including our biggest trade partners. We're just beginning to see the results. In the last year, 12 rebuilding plans for fish stocks in the critical zone were created and published. That is more than one-third of all critical zones.

This is proof of what is possible when policy, science and stakeholder input align, but overall, Canada's fish stocks have stagnated over the past nine years, as outlined in our fishery audit. Canada is still hovering around only 35% of fish stocks in the healthy zone. The rest are depleted below healthy levels or have an uncertain status.

To successfully rebuild the fish stocks, the government must fully implement the amendments made in 2019, combined with some additional improvements, to truly set the legal foundation for recovery.

Our first recommendation would be to end overfishing by requiring fish stocks to be managed in a healthy zone. This change provides clarity and consistency to fisheries management plans and decisions, bringing us in line with other fishing nations. It is entirely consistent with existing DFO policy and will ensure we get the maximum benefit from stocks without overfishing them to the point of collapse. Without this clarity, Canadian harvesters are missing out on the rewards of rebuilding. Since 2000, the United States has rebuilt 50 fish stocks using this approach, producing an average of 50% more revenue, as outlined in the report to Congress.

Our second recommendation is to ensure the rebuilding provisions apply to all federally managed fish stocks by setting a firm date to list all stocks. The fish stock provisions of the Fisheries Act apply to major stocks listed under regulation. This was done to allow DFO to better manage their workload. Since 2019, only 30 out of almost 200 major fish stocks have been added. This scenario creates an uneven playing field for fish harvesters where the law applies differently to different stocks. This creates confusion and mistrust in annual fisheries processes and delays the full benefits of effectively managing healthy stocks.

The third recommendation is to require accountability by DFO through an annual report to Parliament on the status and trends of all federally managed fish stocks. In most progressive fishing nations around the world, management authorities are required to report to their legislatures on the status of commercial fish stocks and the effectiveness of measures to conserve them. Notable examples are the United States, Australia and the European Union. Canada is a global laggard in this area. Canadians, including the members of this committee, have no regular and systematic access to information about the status of all federally managed fish stocks, how management decisions have been made or how scientific information and other forms of evidence have been used to support these decisions.

Finally, we request that you authorize the minister, when entering into comanagement agreements with indigenous governments, to support the pairing of indigenous knowledge systems and western-based science and decision-making. This amendment would help advance the Government of Canada's action plan on UNDRIP, which includes a requirement to respect and include indigenous knowledge systems.

More detail on these amendments is available in our brief, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Elmslie.

With that, we'll go into our first round of questioning, the six-minute round, starting with Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome the witnesses.

Mr. McLinton, we have a very comprehensive submission here from a group of ENGOs from across Canada, many of whom receive the majority of their funding from the United States of America and individuals in that country.

Would you say that groups like this having influence on fisheries-related management decisions amounts to foreign interference in our fishing industry?

[Jason McLinton]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Small.

Given my experience working with the NGO community and now the ENGO community, both personally and from what I've observed in other areas, I have found that some of the most effective ways to effect change are when industry, NGOs and governments work together. I think there's a lot of opportunity in the fisheries space for greater collaboration in that area. I would like to see more of it so that we can come to ways to work together that actually make sense for the fishing industry. I see a lot of opportunity there.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

We have a recommendation from Oceana and others to modify subsection 6.1(1) so that basically fish stocks won't be fished unless they're in the healthy zone. Only 35% are in the healthy zone, based on the best fisheries science. Many of our species haven't been properly assessed in five, six or 10 years. Where does that leave opportunity for the people you represent in terms of accessing growing fish stocks that haven't even been recognized as now being in the healthy zone?

If you make an investment in a fishery that's in the healthy zone and all of a sudden slips out of the healthy zone and back into the lower zone, what does that do to stability in your operations?

[Jason McLinton]

I think there are two parts to that. On the first part, you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned, if I understood you correctly, the lack of core fisheries science. I've heard many times from different quarters that if something is not classified in a certain zone or something like that, then we need to do what? Stop fishing.

What we really need, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is core fisheries science. We don't have a lot of the information we need in order to make healthy assessments.

I should maybe start by saying that our members are leaders in marine conservation and blue technology. Why is that? It's because it's the right thing to do, but it's also that their livelihoods depend entirely on that. They're very active in that area.

To your second point, Mr. Small, the lack of predictability and stability is terrible for any business. If you don't know what's happening next, how can you invest in your employees? How can you invest in new technologies? The more we have predictability and stability through stability of access and allocation and through core fisheries science, the better it is for the industry and the communities it supports.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Let me ask you this quite frankly: Do you consider closing a fishery an appropriate rebuilding measure?

[Jason McLinton]

I am hearing consistently from my members, and I've seen consistently, that the most effective way to achieve our mutual objectives of a strong, healthy fishery and strong populations is through effective fisheries management.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you. Has DFO done that? After 10 years of Liberal government and seven fisheries ministers in that period of time, how effective has the management been of our fisheries in the last 10 years?

[Jason McLinton]

I'm not here to talk about the past. I'm here to talk about the present and future. I will say that I have had and our members have had great meetings with the current minister and with officials at DFO as well as members of this committee. We're optimistic.