Fisheries Committee on Oct. 28th, 2025

[Margot Venton]

I think that's a really important question.

Certainly, we've heard other witnesses before the committee today and on other days proposing changing that “may” to a “must” to make those considerations in section 2.5 mandatory.

I can't really imagine a situation in which not considering sustainability would be a good part of a decision under the Fisheries Act, so certainly that is possible.

I would also add that I think there's quite a lot of utility in DFO providing guidance on how these provisions should be used if the act isn't opened, without having to amend it, including providing guidance on how to consider all these various sections.

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

Your report also mentions provisions relating to a public register to provide access to files related to fish protection. Your report is dated November 2024; I do not know if this is an error or if the date is correct. In any case, you explained that the provisions were still not in force. Has this been corrected?

[Margot Venton]

As far as I know, the provisions are still not enforced. I checked this morning and my version of the Fisheries Act suggests that the registry provisions are still not in force.

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

In your opinion, should the provision voted on in 2019, which never came into force, be implemented?

[Margot Venton]

Yes, absolutely. I believe that provision and all the other tools that DFO was given in the 2019 changes should be fully implemented and used.

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

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Ms. Orr.

You clearly stated that, in your opinion, section 2.5 of the Fisheries Act should tighten the minister’s discretionary power to ensure that he takes into account what is written in that section, which contains important considerations. You also spoke about promoting the independence of fishers.

This section refers, among other things, to socio-economic factors. If I understand you correctly, this is where you would add a provision that would not only require the minister to take economic factors into account, but also specify that he must encourage owner-operators.

[Emily Orr]

Thank you.

I believe that the act can and should reference the preservation and promotion of independent owner-operators in inshore fisheries for the Pacific region. While the act does reference preservation and promotion, it doesn't act in accordance with that for the Pacific region. It needs to be strengthened in the language, that the minister “shall”, rather than “may”, and we need to have a distinct language that incorporates that this is true for all regions of Canada's fisheries.

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

The objective would therefore be, when the minister allocates fishing rights, to favour small businesses or family businesses, in particular. Do you think this is the objective that should be pursued?

[Emily Orr]

I think there is a very strong economic and socio-economic case to be made for the benefit of fisheries, which are a common property resource flowing to harvesters, communities and our domestic economies. We can see where that shows up in very successful ways in Atlantic Canada, where we already have regulations in place. Most of my colleagues in Atlantic Canada are working very hard to have DFO tighten loopholes and become more committed to upholding those regulations. Harvesters themselves are in promotion of those regulations.

In terms of where there's benefit, it's an ethical question of whether the benefits of fisheries should go to independent harvesters or corporations. I obviously have a viewpoint on that.

Perhaps the ethics can be debated in a further conversation. I see we're out of time on this.

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

I have one last quick question.

Your members are fishers and fishing assistants. Have you heard any reports that they feel fisheries officers are not taking action, despite the reports they provide, for example when they report illegal fishing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We're over time, so give a very brief answer.

[Emily Orr]

I'm sorry; could you repeat the last part of the question?

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

Have your members reported situations in which they requested the intervention of fisheries officers, for example in the case of illegal fishing, but the officers did not intervene?

[Emily Orr]

Yes, that is occurring. We have many members coming forward and referencing situations of illegal catch being sold and that not being dealt with appropriately. Yes, that does occur.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Deschênes.

That finishes our first round of questioning.

Moving into the second round, Mr. Arnold, you have five minutes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start out with Ms. Orr.

The 2019 changes to the Fisheries Act established protection for harvesters within the act, but only for harvesters in the Atlantic, not the Pacific. Has the government explained this inconsistency to members of your organization?

[Emily Orr]

There have been some explanations offered. The more common one is that the Pacific region's fisheries' landscape was developed more on the platform of conservation. We struggled to make sense of that. In our view, there's not a conflict between conservation and licensing policy as it would pertain to having owner-operator protections.

In terms of how fisheries are executed, the number of folks who fish in small communities in Atlantic Canada has perhaps been larger. The voting population has more to say and more sway in Atlantic Canada for ensuring that their fish harvest communities are protected whereas perhaps we're a little bit less organized in the Pacific region.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you.

The government has suggested that it is acting to reform licensing in the Pacific. It has been saying this for at least six years now, since this committee produced a report.

Has the government delivered licence reform in the Pacific? What has been delivered?

[Emily Orr]

The short answer is no. The department did issue a beneficial ownership survey. However, that survey was flawed from the start. It was asking the licence holder instead of the licence owner for their responses, and, very incorrectly, reported a very low instance of foreign ownership. That study cannot be referred to for any accurate purpose. Beyond that, the department is currently consulting on potential fisheries modernization approaches, but we have not seen specific options really being put forward or a commitment from the minister to move forward.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Okay, thank you.

Does the act provide sufficient legislation or the ability for regulation to limit foreign ownership and foreign control of fisheries on the west coast?

[Emily Orr]

No, it's silent on it. In recent meetings with the department, I was told that, in light of current trade relationship concerns, the department would be unwilling to exceed or deviate from the United States' position on foreign ownership. They have a 25% cap on foreign investment. That is the most recent knowledge I understand that the department is going by.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Burridge, does your organization see a need for commercial licensing reform in the Pacific? Does it need to be improved, and if so, what improvements in licensing would your organization members support?

[Christina Burridge]

Generally, we think that licensing policy works reasonably well. There certainly are some ways to streamline it it terms of the way that licences can be stacked or married, but we do not support the notion that we would enshrine owner-operator or other elements of that Atlantic-style fisheries policy in the act. That is a matter for discussion.

I think the Pacific region has not done a particularly good job of consulting with industry. As I said, we've seen no objectives, no principles, no indication that we can only do certain kinds of things, because we cannot compromise conservation.

As I've said, I do believe that there are ways to deal with those issues. They do not need to be in the act itself. I am with your previous witness, Mr. Knight, that the act is already too complicated, and trying to make it—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

I just want to quickly get a question in to all three of you. You may have to provide the answer in writing, because from at least two of you, we've heard that the “Purpose” section of the act does not adequately—I believe one of you stated that it doesn't direct the proper management and control of fisheries. Also, the absence of whom the act should serve is missing from the “Purpose” section.

If you can, in 10 seconds, answer but if not please provide in writing how that “Purpose” section should be improved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We have three people who, I'm sure, all have some very important view to bring. If that could be submitted in writing, I think it's a question that deserves a fulsome response.

With that, we are going to move to the next questioner. I'm going to be questioning for the next five minutes here, and I want to start with Ms. Orr. I apologize for having had to interrupt a couple of times.

In your opening remarks, you were going through some specific changes you would like to see in the act before I had to step in. Were there other changes that you were going to get to that you didn't have a chance to yet that you would like to share with the committee at this time?