Fisheries Committee on Oct. 28th, 2025

[Nico Prins]

Yes, certainly, sir.

Most recently, we went through conditions of licence renewal. It is a nine-year licence that was issued in 2025—April of this year. DFO introduced a 50-metre buffer on intertidal stream channels. Industry essentially can't have any infrastructural gear in those buffer zones.

During the engagement, we requested the history, impacts or science that DFO has to suggest that there is impact, first of all, because a lot of these farms had that infrastructure in those stream channels. It's important to note that these are intertidal stream channels, so when the tide is in—which it is for 60% to 70% of the day—the intertidal stream is essentially covered in water.

It's essentially resulting in big areas of harvest area or growing area where industry can't have any infrastructure.

I'm still waiting for DFO to provide me with the rationale for or scientific evidence of what prodded the supposed balancing of conservation with economic, sustainable activity.

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

You were talking earlier about the definition of “aquaculture”—you're obviously representing the shellfish growers association—and you also talked about the importance of decisions being grounded in science. In another sector of the aquaculture industry, as it pertains to open-net fish farms, the government recently closed about 40% of them off British Columbia's coast. They have articulated that they want to remove the rest by 2029, despite their own reports finding, essentially, no statistical evidence to justify their decision that those farms were impacting wild salmon. Do you worry that, even though it might not affect your directly, decisions pertaining to aquaculture are not being grounded in science, and could, therefore, jeopardize your business, your industry and your ability to put food on your table, to feed your family?

[Nico Prins]

Yes, absolutely. I have a slightly different opinion from you of it not directly impacting us. I think we are very closely tied to the salmon sector. In a lot of these rural areas, the salmon sector is the primary producers of jobs. The ancillary services that go with it, which our industry is reliant upon, would not exist if we didn't have the salmon sector. It would mean that it would be very hard for our shellfish sector to remain viable if we had a complete removal of the salmon industry in B.C.

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

Can you expand on that a bit for people? That's news to me, that the viability of your sector is, in some ways, potentially dependent on the continued operation of the salmon farms in B.C.

[Nico Prins]

Yes. It's purely economic. We are a $35-million-a-year farm gate industry, and slightly decreasing now, unfortunately. We are not big enough to sustain dive operators, boat service operators, net producers, gear producers, ice plants—things like that. If the salmon industry goes, those services, which get 85% of their economic need met by the salmon industry, wouldn't be able to survive if it were just the shellfish industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

We move to our last questioner here. Mr. Morrissey, you have the floor for four minutes.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Knight.

You have extensive experience, in DFO, monitoring the fishery. I would ask you to give an opinion, if you could, on how you've seen the efficiency of the fishing fleet grow and the impact that has had on fishery stock in the area you worked in.

[Morley Knight]

Given the technology that's evolved over the last 30 to 40 years, not only have fishing vessels become, mostly, larger and faster, they are also equipped with much better fishing gear. Traps have changed—for example, in the lobster fishery—and are much more efficient. In most other fisheries, when harvesters are looking for the fish, the technology to find the fish has changed dramatically. As we move into today's environment—with GPS plotters and every vessel having the capability, almost, to map the bottom, the ability to find the fish, to record where it is from one year to the next—it almost makes it so that we can find every last fish and can catch every last fish if we wanted to.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Knight, for that, because this has been my observation. I've been at this committee, like another member, for some time, and there are constant demands from the fishery, the commercial fishers, to stretch the bounds of harvesting more stocks.

You said, in a comment earlier, that to satisfy the needs is impossible. Do you feel the department has a good handle on the impact on the resource? In my understanding, the world's oceans are diminishing in the protein that is being produced naturally. Does the department have a good understanding of the impact of this improving technology capability used by the commercial fisher and how it interacts with the resource—often we hear some members at this committee say that the fisher is seeing fish where it doesn't or may not exist—while, at the same time, trying to balance to ensure the stock lasts into the future?

[Morley Knight]

I think that, for the most part, DFO science has a good handle on the impact of technology and the increasing efficiency of fishing gear and fish harvesters, but I would also say that something has evolved over the same period of time. In my opinion, it's a much better sense of stewardship by most of the harvesters as they realize that they do have the capacity to fish beyond what the resource can sustain. In many fisheries now, there is a definite interest in the harvesters and their representatives in making sure that the fish stocks aren't overfished.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That's often going to put the minister in conflict with the industry in having to say no to ongoing requests for more quota allocations. Would you agree?

[Morley Knight]

I think that's less the case now than it was 20 years ago, because now the harvesters have better knowledge about what the quota limits should be with the precautionary approach and the limit reference points. I see and hear less now from harvesters pushing for increased quotas than we would have seen 20 or 30 years ago.

That said, sir, it will always be a pressure, particularly when stocks are declining.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

That completes our first panel.

I want to thank our witnesses for taking their time to meet with us both by video conference and here in person. Your testimonies are going to be very helpful as we put together our report and recommendations.

I also want to note that there was, I think, at least one instance where further information was asked for. If that could be submitted in writing to the committee, that would be much appreciated.

Now we're going to briefly suspend while we welcome our next witnesses to the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Before we move to our second panel, I just want to make a few comments for the benefit of the 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, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

With regard to interpretation, those using Zoom can choose between the floor, French or English at the bottom of their screen. Those in the room can use their earphones and select the desired channel.

All comments should be addressed through the chair.

With that, I want to welcome our witnesses for the second panel.

Joining by video conference, we have Christina Burridge, executive director, BC Seafood Alliance.

Thank you for your patience in getting things set up.

We have Margot Venton, director, nature program, Ecojustice, also joining by video conference.

In person we have Emily Orr, business agent, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, Unifor.

We are going to start with opening statements from each witness for five minute starting with Christina Burridge.

The floor is yours.

[Christina Burridge, Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance]

Thank you very much, Chair and committee members.

I send a huge thank you to the IT team. We've spent a lot of time today trying to make this work, so I'm very grateful that I can be here to speak to you.

My organization, the BC Seafood Alliance, is an umbrella organization whose 30 members represent fisheries that account for about 90% of the value of wild seafood from Canada's Pacific coast. Our members are commercial harvester associations representing the majority of vessel owners from each fishery in B.C., as well as seafood-processing businesses coast-wide that collectively process and market 80% of the B.C. landed volume.

I want to make four points.

First, we support all the changes to the habitat provisions.

Second, we do propose a change to the purpose of the act.

Third, we support the existing wording preserving the flexibility of the minister's discretion in the fish stock provisions.

Fourth, we do not support using the act to change licensing policy on the west coast.

I'll deal with those last three points in more detail.

With regard to changing the purpose of the act, we would like sustainable use enshrined in the act, on the model of the New Zealand Fisheries Act . We propose that section 2.1(a) should change from “the proper management and control of fisheries” to “the conservation and sustainable use of fish and fishery resources through the proper control and management of fisheries”.

With regard to fish stock provisions, we support the existing wording, which preserves flexibility in ministerial decision-making. The act and its regulations should not specify the content of rebuilding plans, should not require the target for rebuilt stocks to be in the healthy zone and must include periodic reviews.

We remain concerned that the emphasis in the act on the fish stock provisions and on rebuilding plans has affected DFO's ability to deliver the core fisheries science that makes our fisheries well managed and sustainable, as demonstrated by the number of fisheries certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. .

In terms of licensing policy, some interests will see the review as an opportunity to call for Atlantic-style licensing policies on the west coast. We do not support incorporating any such licensing changes into the act or into its regulations. Comparisons between the east and west coasts ignore the fact that Atlantic Canada has several high-volume, high-value fisheries that support many participants. The west coast has none. Overcapacity still exists in most fleets, which means that there are more licences that there are fish to support them. ITQs and other measures have significantly improved conservation outcomes, and conservation should not be compromised for social ends.

This does not mean ignoring unintended consequences of those measures. To this end, industry has proposed several models like those in the sablefish harvest agreement or the shared risks and benefits proposal. Two FOPO recommendations—a provincial loans board and a licence and quota registry—would be supported, I believe, by all interests.

Commercial licences in profitable fisheries will always be expensive. You only have to look at lobster for that. In B.C., the situation is exacerbated by increased demand from PICFI and first nations purchase and by reduced supply, since communal commercial licences cannot be sold and reductions in TACs reduce the amount of quota pounds.

Finally, the northern shelf bioregion MPA network plan will reduce commercial access for key species, despite more than 35% of B.C. waters already being protected and conserved. It is lack of access that is driving fish harvesters out of the business, not licensing policy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and the committee. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Burridge.

Next we'll go to Ms. Venton for five minutes.

[Margot Venton, Director, Nature Program, Ecojustice]

Good afternoon, committee members and Mr. Chair.

My name is Margot Venton, and I'm a lawyer and a director of the nature program at Ecojustice. I'm joining you today from Coast Salish territory.

Ecojustice is Canada's largest national environmental law charity. We provide free legal services to people and communities working to defend nature, combat the climate crisis and secure a healthy environment for all. Over the past 30 years, we have worked for a number of clients and partners who engage with the Fisheries Act.

We also participated in the fisheries modernization process led by this committee in 2019 that resulted in important amendments to the Fisheries Act to protect fish and fish habitat, rebuild fish stocks and improve transparency and decision-making. I'm very honoured to have been invited to appear again before this committee to review the implementation of those provisions. That's what I'm going to talk about today, because this is really important work.

The conservation of fisheries is the minister's first priority under the Fisheries Act, and that requires keeping fish habitat healthy, because without fish habitat, there are no fisheries. In Canada, we have lived through the devastating experience of fisheries collapse, and we are witnessing decline in fish populations throughout the country.

Ecojustice submitted written briefs in June and November of last year when this review began. I won't go through those all in detail, but I wanted to pull out a few key points for these introductory remarks. The most important is that, from our perspective, implementation of these new provisions of the Fisheries Act is really where this committee and the department should be putting their focus and effort right now. We acknowledge that a lot of work has been done to start breathing new life into the new provisions, but there are some that have not yet been fully implemented, and it appears there are several tools DFO was granted in 2019 that they are still not using.

For example, it's not clear how the new considerations in sections 2.5 and 34.1 that are intended to guide decision-making are being implemented. There don't appear to be any ecologically significant areas designated under section 34.1. There don't appear to be any new regulations to protect environmental flows to ensure passage of fish and protection of fish habitat under section 34.3(7). The public registry provisions in sections 42.2 to 42.5 are not yet in force. There do not appear to be any regulations made under section 43.3 for the protection of marine biodiversity from the impacts of fishing. We don't see any advisory panels under the new provision in section 4.01 being established. While we've seen some important first starts in implementing the fish stock provisions, those provisions need to be fully implemented.

We have some recommendations in our brief about how DFO could better use these new tools, and I'll just turn to one example. Community knowledge is one of the considerations added in new section 2.5 and intended to inform all decision-making under the act, yet there are very few ways for communities to provide their knowledge to DFO. This is especially true when it comes to permitting harm to fish and fish habitat. We recommend that DFO develop policies and processes to include the public in permitting, especially in those cases where federally protected species at risk will be impacted, so that Fisheries Act permits will also serve as permits under the Species at Risk Act. We note that the opacity in permitting, or this kind of “black box” of the permitting process, was actually an issue discussed during this committee's review in 2019, and we think opacity in permitting is an even greater concern today in 2025, as we see governments accelerating and even avoiding environmental assessments of projects that could have significant impacts on fish and fish habitats.

That's a real concern because the environmental assessment process is designed to include public engagement and the sharing of community knowledge. If these processes don't happen, then the only place environmental impact is really considered is during permitting where currently there is no guidance for DFO or for the public on how to solicit or how to share community knowledge.

I'd like to note that Canada is a vast country, as we all know, and safeguarding fish and fish habitat is a huge job. Our chance of doing a good job of stewardship gets better when you include communities in conservation.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Ms. Venton.

Last, and certainly not least, we're going to move to Ms. Orr for five minutes.

[Emily Orr, Business Agent, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union – Unifor]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Emily Orr, the business agent for the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, joining you here today from the Pacific region.

The Fisheries Act currently falls short in a number of specific ways that lead to unacceptably large voids and gaps in the department's ability to fulfill the purposes of the act, which, in section 2.1, are:

(a) the proper management and control of fisheries; and

(b) the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution.

Focusing on how the Fisheries Act can be amended to import the value, importance and consideration of working Canadian fish harvesters—who support families and communities and are the backbone of our fisheries economy—the themes I'd like to raise for review at committee are the absence of a statement to describe for whom or what the purposes of the act are meant to serve; the absence of a neutral, science-based rationale as a standard in decision-making; the absence of metrics by which MPAs and other conservation-based closures can be held to account of effectiveness; and the exemption of the reporting of fishery effort and catch landings data.

Fisheries have been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and in DFO language as being “a common property resource to be managed for the benefit of all Canadians”. However, clarity and guidance for those for whose benefit the purposes of the Act are meant to serve would be achieved by including language in section 2.5 that refers to fish and fisheries being a common property resource, managed and protected for the benefit of all Canadians.

In section 2.5, the act should be definitively affirmative that the minister “shall”—in place of “may”—under paragraph 2.5(h) consider “the preservation or promotion of the independence of licence holders in commercial inshore fisheries”.

The Pacific region of Canada remains without any policy or regulations that would see independent harvesters preserved or protected and without a mechanism to prevent or limit corporate concentration or foreign ownership and beneficial interest.

The erosion of independent harvesters and the resulting economic damage to coastal communities in the Pacific region is profound. The Fisheries Act can and should define Canada's approach to the preservation and promotion of the independence of licence-holders in commercial inshore fisheries consistently and in alignment for all regions of Canada's fisheries, acknowledging that British Columbia does need policy developed with British Columbian needs and situations in mind.

In subsection 9.1(1), the word “opinion” is used to describe justification of the minister's approach to fishery management orders. An Oxford definition of “opinion” is “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”. It has become increasingly apparent and problematic that fishery management decisions are, in many cases, based in politics, as well as resulting from the successful lobbying of dominant and well-funded interests. While the word “opinion” may afford ultimate discretion to the minister, the semantics are important and consequential. It can be presumed that the people of Canada would be of the expectation that fishery management decisions are based primarily in data and fact, based in neutral science. It would be a vast improvement to the act and to the standard of management of Canadian fish, fisheries and habitat to amend the language to say that “The Minister may, if he or she is able to factually or empirically justify that prompt measures are required to address a threat to the proper management and control of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish, make a fisheries management order”. That greater standard of justification should be considered for all occurrences of the word “opinion” in section 9.

Under the “Fish and Fish Habitat Protection and Pollution Prevention” portion of the act, “conservation project”, “fish habitat bank” and “habitat credit” are defined. This portion directly expresses the procedural ability of the department to quantify the benefits of a conservation project with enough confidence to reference “a habitat credit certification process”. It can be expected, then, that this approach to holding conservation measures accountable to effectiveness and the ability to assess the effectiveness of a conservation measure could and should also be implemented in the case of marine protected areas and other conservation-based initiatives undertaken by the department.

With regard to information required by the minister, included in the Fisheries Act under “Information Returns”, as subsection 61.1(2), is the following:

Exception—Indigenous knowledge of Indigenous peoples

(2) The Minister shall not require any Indigenous knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of Canada to be provided to him or her by any person under subsection (1).

The Fisheries Act should aid in developing a more collaborative framework for co-governance, within the nation-to-nation approach, by stipulating the mutual expectation of fishery reporting with regard to effort and landings, and for the purpose of adequate data for stock assessment, stock management and informed governance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Ms. Orr, we are at five minutes here, so I ask you to wrap up. There will be time to get into this in more detail in questions as well.

Thank you.

With that, we move to our first round of questioning, starting with Mr. Small for six minutes.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Venton. Are you familiar with the open standards for the practice of conservation, more commonly known as “the conservation standards”?

[Margot Venton]

I believe so.

What is your question?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

No, I—

[Margot Venton]

I'm not sure I could speak very much about them.