Evidence of meeting #9 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was provisions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Business Agent, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union – Unifor
No. Thank you for checking. I was going to summarize my suggestions, so it's all good.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Fantastic.
Next, then, I want to go to Ms. Burridge. You mentioned as one of the four points that you would like to see a change to the “Purpose” of the act, incorporating the language that's used in New Zealand. I didn't catch all of it. You mentioned sustainable use. I was hoping you might be able to speak a little bit more to the specifics of that, and what kind of a change that would make to the Fisheries Act operation.
October 28th, 2025 / 5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance
I don't know that it would make a huge change to it, but I think, given that the Minister of Fisheries is now the Minister of Fisheries, enshrining the notion that sustainable use of the fisheries resource by whoever uses it would be an important principle to make absolutely clear.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much.
Ms. Venton, you had a number of recommendations in the brief you submitted in advance. Amongst those was a recommendation to amend the act such that the permits issued under both the Fisheries Act and the Species at Risk Act could be done at the same time rather than one after the other. I was hoping you might be able to speak to how that could improve the protection of fisheries and species at risk while not making the process less efficient.
Director, Nature Program, Ecojustice
In the big picture, this is a change that could happen either through an amendment or simply through process, but as we set out in our brief, when you separate the fisheries impacts and the fisheries authorizations when they impact species at risk, it appears you create the possibility that you are dealing in silos with something that should be dealt with concurrently.
I don't believe it's necessarily something that should take longer to deal with at the same time. When issuing a permit under the Fisheries Act, say, for the destruction of fish habitat that also happens to be, for example, critical habitat of an endangered species protected under the Species at Risk Act, you should really consider those things together and not punt into the future the consideration of how the mitigation hierarchy that folks have spoken about is going to be considered. You can probably do that quite efficiently; just have it considered at the same time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Certainly. Thank you for that.
Lastly, Ms. Orr, I interrupted you when you were in the process of responding to Mr. Klassen's questions about some of the ways the government might be able to support the acquisition of licences. You mentioned the loan program through the provincial government. I wanted to give you the opportunity to complete those thoughts, because we have heard a number of different suggestions here about the relative benefit of moving towards an owner-operator model.
I've heard often from fish harvesters about the need to have access to finance for their operations, as well as things like security of tenure having primacy as well. I was hoping you might be able to answer that and perhaps continue with the answer you were giving Mr. Klassen.
Business Agent, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union – Unifor
I appreciate that. Thank you.
In Atlantic Canada, there are still loan agreements between companies and harvesters, so that is not something that would disappear. We do talk about Farm Credit Canada as a potential program that could be amended to support a fish harvest community. That's certainly well worth investigating in terms of what we can do to support fish harvesters to transition to ownership, if that is something they are able to do.
I would also say that given fish harvesters in many cases are having to pay 80% or even higher, which happens every year, some harvesters actually go backwards and end up paying the paper-holder while they make zero money or end up paying their crew or expenses out of pocket. In situations like that, if they were in a position of ownership, they would not only be able to earn a fair livelihood, pay their crew and earn a living, but if you factored in what they are paying currently to the paper-holder, they would certainly be in a position to be paying a loan so that they would have ownership or title of their own access.
There are some very simple math dynamics we can refer to to see where we can support harvesters in that area.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Great. Thank you very much, Ms. Orr.
Mr. Deschênes, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Orr, I would like to follow up on the last question I asked you about what your members are telling you regarding the non-intervention of fisheries officers when illegal fishing is reported.
Can you tell us what you are hearing? What is the situation?
Business Agent, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union – Unifor
In many cases, there are examples of advertisements online for sale of fish that is not commercially in season. Members will phone me or email me with images or reports in real time demonstrating that these sales are occurring.
Those members and, in some cases, I, will connect with fishery officers. We are generally met with a reluctance to interfere. In most cases, it would seem that it's an indigenous person selling the catch, and the fishery officers are very unwilling to interfere with that.
In some cases, I think that is due to some confusion on the part of C and P as to what is legal or not, in terms of sale of catch.
Predominately, that is what I hear from members. In some cases, that extends to processing companies.
I think there would be, perhaps, some benefit for other witnesses to come to committee, perhaps in camera, to discuss some of those situations.
Bloc
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Absolutely.
As I understand it, you yourself have made such representations to fisheries officers and have been told that no action will be taken. Is that correct?
Business Agent, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union – Unifor
This is true.
Bloc
Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC
Were you able to get any answers as to why these officers did not want to intervene?
Business Agent, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union – Unifor
Again, in one case there was some confusion about whether the sale was appropriate or legal. With some follow-up questions of the department on my part through my work, I was able to ascertain that the sale would have been illegal, but there seems to be some trepidation on the part of C and P to intervene.
Whether that's a question of the training or formal information that the C and P officers are given, or whether that's a discretionary choice on their part at that time, I cannot speak for the C and P officers, but that was the information I was given.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Deschênes.
We're going to have three minutes for the last two questioners here, starting with Mr. Gunn.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Venton, you've been very supportive of reconciliation and first nations rights as an organization, but you have also been very critical of open-net salmon farming in British Columbia.
Do you support the forced removal of these farms from the traditional territories of first nations that support them?
Director, Nature Program, Ecojustice
First, I would start with the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and the Government of Canada have decided to phase fish farms out on the Pacific coast for reasons of concern about the impact of those farms on the sustainability of wild salmon.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
I just want to keep this brief, though.
This was against the will of the first nations. You've been very supportive of reconciliation and first nations rights. Do you support that decision, yes or no?
Director, Nature Program, Ecojustice
We support the decision of the government to phase out salmon farms on the west coast, and we recognize that there are a multiplicity of nations—
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
You do support that over the will of local first nations.
Do you know what eco-colonialism is?
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Sorry, the time is mine, Ms. Venton.
I'll just tell you what eco-colonialism is. It's the practice of using environmental protection as a pretext to impose policies, control resources and displace or harm local and indigenous communities. It extends colonial practices into the green transition era, often by enforcing environmental policies, limiting local consent and disrespecting or exploiting local knowledge systems.
Why are you engaging in eco-colonialism?
Director, Nature Program, Ecojustice
I think it's really important to be aware of the impact that the conservation movement and all actions in Canada have had on indigenous peoples.
As you know, Mr. Gunn, living on the west coast, there are a significant number of nations that are very concerned about the fish farms on the west coast and their impact on wild salmon; and there are some nations that believe that they should be operating fish farms.
It's a complicated issue, and it is not one where you can say that one nation is wrong and one nation is right. On the whole, we are on the side of precaution and science.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Ms. Venton.
Since 2009 when the anti tar sands campaign ramped up, do you have a rough estimate of how much money your organization, Ecojustice, received from foundations from the United States?