THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 30, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 10:07 a.m. [ET] to study the federal government’s current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans including maritime safety.
Senator Bev Busson (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, good morning. My name is Bev Busson, a senator from British Columbia. As deputy chair, I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting this morning as our permanent chair is not available.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventive measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. If possible, ensure you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use approved black earpieces. The former grey ones must no longer be used. Keep your earpieces away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using the earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker on the table provided for this purpose.
Before we begin with our honoured guest, I want to thank our core team. Ben is not here, but I thank Daniele, Sara and Ben for the amazing support they have supplied to all of us as we put together our report, which is getting great reviews. Thank you very much.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Chair: We truly could not have done it without your support and guidance, so thank you very much.
Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Should any technical challenges arise, particularly with respect to interpretation, please signal that to myself or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue.
Before I begin, I will ask the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia. It will be a theme here.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner. I’m from Nova Scotia as well.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario, just to shake it up.
Senator Petten: Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Deputy Chair: As I mentioned, I’m holding up the other end of the country; I’m Bev Busson from British Columbia.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I want to thank our witness for being here today. I understand you will be delivering some opening remarks. Following your presentation, members of the committee will have questions for you to answer, if you would.
Please go ahead, Mr. O’Reilly.
Alastair O’Rielly, Executive Director, Northern Coalition Corporation: Good morning, and thank you all for the opportunity to come and present to you today.
The Northern Coalition has been in place for about 27 or 28 years. It is comprised of organizations throughout the eastern Arctic and Labrador, all fishing undertakings — commercial fishing ventures. These entities — and there are five as part of our group — are all community-based; they are almost exclusively Indigenous community organizations, and they’ve been involved in the commercial fishery for Greenland halibut and northern shrimp throughout that period. The history has been one of great success over that period of time. These fisheries have been highly impactful, profitable, sustainable and have generated huge benefits for the people of the eastern Arctic and Labrador.
Over that period of time, the surplus revenues and profits have been reinvested back into fisheries activities. Also, it has helped to diversify the economy. A number of the organizations have made investments in other sectors: transportation, communications, real estate, hotels and that kind of thing, including airlines. There have been huge benefits.
To tell you a little bit about who they are, there are five entities. Qikiqtaaluk Corporation is a birthright corporation from Nunavut and is a subsidiary of the Inuit organization there. In northern Quebec, in Nunavik, Makivik Corporation, also a birthright corporation, is a member. In northern Labrador, in Nunatsiavut, there are two members. One is a subsidiary of the Nunatsiavut Government, the Nunatsiavut Group of Companies, and the other is Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society Limited. In southern Labrador, there is the Labrador Fishermen’s Union Shrimp Company Limited.
Throughout these 28 years of relatively high success — there has been some variability in catch rates, prices and so on, so it has not all been smooth but, overall, it has been excellent in terms of benefits. The issue that we want to bring to your attention and talk about this morning is that the share of adjacent resources for these organizations and others that are part of Northern communities is less than it is elsewhere in Canada’s maritime regions.
Originally, the allocations that were provided — and this came after the 200-mile limit — both these fisheries, northern shrimp and Greenland halibut, were “Canadianized.” Canada then issued licences and allocations to Canadian entities. At that time, about six and a half of 17 shrimp licences went to Northern interests, which is about 38%. In the case of Greenland halibut, it started out slow, but it has improved somewhat in recent years. Today, we find that about 70% of the quotas in the adjacent areas are allocated to Northern interests in the case of Greenland halibut and about 60% in the case of northern shrimp.
That sounds okay, because it’s a majority, but it is relatively small compared to the rest of Atlantic Canada and the rest of Canada, including British Columbia. The share of adjacent resources that are held by people living or companies operating in those areas is in the order of 90% to 100%. So there is a gap between what the people in the North enjoy and receive from adjacent resources relative to other regions. That’s the issue that people want to see addressed. It has been a long-standing issue, and it has been presented a number of times to various governments in the past. As I said, the organization I represent really exists for that purpose: to advocate for improved access. It has been working in that regard for the past 28 years.
It is important to also recognize that even though those numbers of 60% and 70% are technically what the allocations are, the catch data, which Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, has provided to us at our request, shows that Northern interests catch considerably less than 50% of the allocations of shrimp. That has nothing to do with capacity, capability, technology or infrastructure; it has to do with the fact that the allocations that were provided to Northerners more recently are in areas that are remote, with highly erratic catch rates, short operating seasons and so on. They are not as valuable or useful. That’s the explanation for that.
In the case of Greenland halibut, there have been significant improvements in the share that Nunavut has received. They are now around 75% of adjacent allocations. However, in Labrador’s case, which is a different quota and allocation, about 70% of the quota is harvested off Labrador but only about 10% or 15% by Labradorians. So again, there is a significant gap there.
We are advocating that this be addressed. There are finite means and mechanisms for changing the allocations. They have been in place for a long time. The simple way would be to remove allocations from those who hold them in southern areas and transfer them to people in the North, with compensation, due process and appropriate timelines. That’s one option.
Another option would be to see the benefits of increases going to Northerners and the decreases assigned to quota holders outside the North. That’s the second option.
The third option, which is really what we are advocating, is the development of a right of first refusal, such that if holders of quotas who are operating outside the North choose, of their own volition, to transfer or sell quotas, then it is our view that people of the North should have the first opportunity to acquire those licences at fair market value.
That’s what we are advocating as a solution. It would obviously take a long time to have effect. It is not something that can happen overnight; it can only happen when people choose to sell or transfer.
Later this year, the House of Commons Fisheries Committee will be conducting a review of the Fisheries Act in accordance with the mandatory five-year review. At that time, we will propose specific language and legislative amendments for their consideration and, hopefully, advocate to implement this right of first refusal such that current and future ministers, when entertaining a transfer, would be required to at least see that the people of the North have had an opportunity to acquire those licences.
That’s the essence of our representation here. I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. O’Rielly. I appreciate the time you took to bring the presentation. It includes a map, and that’s helpful. Thank you very much. Senators will now ask questions.
Senator C. Deacon: You’ve done a great job of actually getting right at my question in your last few sentences. I was reflecting upon the fact that the first major updates to the Fisheries Act since Confederation were championed in the Senate by our dear friend who has since retired, Senator Dan Christmas, who was really feeling like the bill had in it the ways to address traditional rights considerably more effectively than in the past.
So I was looking for whether you saw any specific changes in legislation, regulation or policy. You have this option that you presented and it does require changes in legislation. That would be useful for us to be aware of, as well, when you are looking at bringing that forward.
But you have answered my question. Thank you very much for very clearly and concisely addressing this issue.
Senator Cordy: Your presentation was very clear, so thank you very much for that.
I’d like to go back to the right of first refusal. I thought you said earlier that 70% of the quota goes to the Northern area, so that’s not the problem. The problem is the people who are selling or giving up their quotas, is that what it is?
Mr. O’Rielly: It is 70% from one, 60% for the other — two species — but the actual catch is less than that because of where the quotas are assigned. It is less than 50% in the case of northern shrimp for the benefit of Northerners.
Our request, then, is that those who are in southern Canada, throughout Nova Scotia, the island portion of Newfoundland at least, New Brunswick, et cetera — should those entities choose to leave the fishery, sell their quotas and fishing licences, that’s where we feel that the minister should be obligated to ensure that the people of the North have an opportunity to acquire these at fair market value to a level that’s aligned with the rest of the country, which I contend is in the order of 90% to 100% being enjoyed by those who are adjacent to the resources.
Therefore, something in that order of magnitude ought to be considered and implemented.
Senator Cordy: When you first started speaking about the profits, the Northern Coalition Corporation — and that’s 20‑some years that it has been there — how did you initially get to develop that? How did it happen? How did it come into being? From what you’ve described, it seems like it has been a positive thing, having everybody working together.
Mr. O’Rielly: It has been, but the coalition was really formed as a response to the desire to ensure increased access for Northerners to adjacent resources. Those licences and quotas were issued roughly 45 years ago. So 28 years ago, the coalition was formed for the specific purpose of trying to ensure there is a more equitable share of adjacent resources for Northern interests.
The issue of profits and so on is not one of the Northern Coalition Corporation; it is for each of the member organizations. As I said, though, it has been really impactful. Even today, when quotas have been reduced significantly — in the case of shrimp, to about half of what they were at the peak — even with that being the case, today, there is still $50 million worth of value accruing to all Northern groups. That’s not just our members; there are other Northern interests outside the Northern Coalition Corporation. By our estimate, which I’m pretty confident is accurate, that $50 million is of huge benefit because it spurs all kinds of other investments and levers other kinds of funding to make investments either in fisheries or in other sectors. It is a huge benefit to the North.
Senator Cordy: You also spoke about the role of the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of the right of first refusal and transfers. Is that what you said, first of all?
Mr. O’Rielly: Sorry, I don’t think the provinces would have an engagement other than that they would obviously make representations to the Government of Canada as to what they think of this concept and whether they are supportive of it. Other than that, I don’t see the provinces having a role given the jurisdictional authority in the legislation and in the Constitution.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
I just have one question: What’s your relationship like with DFO?
Mr. O’Rielly: It is mixed, but I would say it is good overall. We have a strong relationship in terms of consultation and engagement. We don’t always agree, of course.
One of the great challenges for DFO is that it is a regulator, first and foremost, but it also has a developmental responsibility. Sometimes, that’s a bit of a challenge: Are they trying to help you or to hinder you? So there is that.
We have had issues. We’ve made some representations. Some senators, including Senators Busson and Kutcher, were with us at some meetings under the auspices of the Fisheries Council of Canada. We have concerns with respect to core science and the level of resources that are being allocated for that purpose. We are concerned that we don’t have as much information and science as we need to ensure sustainability as a particular issue, for instance.
Senator Ataullahjan: I’m sure you’ve had conversations with DFO. I’m trying to be diplomatic, but are you happy with their responses? Do you feel they understand the issues? Are they willing to work with you?
I’m sorry, I don’t want to put you in a difficult position, but we’ve heard consistently about issues with DFO when we started this study.
Mr. O’Rielly: On this particular issue, it has been challenging. We’ve had meetings with past ministers and senior officials, and we have never received any sort of pushback on the concept. No one has taken issue with it and told us, “Well, you are forgetting this” or “You are not considering that” or any other reason why this doesn’t have merit.
On the other side, however, they have never said that they will actually do anything about it. So we have that frustration of feeling that we’re getting feedback that indicates, yes, we have a valid issue, but it doesn’t move on from there.
I appreciate the challenges around making it happen, but that’s not a justification for not dealing with it. It has been a long-standing issue. It is one that we all feel strongly needs to move forward as soon as possible.
Senator Petten: Thank you for being here, Mr. O’Rielly.
I’m thinking about the other stakeholders who are quota holders in the same area. What are their perspectives? Have you had any consultations with them? How do you go about engaging their opinions to try to get some collaboration with other people who have quotas in the area or who are seeking more quotas like you are?
Mr. O’Rielly: Thank you for that question.
We’ve had a number of conversations with licence and quota holders outside the region. I would describe their responses as being resistant. The issue is security of access to licences and quotas, which is a core issue for most players in the industry. That is understandable. It is a common property resource. It isn’t owned by individuals. It is a quasi-property right. It can be removed. People are apprehensive and anxious about not having sustained access for all kinds of good reasons. You need to make investments. It is your business. You need to have continued access.
In this particular case, however, in what we are advocating, we don’t see it jeopardizing that. The only way somebody’s access would be lost is if they chose to leave and choose to sell their licence and allocations. If they so choose to do so, we believe they should sell to the people in the North to rectify the imbalance that has been there for a long time.
In that respect, it is the least intrusive and least damaging; it is the option that would be the least adverse to their interests.
To your question, the industry adheres to and advocates a concept of “willing buyer, willing seller.” It is a nice catchphrase, but when applied in our case, it could mean that the people of the North would never improve their access to adjacent resources because the willing buyers and sellers might not be anyone in the North. Hence, our concerns with that particular philosophy.
Senator Petten: I have one supplementary question. You mentioned that some of the quota, particularly around the shrimp — they are catching less because, as we know, with climate change or whatever the situation, the resources are not there; they are dwindling. It is one thing of doing adjacency. Is it perch or redfish? Is it a new fish that will be in the adjacent waters? Even if they are new species that are coming in, are you still looking for the share to go to the North as well?
Mr. O’Rielly: Yes, absolutely. I should have made that clear at the outset.
And you are right: We are seeing more and more species in Northern waters, especially groundfish species. It is a mixed blessing. It creates new opportunities, but they also enjoy shrimp; they are huge predators of shrimp. To the extent that continues, we anticipate that having an adverse effect on biomass levels of Northern shrimp.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, Mr. O’Rielly, for being here. A special thank you for the lovely picture of the Northern Osprey III. If I understand, it is owned by the Labrador Fishermen’s Union Shrimp Company. Are they part of the Northern Coalition Corporation? They have done some amazing things.
Mr. O’Rielly: They are.
Senator Kutcher: What about the Indigenous-owned Baffin Fisheries? They are launching the Inuksuk II, which I think is an 80-metre-long freezer vessel. It is my understanding those are the waters they ply. Are they part of your coalition as well?
Mr. O’Rielly: No, they’re not. The Baffin Fisheries’ entire allocation of resources is within the settlement area of Nunavut. They’re not one of the 17 holders of licences issued by the Government of Canada. Their authorization is issued by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
Senator Kutcher: They don’t fish in that area, then?
Mr. O’Rielly: They fish in the area of Ungava Bay, close to the shoreline in the settlement area, and in the area between Nunavut and Nunavik.
Senator Kutcher: Would they perceive that they have an interest in your area at this time? Would they be one of these willing buyers?
Mr. O’Rielly: I can’t really speak for them, but I would be surprised if they were not to have an interest. I would be shocked, actually.
Senator Kutcher: Thanks. I’m trying to get all the players here.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you, Mr. O’Rielly. I appreciate your presentation.
Could you give us an overview of what activity there has been in the sector with the buying and selling of licences in recent years? Has there been much movement?
Mr. O’Rielly: No, there have not been a lot of transactions. The most recent one I’m aware of is the Clearwater sale a few years back. Over the last 30 to 40 years, licences and quotas have changed hands, but it’s not something that happens frequently.
Senator Cuzner: Are there many partnerships or people doing business there? Are many of the companies in joint partnerships with locals and southern licence holders?
Mr. O’Rielly: Yes. In almost all cases, there are several companies in the North that operate their own vessels, but the majority, I think, have long-standing relationships with southern firms. They’ve been working with them over the last 30 or 40 years. They have been very successful partnerships.
Senator Cuzner: Determining fair market value would be a bit of a challenge. I know in the wake of Marshall, where licences — it was “willing buyer, willing seller.” Licences were bought and provided some great opportunities to many communities. It provided a benefit, too, to the fishers who were ready and wanted to get out of the sector. The federal government being the purchaser to get that access really drove up the equity in those enterprises. It was good if you were the willing seller, but it was a little bit tougher if you were the willing buyer.
What’s the mechanism to determine “fair market price” for this? I really like the concept, and it makes sense going forward for sure.
Mr. O’Rielly: There are a few things. One is that you still have a “willing buyer, willing seller” situation because the person selling obviously has a certain expectation of what their licences and quotas are worth. They would not proceed unless the buyer was going to make that offer. In our case, we just want to make it so that the people of the North have that first opportunity.
Technically, this is done quite often with licences — not necessarily the ones I’m referring to — but throughout Atlantic Canada, people exchange and sell licences quite often in what is referred to the inshore or mid-shore sector. It’s typically done the same as any kind of a business transaction. It is usually a multiple of earnings of some kind. People will say it is a million dollars. What’s the reasonable multiple — 7, 8, 10 times? That kind of analysis is done, and there are precedents and mechanisms for that, which could be helpful if people were negotiating a deal.
Ultimately, it would have to be a deal that is satisfactory to both sides in order to proceed.
For what we’re advocating, it could be the case that an opportunity is presented, but the people in the North choose not to act upon that opportunity because they might feel the price is simply not worth it. Again, it would not be something unfair or prejudicial in terms of the people who are selling being unable to get a fair price for their assets and resources.
The other point you raise, though, is whether it would drive prices higher if there were public-sector financing involved. At this stage, on this point, we’re not advocating that. We’re looking strictly at market forces.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Before I offer our senators a chance to ask their second question, I’d like to ask a question myself. You might have answered it with the last few sentences you spoke to Senator Cuzner. It seems to me, as was said, that the right of first refusal is a win-win situation. I have a two-part question: Would you also want to have it so that the Northern licence and quota holders would also sell to other Northerners before they offered up to other buyers? That’s more or less a given, is it?
I’m wondering if you can describe a downside. What would the people who would oppose this proposal say?
Mr. O’Rielly: Thank you, senator. I didn’t speak to that. I’m glad you raised it.
It’s almost inconceivable that people in the North would sell licences and quotas at any point in time. They’ve never done so, and I can’t imagine they ever would. The reason for that is that the licence holders are all community-based. It’s not an entrepreneur who’s retiring or wants to invest in something else. These are the 52 communities along the coastlines of all these Northern regions. I can’t imagine at what point in time they would no longer want that revenue stream and want to sell.
Conceivably, if that ever did happen, I suppose, yes, they should be required to at least provide the opportunity for other Northerners to acquire those assets.
The other part of your question is around whether people who hold these quotas would have any apprehension or resistance. It’s philosophical in a way because, as I mentioned earlier, people are very concerned about security of access and the risk of some policy or decision taken that would remove those rights. Anything that has the potential to alienate those rights or show that they may be removed in any form causes some apprehension and resistance.
People have also said to me, “If I was going to sell my quotas, and I’m negotiating with a company that’s not in the North, why would that company give me the best price? They know the people in the North might have that opportunity later.” I get it, to a point, but as I mentioned earlier in a previous response, it’s still a “willing buyer, willing seller” situation, and people are only going to sell if they get fair market value for their resources.
So I don’t really think it’s a serious issue of concern. It’s just the anxiety that people have about security of access and the apprehensions they have about not wanting to open the door at all to any kind of favoured or preferential access.
The Deputy Chair: Senators, we have a hard stop in 20 minutes. However, I need senators for another matter for about 10 minutes before we adjourn, so we have 10 minutes for the second round. Please be brief, thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: I’ll do my best to be quick.
I just want to go back to DFO hearing you, seemingly agreeing that there’s a problem and then the inaction.
In your years of discussions with DFO, were you a part of the consultations around Bill C-68 in the Forty-second Parliament, which contained the updates to the Fisheries Act?
Mr. O’Rielly: Yes, we made some representations on the bill, but at that time, most of our representations were made to ministers, looking at policy changes and seeking policy responses.
A policy response is somewhat benign, though, because in the legislation, the minister has full authority, autonomy and discretion. Even if an existing minister makes a policy commitment, it can be changed very quickly with the next minister, hence, our desire to have a legislative mechanism that would apply here.
Senator C. Deacon: But there wasn’t any willingness on any minister you have consulted with to act on this issue? Even though there is the power, and the action could be reversed, there hasn’t been a desire?
Mr. O’Rielly: No, I can’t say that there has been. That’s where the frustration lies.
Senator C. Deacon: No points put forward to you at all about why they’re not acting?
Mr. O’Rielly: No, not at all. Because even if there was, if there was an issue that says, “Okay, your share is adequate, you’re mistaken or what you’re seeking isn’t appropriate,” well, we could at least understand what the argument is and accept it or not. But we have never received an argument as to why the people in the North shouldn’t have the same share of adjacent resources as the rest of the country. That said, people have not pursued a means with which to do it.
I don’t really know why that’s the case. Politically, you’ll appreciate — as I mentioned earlier — that of the 52 communities, there is something like 40,000 people. We don’t have a whole lot of political power in the eastern Arctic and the Labrador regions, and I suspect that that weighs on consideration from ministers.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Mr. O’Rielly.
Senator Petten: I’m trying to understand the difference from DFO and the way they do it now. Is it a policy from DFO? What does it need? Does it need an amendment to the Fisheries Act to look at what it is that you’re proposing? How does it work? How does DFO make the decision on the quotas, and could you explain the difference in the policy versus an amendment?
Mr. O’Rielly: Thank you.
At the moment, the transfer of licences is kind of a perfunctory exercise. The buyer and the seller serve notice to the department, and the transfer is made.
On larger allocations, such as the Clearwater example a couple of years ago, the minister weighed on that for some time before taking a decision, but there is, obviously, no real analyses or consideration. It’s a question of, “Does the buyer meet the criteria?” Is it a Canadian corporation controlled in Canada? If it’s a harvester, do they meet the eligibility requirements in terms of access to resources and so on? There’s not a whole lot of process in that.
In our case, what we’re suggesting is that when the minister is presented with that allocation, and it’s a resource that’s in the North, in Area 0 or Area 2 of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or NAFO, if it is anything in those areas, they will say, “Oh, have you offered this to people in the North,” and, “Demonstrate what you have done.”
If that has been offered and accepted, fine; then that is where the transfer is. If it has been offered and not accepted, well, fine; the minister goes ahead and proceeds with the transaction in that particular case.
The policy right now is rather vague. This willing buyer and willing concept issue is applied. Minister Jordan, in the past, spoke to that publicly, which is the first time a federal minister actually used that phrase. Some senior officials have used it from time to time.
I think it’s kind of shallow. If you take it to its logical conclusion, it means that every decision that’s ever been made in the history of the department — notwithstanding changes that have occurred in resources, in economics or in society — must be the right decision because we’re not prepared to change it. That can’t be plausible. Effectively, that is what willing buyer and willing seller means. If you hold it, you’re free, then, to sell it or transfer it.
In our case, this imposition of a requirement of right of first refusal would interject and require that process be followed. Again, I don’t see how that really compromises the interests of existing licence and quota holders.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, Mr. O’Rielly, for your thoughtful presentation.
I wonder if you could very briefly elaborate on what the impact would be on these communities if a substantive number of these licences went to buyers outside the region?
Mr. O’Rielly: If they went to buyers outside the region? Well, I think the obvious impact would be the loss of that revenue stream that’s there now and the benefits of that.
This is a mechanism through which the people of the eastern Arctic and Labrador have a pathway to self-reliance. It’s not a complete solution, obviously, but it has provided a means and mechanism for capacity building and for management of one’s own resources. It’s been an excellent tool for investment, diversification and innovation. That would be lost — simply stated — if these licences and quotas were not available to people in the North.
Senator Kutcher: Would it be fair to say that it would have a devastating effect on the lives and livelihood of the people living there?
Mr. O’Rielly: Absolutely.
Senator Kutcher: Could you say that?
Mr. O’Rielly: Absolutely. It would, indeed, have a highly detrimental and damaging effect.
The Deputy Chair: I want to thank you sincerely for your time today, Mr. O’Rielly, and for shedding light on this important fishery from the view of the Northern Coalition Corporation. It’s been incredibly helpful to hear your presentation and understand a little bit better the fishery that you represent.
Senators, today we have one more item on our agenda, so I would ask that we proceed in camera for a procedural motion. If there are any objections to proceeding in camera, please let me know. If there are none, we’ll suspend for two minutes to thank Mr. O’Rielly personally and get ready. Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)