THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 12, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 8:30 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on issues relating to the federal government’s current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans, including maritime safety.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Fabian Manning, a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the pleasure of chairing this committee.
During this meeting, should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal it to the chair or the clerk, and we’ll work to resolve your issue.
Before we begin, I would like to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Dhillon: Good morning. Baltej Dhillon from British Columbia.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Good morning and welcome, minister and your team. Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Prosper: Senator Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
Senator Gerba: Welcome, minister. Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Busson: Welcome. Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia.
The Chair: Today, we are pleased to welcome for our first panel The Honourable Joanne Thompson, Minister of Fisheries. She is joined by Kaili Levesque, Interim Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
I understand the minister has some opening remarks, but before I give the minister the floor, I want to advise all senators that, as you know, I have great leniency as chair when we have our meetings, and some people have much more of a preamble than they do a question. I want to let you all know that we’re on a defined schedule; the minister is here until 9:30. I would like to give everyone who wants to ask a question an opportunity to ask one, so please keep your questions succinct. I also ask our witnesses to do the same. If I have to use the gavel, I will.
Minister, the floor is yours.
The Honourable Joanne Thompson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you. It is a pleasure for me to be here at the committee to discuss Bill C-15.
Budget 2025 is a transformational budget. We are spending less on operations so we can invest more in Canadians’ futures, creating high-paying careers, building our country and growing our economy. We are ensuring that Canadian industries will be supported.
The divestiture of the Freshwater Fish Market Corporation, or FFMC, is being carried out through an open, transparent and competitive process to identify the best path forward for the corporation’s future in the open market. The evaluation criteria for bids were informed by engagements with harvesters, Indigenous organizations and provincial and territorial partners, with consideration for factors such as continued market access for rural, remote and isolated harvesters, as well as advancing economic reconciliation.
A preferred bidder has been identified, and the Government of Canada is in exclusive, commercially sensitive and confidential negotiations toward a potential final agreement. Until any transition is complete, the FFMC continues to operate under its current mandate.
Around the globe, people want Canadian seafood because it is the best in the world. It is ethical, sustainable and of the highest quality. That is why Canada exports fish and seafood to more than 100 countries. To build Canada strong, our new government is squarely focused on expanding markets to grow our fish and seafood sectors to support a strong Canadian economy. In a few days — actually, I leave tonight — I will be supporting Canadian harvesters and processors at the Boston seafood show and, later this year, at Barcelona to ensure Canadian seafood is on the menu for global markets. Expanding our markets protects the tens of thousands of jobs our fisheries support in rural and coastal communities.
We are taking a whole-of-government approach to find solutions and fight for Canadians. The Prime Minister was recently in China, where Canada worked to remove tariffs on lobster and crab. They are extraordinarily valuable fisheries for the sector, and it is an important step forward for market access to Canadian seafood. I have heard calls for market access from harvesters on the wharves and from workers in our plants, and I will always stand up for harvesters and workers.
Our government is committed to safe and orderly fisheries. Officers from the Conservation and Protection, or C&P, program are doing important work to protect the resource and enforce the Fisheries Act.
This past season, conservation protection officers have seized thousands of traps, they have returned tens of thousands of lobsters to the water and they have inspected dozens of facilities. C&P will continue to have a strong enforcement posture to ensure a safe and orderly fishery. As Minister of Fisheries, my job is to ensure we are both protecting the resource and the livelihoods that depend on it so that those jobs are here for our children and our grandchildren.
Science-based fisheries management and conservation are pillars of good fisheries management. Conservation of fish stocks is a principle that I’m sure we all agree is critical to managing our fisheries and the health of our oceans.
I wish to see all communities benefit from the fishery. We are moving forward with consultations to modernize our fisheries on the West Coast so that licensing works better and harvesters see more benefits from their hard work. On the East Coast, I’m focused on strengthening the administration and enforcement of inshore regulations to ensure our fisheries benefit those doing the work and their communities.
Across Canada, our government is committed to working together with First Nations and Indigenous Peoples to support fishing access and advance treaty rights. Canada recently signed important fisheries agreements with both the Musqueam First Nation and the A-Tlegay Member Nations. The agreement with the Musqueam will advance their fishing capacity and provide implementation funding for access to vessels, gear and training through an incremental implementation agreement.
A reconciliation agreement for fisheries resources with A-Tlegay Member Nations will support diversification and economic development through commercial fishing licence access in the open market and shellfish aquaculture development.
Since the Marshall decision, DFO programs have provided just over $1 billion for communities to acquire access to vessels, gear and training to help increase and diversify treaty nations’ participation in commercial fisheries. This includes more than $259 million in funding over three years announced in December 2024 for the Community-Based Access Acquisition Initiative.
Consultation and collaboration are how we can deliver good fisheries management that benefits everyone.
Thank you. I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Thompson.
Senator Busson: Minister, thank you again for taking some of your valuable time to be with us today.
I am going to focus on the West Coast; we are partaking in a study on the West Coast fishery. As we have heard from many of the witnesses, the licensing regimes on the East Coast and West Coast are drastically different as they relate to owner-operator regimes. The committee has heard calls for an increase in the transparency of those people who have licences and ownership of those licences on the West Coast.
Why does Fisheries and Oceans seem not to be — let’s just say — as anxious as we would like to see them expose the names of individuals who are fishing on the West Coast and using these licences in the Pacific region?
I have another question afterward.
Ms. Thompson: Thank you.
We have begun a consultation process with harvesters and industry on the modernization of the West Coast fishing sector. In my year in this role, I have travelled coast to coast to coast, opened dialogue with harvesters and industry on the West Coast and have clearly heard from harvesters the need to — and I use the word “modernize” but — shift some of the fishing practices more to an owner-operator-style model. What that model will ultimately look like will depend on the outcome of the consultations. It will be driven by the industry and harvesters, but that work has begun. My parliamentary secretary, who is from the West Coast, is beginning to lead that work with very clear timelines on how we want to proceed. This is a timely and, I hope, very open, transparent and collaborative process.
Without a doubt, I have clearly heard the need to support harvesters on the coast.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
It is, indeed, good news that the West Coast commercial fisheries modernization initiative that you are referring to has actually been activated.
Could you explain more about how this will benefit the West Coast fishery?
Ms. Thompson: Certainly.
I have heard from harvesters, and the ones whose experiences touched me the deepest were young harvesters. At one meeting last summer, one harvester in particular showed his expenses from a recent trip. While the initial profit number looked quite promising, when he went through his costs and financial responsibilities to the controlling agreement with the company that he was fishing for, he really was not making any money and was going to have to leave the industry. One of the things you will hear me say today is that there is a real concern, which the department shares with me, about the need to understand that we have a succession problem in fisheries across the country in that we are seeing a population of harvesters aging out, and we don’t have the same number of young harvesters coming in.
Frankly, we need to do all that we can, from coast to coast to coast, to correct that so that we do have young potential harvesters who see this as a viable career.
For many reasons, modernization is important, but I keep that young harvester in my mind when I think of how important this is and how we need to move in a timely fashion.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, minister and deputy minister, for being with us.
I love the words “open, collaborative and transparent.” One of the outcomes of a consultation process has to be trust, but we have not seen a track record of that with your department over its history, and we have not seen it in action around key issues, like the elver fishery in Atlantic Canada, sealing and the challenges around the seal population on our three coasts, Peace on the Water, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, et cetera. On a lot of different issues, we just have not seen those words evident in any process, and reports are more like what-we-wanted-to-hear reports versus what-we-heard reports. We are not seeing that transparency.
You are both new to the department, which is a great opportunity. What do you see yourselves doing differently in order to start changing that culture away from ways that are not transparent? The differences between the East Coast and the West Coast that my colleague Senator Busson spoke to are unexplained to us. Why do those differences exist and why hasn’t there been receptivity?
What are you going to do differently to ensure that trust is introduced as a result of this process?
Ms. Thompson: Thank you. That is an important question.
I can say to you without any hesitation is that, from the moment I came into this role almost a year ago, I made a commitment to visit communities to engage with them and have the conversations we need to have, whether that was on a wharf, a plant or in a community centre.
I have circled the country, and I’m on probably the second or third round. That is how we get the work done: We do need to build trust; I absolutely agree with that. It is through collaboration. I have been very clear from the beginning — I will say it quickly because I know that time is of the essence — that we have a responsibility for conservation and sustainability. This is about the next generation. It is a natural resource, and we have a responsibility to protect that. We do that with science-based knowledge — that is a core foundation — but that science-based knowledge needs to also be balanced with the input of the people who are most connected with that industry, which are harvesters in the industry. Their input is incredibly important.
When there is a disconnect between what a harvester is saying from the water, for example, and what science is saying, we take that very seriously, and we begin a very clear process of trying to understand what the disconnect is. That is how we work together and how we build trust. It is not just ticking a box on a meeting; it is the difficult work of staying at a table and trying to understand where perspectives come from and finding that space in between.
On the other side of that conversation is the very real understanding that the fishery is an economic driver for a lot of coastal Indigenous communities, and we have to understand that and, where possible, always take that into consideration.
It is balance. I say that over and over again, but it is balance. We have to remain at the table in meaningful dialogue.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
I will offer that I have been shocked by the number of times that I have been told by witnesses at this committee that they feel this is one of the first times in 20 or 30 years that they have actually been heard in Ottawa.
You have a big job in front of you. I do not question your desire to make that change, but you all have a very big job in front of you in rebuilding trust that has been absent for a long time.
The Chair: Senator Deacon, you are full of surprises this morning.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you for being here.
Recognizing that the Atlantic fishery is not governed in a uniform fashion — the fact there is the Maritime region, Newfoundland region and Quebec region — minister, could you outline for the committee the different ways that the DFO regulates enterprise transfers and licence transfers in each of these three regions? Recognizing this is a large amount of information to capture, perhaps you could summarize this for us in the hopes that we may get a more detailed brief within the next 14 days, if possible, which is written in a way that is transposed and easily understood by those of us on the committee who are not necessarily deeply engaged in the aquatic field.
Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Certainly, we will follow up.
The deputy is a big part of this. I’m sorry about my time being tight, but I have a cabinet meeting immediately after this that I need to attend, but the deputy can follow through on the more specific details.
In terms of regions, we’ll use cod as an example. There are variations in stock. We look to the northern cod that is doing incredibly well on the East Coast — the southern part of Newfoundland — whereas on the West Coast, the gulf cod is just not in the same healthy state. First, it is the cautionary zone. We need to look at regions differently, based upon conservation and stability. The pillars remain the same in my decision-making space. The department stays in close communication and has a strong rapport in that we are working from exactly the same perspective. So, to that end, science conservation is crucial: What is science telling us?
One of the things that I do when I travel, and I have travelled extensively — to your question — around the Atlantic region, is that I always have the staff from the region with me. What I say to them — and I say this to my own colleagues — is that 80% of the work within DFO and the staff from DFO are within regions, and the team in Ottawa is the team that supports the work that I am doing.
I meet with harvesters and industry, and I do it with the team on the ground. That level of communication is critical to building the trust and rapport we need as we move forward. We know climate change is having an impact on fishing stocks. You referenced seals. We know that ecosystems are being challenged. This work is important. That is the economic piece for communities. It is very real to folks.
In a long-winded way, to your question — and, again, the deputy can be much more specific — it is still that science-based knowledge which comes from conservation and sustainability. However, it is also held with what we hear from harvesters and those conversations. Then, if there is a disconnect, we stay together to work through that to understand. If there is something that science has missed, and we need to shift how we have looked at that process, then we will change that. So, it is not discarding, ever, what we hear from harvesters. We always need to find the balance so we have the knowledge we need to ensure that the decisions are the decisions that will allow for sustainability conservation and also the continued economic strength of our coastal, rural and Indigenous communities.
Senator Ravalia: Briefly, I imagine that Indigenous partnership is the critical element of what you just discussed?
Ms. Thompson: Of course, it is. I will always reference the communities: rural, coastal and Indigenous communities. I meet with all of them, and the perspective is critical in all of those conversations.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Welcome, minister, and welcome to your staff. I would like to ask my question in French, but you can answer in the language of your choice.
Last fall, Radio–Canada made public an investigation it had conducted in New Brunswick into the illegal sale of lobster. I get the impression that this isn’t just happening in New Brunswick.
Some terms have been used, such as “money laundering” and “organized crime.” The investigation also found that between 10% and 30% of lobster catches are not reported and that this could amount to about $700 million a year. That’s a lot of money that could be reinvested in our communities.
You talked about how important that is. We know very well that this money is probably leaving our province and our region. This is of great concern to people, stakeholders in the sector and people in our communities.
What is your department actually doing to remedy this situation? When will we see results from these actions?
[English]
Ms. Thompson: Thank you. I apologize that I am not answering in French. I do have a lesson later today.
The deputy can speak to more detail — and, again, I’m setting your agenda for the next round — about what happened before I came into the role. Certainly, I can tell you that one of the first statements that I made, upon becoming the Minister of Fisheries, was that we would accept authorized fishing only, period. To that end, I’m pleased that the work had begun in further strengthening the resources available to the fisheries officers. We have seen this support play out through the elver fishery last year that had been closed for the previous two years. Not that we did not have challenges, but we were able to see the fishery season move from the beginning to its official end. We also saw it this summer with the lobster fishery.
Make no mistake, there’s more work that needs to happen, but we have seen a change, and that includes collaboration — I want to be clear — with my counterparts in the region, because we cannot do this work without provinces, without the policing resources within the community. It takes all of us working together. DFO, the fisheries officers — we do the work, and we take very seriously what we have jurisdiction over, but then the moment it steps beyond the wharf, it is the provinces that are then able to leverage supports in the community to follow, for example, to a processor, asking, where is that product coming from, and was it obtained through legal channels?
This work is happening. Certainly, that was reported during the summer. We need to continue to do this. I agree with your statement: We need an authorized safe fishery for all. We take that very seriously. I feel that, in the upcoming seasons, you will see that we will continue this work but also expand our resources.
Senator Boudreau: I have a brief follow-up, if I may.
We have heard witnesses say that the people on the ground within your department know who these people are and what is going on, but charges very rarely get laid. That is where we need to start: understanding why charges are not being laid. If we know who these people are and what is happening, why are we not following through on laying charges?
Ms. Thompson: Thank you. That’s an important point. When I spoke about having all supports and points of contact in this space and at the table, to your point, that is necessary to ensure that it is full — that is a circular response from a point — that an initial action is taken through to the end point, which certainly is accountability for that illegal act.
[Translation]
Kaili Levesque, Interim Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you for the question, Senator.
In fact, there is illegal sale and legal sale. As the minister said, we work closely with the provinces because we regulate activity at the wharf. Once the sale takes place, there is obviously a buyer and a seller. What also happens at processing plants involves an important element of provincial jurisdiction. For us, it really comes down to the work done by our officers — our fishery officers on the water and at the docks — to identify cases and, as you say, gather intelligence and refer those cases to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
Since we are not the Attorney General, we carry out enforcement under the Fisheries Act, and we develop cases. We can lay charges and issue fines. However, to build larger cases, as you say, particularly in cases where organized crime is suspected, I don’t want to comment, but we work directly with the relevant police service or the Attorney General. We make sure that the facts related to these cases are transferred to the appropriate authorities to lay charges, to the extent possible. Otherwise, everything is transferred to the most appropriate police service.
Thank you.
Senator Gerba: Welcome, minister. Thank you for your valuable time.
I’d like to talk about the lobster fishery in eastern Quebec, particularly on the Côte-Nord and around Anticosti Island, which, for a few years now, has been the subject of exploratory licences issued by your department to assess the resource’s potential in historically less exploited areas.
According to the available information, the most recent seasons have produced very encouraging results. So if these results are confirmed, are you considering turning these exploratory licences into permanent access to commercial fishing in these areas? If so, how do you intend to ensure that fishers in local communities, particularly on the Côte-Nord, fully benefit from it?
[English]
Ms. Thompson: Thank you for the question. Last week I was in your very beautiful province and met with harvesters who are engaged in the fishery with the exploratory licences, and I met with my counterpart in the province, and there was an indication that feedback and dialogue are incredibly important.
I need to note that the exploratory licence is two years. I heard directly from harvesters about the impact. They had a successful season, but it is still only two years. We need to have a longer period of time to understand and have that sense of where the stock is trending. Again, it is conservation and sustainability. I would not want to move it forward without having a true sense of what we’re going to see well into the future, but we remain in conversation with the province and the harvesters. We’ll certainly look at the results from this season, but it is too soon for me to have that conversation.
Senator Surette: Minister, thank you for being here this morning. My question is regarding the Fisheries Act. The most recent changes to the act were enacted by Bill C-68, I believe, and received Royal Assent in 2019. In the act, there is a provision there that there is a statutory review by either a committee of the Senate or a House of Commons committee every five years. My first quick question is this: I understand POFO is now looking at the act. Is that considered the statutory review?
Ms. Levesque: Yes, following the recommendations of that committee, we will undertake those as part of the review process.
Senator Surette: Was that a request from the department or industry, or is it automatic that every five years it’s being reviewed?
Ms. Thompson: It’s a process.
Senator Surette: You mentioned collaboration and building trust, and so on, and I hear good things on the ground that you’re listening to, and you’re cooperating with, fishers and others. Regarding the act, is the department consulting or just letting the process go through the POFO committee?
Ms. Levesque: Indeed, from a process perspective, we have been following the proceedings closely; we have been invited several times at various levels to participate in those proceedings. We will look forward to receiving those recommendations in the report from the committee itself, and then undertake that analysis. If we were going to do legislative amendments, we would follow the process with the Canada Gazette, looking at regulations, the process of Parliament and the role that the Senate plays in that regard. So it would not be considered a “one-and-done,” but rather opening the conversation or furthering it.
Senator Surette: OK, because we’ve heard from some witnesses and read from other witnesses that they are looking at no changes to the act. Other witnesses are saying they would like to have changes to the act. I know it is complicated because there is the act and then there are the regulations and the policy as well. I’m assuming that you’ll take all of that into consideration for a final result of the review of the act.
Ms. Thompson: I believe in process, and it is the way that we have to ensure fair, equitable consultation processes and engagement around decision making. That is the reason I’ve been so focused on continuing to meet with harvesters. There is a degree of distrust, and I respect that. But the only way that I felt we could move beyond that is through transparency. This is why we will follow that process. I’m not able to shift someone’s perspective beyond saying, do this work with me and be part of what we know needs to happen going forward in terms of how we build capacity within the sector, but also open some of the blind spots in terms of how we will proceed to work together. On that, deputy minister, if you have anything you want to add in terms of the diligence around the process and the steps to finish the review.
Ms. Levesque: The beauty of a comprehensive review is that you hear from so many different perspectives. As you noted, some say, status quo; some say, blow it all up. This will allow us to unpack that against our own analysis and research: what we have seen, data, et cetera. But it might not be about legislative changes. We might provide recommendations to the minister that something may be best addressed through a policy change, and we’ll allow a much speedier pivot as well. It’s about determining the best instrument to respond to the recommendations as we see them in their final form. Thank you very much.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Minister, for being here this morning. You started with transparency, our shared desire to see fishers continue to prosper and sharing that work and generational career and wealth downstream.
This committee has started to look at some of the challenges that West Coast fishers are experiencing and what they are moving through exactly on those points of transparency.
One area that we’re also turning our minds to is money laundering. In the Cullen Commission of 2022, in that report, the retired deputy commissioner spoke about how fisheries was an area that was vulnerable and that many of the regulatory practices were opaque. It was ripe for that type of scourge to now turn their minds and interests to that space.
Three years have passed. We have heard, to some extent, some of that now seeping in and taking hold. I’ve heard, personally, from fishers in B.C. who speak about cash transactions and about criminal organizations starting to take a foothold and pressuring fishers into behaving a certain way. Quotas, registry and transparency are potentially the answers to some of those issues.
The question is this: What is the ministry doing, and what are some of the steps you’re putting in place? What are potential solutions or considerations that are being undertaken to address that?
We have seen a shift in B.C. and across the country, with some of the extortion files and criminal organizations changing their mode of action and how they operate. When we close one door, they will look for a window. Fisheries is ripe for that with some of the issues we are starting to hear about on the regulatory side, on the transparency side and due to a lack of a registry, which gives rise to the concerns shared in the Cullen Commission in 2022. If you wouldn’t mind, would you please shed some light on that?
Ms. Thompson: I will turn to the deputy for some of the background because I can only speak to my tenure. To that end, this is a whole-of-government approach in the broader issue of money laundering. We know that it is problematic and will need multiple departments working together to really get ahead of the problem.
Certainly, for me, the first step in the fishery was to clearly say, authorized fishing only, and then that sends a very clear message that we will not accept anything other than authorized fishing, period. It is what it is.
The work with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, and the officers on the ground is an important step: relationships with counterparts in provinces to continue that movement beyond the wharf so it is not just the engagement on the water, but it’s a deputy set that we follow through to the court system.
It’s very important for me to note that I have met with fisheries officers from coast to coast to coast. I go on the vessels with them, and I want to thank them for the work they are doing. They’re incredibly dedicated. It is our responsibility within the department to continue to support them and give them the tools to continue to do this work. This is a serious problem, and we have to work together to solve it.
Ms. Levesque: Thank you very much. To your specific question, that is the idea of transparency on licence data holdings and the quota registries. It is something we are exploring through the West Coast modernization. We heard the industry loud and clear on that front, but also the broader socio-economic data and that transparency, and how people are able to better participate in fishery advisory boards too. That is where some of the informal pieces come to bear. I mentioned the Public Prosecution Services Canada, but I would be remiss if I also didn’t mention our MOU with FINTRAC and the Canada Revenue Agency, where our fisheries officer obviously can’t enforce the Income Tax Act, but if there is a suspicion of transactions, FINTRAC has a whole poaching and fishing program that we can refer to, and they can follow through the agency and let the appropriate vehicles follow. We have seen some important enforcement actions in B.C. — coast to coast to coast, but lately in B.C. — which is a sign of how that neural network is connecting. But, obviously, there is so much more to do, and having transparent public data is a cornerstone of that. Thank you for the question.
Senator Prosper: Thank you for being here, minister. I was informed by some communities back home that cuts have been made to some Indigenous engagement teams. Your department has mechanisms to designate fishery officers and fishery guardians to enforce the relevant acts through your department.
These Aboriginal fishery officers and guardians are trained; however, they incur liability insurance and training costs. Your department’s reconciliation strategy seeks to, amongst other things, transform laws and policies, including engaging Indigenous Peoples in laws and co-developing policies that affect their rights and interests, also negotiating treaty and non-treaty agreements, and building decision-making processes and collaborative management processes.
In Nova Scotia, Millbrook First Nation has three of four community fishery officers who are former DFO employees. In fact, one of them teaches de-escalation techniques to other DFO officers.
In spite of the cuts to the Indigenous engagement teams, your department still refuses to designate these Millbrook fishery officers under the Fisheries Act. This would be a free solution to fill a gap left by budgetary cuts.
Minister, wouldn’t it be preferable to ensure there is more enforcement capacity while also delivering on your reconciliation strategy goals?
Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Yes, I agree. I will turn to the deputy for clarification in a moment.
Rather than cuts, there were sunset programs that we are now — and I hope to have something very soon — working to strengthen, to be quite honest. The programs are incredibly successful, and we do our best work when we work together.
As part of the ongoing dialogue I have with Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, we have to work together and we have to incorporate knowledge and wisdom. So we strengthen our ability to truly understand that this is a space where we can work together to strengthen individual communities, but we need to do this work together.
Deputy, I’m correct in saying that it is sunsetting and that the programs are currently, and hopefully, at the final stages of what the next version will look like, but it would be strengthened.
Senator Prosper: Thank you for that. But more specifically, is there an appetite? Why wouldn’t Millbrook’s fishery officers be designated under the act? What is the rationale as to no action in that regard?
Ms. Thompson: Deputy, I look to you because I see this as positive.
Ms. Levesque: Indeed, those conversations are still under way with our head of enforcement and folks on the ground in terms of that relationship. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. In the case of this First Nation, there is on-ground capacity, including on-water capacity, and the transfer of fishing vessels last year supports that. It is still a live discussion. It is still under way, and good dialogue is under way on that front. Thank you very much for that.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Minister, thank you for being with us. My question is about striped bass. If you can’t answer the question, I understand. The department can respond in writing.
I have had a lot of contact with the commercial lobster fishers back home and the recreational salmon fishers. Striped bass is on the rise in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Fishers are very concerned because they’re comparing this phenomenon indirectly with what happened with cod.
For years, cod fishers told scientists that seals only eat cod livers. Scientists have said there was no evidence that seals eat cod. Finally, after decades, scientists agree with fishers.
Right now, commercial lobster and salmon fishers are concerned about the fact that there’s a dramatic increase in striped bass in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This trend is concerning, as it coincides with a sharp decline in several species, including smelt and salmon. Fishers are finding small lobsters in the stomachs of striped bass, which also eat small eels, smelt and gaspereau. They eat everything, because they’re very voracious.
Mi’kmaq elders and sports guides describe striped bass as an invasive species. Is the department considering developing a commercial striped bass fishery to stabilize the fishery or to expand the number of catches that can be taken by recreational fishers as well as the size, which is between 19 centimetres and 26 centimetres? Can you speak to that, minister?
[English]
Ms. Thompson: Thank you for the pertinent question. I was in the region last week and had many very specific conversations with harvesters in P.E.I. on this topic. I certainly heard loud and clear in my visits in the region over the last couple of months that it is a concern. Having lived through the cod moratorium, I can tell you that I certainly never want to see that again.
This is actually an example of science and harvester on-the-water perspectives. So we are actively engaged in conversations in the regions, and we understand that there is a disconnect and that we need to look at this. The deputy and I have spoken about this. It is clear that we need to address this, and we will.
But again, in the process, dialogue for me is incredibly important. I have heard from, and met with, Indigenous communities as well, and they have a perspective that is very important to some of the communities.
Regarding dialogue, I don’t want to do anything until I have completed a respectful, broad-range series of meetings with the people who are most impacted. Then we will certainly make decisions based on that connection with what we’re seeing through science, but also what people most connected, in terms of on the water, are also telling us.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you. I’m very pleased to know that your department is aware of this.
[English]
The Chair: Before I go to a second question from Senator Busson, minister, part of our work here is dealing with the owner-operator policy. That’s what we are looking at. I received many calls from our own province in relation to that.
For clarification, some inshore fisheries, such as those in the Gulf Stream, operate on an individual transferable quota, or ITQ, system. The owner of the quota gets to transfer it to someone else while maintaining ownership of the quota.
This is interesting because a harvester who owns an enterprise with an ITQ of the Gulf Stream, for example, can continue to own the shrimp license while leasing it for a year or two to another shrimp harvester. The other shrimp harvester then catches the shrimp but pays the fee to the owner. Obviously, the license holder is not on the boat, although, as I understand it, under the owner-operator position, he or she should be, but some other harvester who has leased the shrimp boat is.
Is that contrary to the owner-operator policy? I ask because it seems to be different from what I understand in other fisheries. I’m trying to get clarification for the committee. Thank you.
Ms. Thompson: Thank you. I have had many conversations with all involved in the sector on owner-operator. We support an owner-operator model. It has the greatest impact on communities. I’ll use Newfoundland and Labrador as an example, chair. We know the connection of fisheries to our province and the economic benefit to all communities from fisheries.
If we don’t hold an owner-operator model as a core value, we will see the drop in the strength to our role. I’m using Newfoundland and Labrador as an example, but it also applies to our rural communities. This holds true across the country.
I’ll turn to the deputy, but part of the benefit of the regular review and the current review with the Fisheries Act, which was referenced earlier in the meeting, allows us to go back. Again, it is dialogue. We have actively engaged with industry and harvesters across the country. The modernization of British Columbia is part of that. It will be different than the East Coast. It is what we have heard.
On the East Coast, we have to strengthen the model because it can be eroded. I look forward to the review of the Fisheries Act. But certainly, as fisheries minister, I want to see the owner-operator model supported.
Ms. Levesque: The inshore regulations themselves are the backbone against which that owner-operator model ensures that the benefits of harvesting activities remain in the hands of independent operators and benefit the coastal communities where they are, where there are permissions around transfers. Ensuring that is consistent within the regulations is part of the review work that is done at DFO as well. The regulations themselves are the backbone of the owner-operator model and how we make sure those benefits remain in coastal communities.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Busson: The sockeye salmon return on the West Coast last year far surpassed the estimates of your department by projections in the 200% to 800% level as they were being forecasted.
These numbers were used to assign quotas effectively in 2025, shutting down the sockeye salmon fisheries on the West Coast and allowing millions of them upstream into other rivers, overwhelming the spawning grounds and affecting the returns for years to come. This happened despite urgent calls from harvesters across the West Coast fishery to respond to this unexpected return. The fisheries remained closed, despite their calls.
This also affected the sharing agreements that we have with the United States with regard to sockeye salmon, effectively affecting our relationships with the United States again and challenging these relationships.
Given that 2026 is a fourth-year return for sockeye, the magnitude of which is expected to be high, would you commit to asking your officials to be more responsive to whatever the return might be? I ask because, certainly, not only does it affect their catch and livelihood, but it affects future generations when the fish overwhelm the spawning grounds. We’ve seen pictures of fish in areas in small rivers, and the spawn is ruined because of this high return.
Ms. Thompson: I’ll turn to the deputy in a moment. Obviously, we were pleased to see the high return. We realize the stress on salmon coast to coast, but it is one year. Conservation and sustainability are still critical. We need to understand that this wasn’t a one-off, but indeed, the stock is healthy and returning in numbers that would support opening the allocation.
So it is that balance, and while one year is welcomed and hopeful, we need to see what will happen this season.
Ms. Levesque: The minister met with the Fraser River Salmon Management Board recently in British Columbia and had a similar conversation to that effect. Early season predictions are hard, but based on models, we go on best estimates, and we are coming to the four-year cycle. We anticipate that moderate opportunities will be made available.
One of the challenges we had last year is that we saw positive in the coho and chinook, but the late summer sockeye was low, so maintaining that stability for ecosystem management and having to make the in-season calls. But absolutely, I take the point. We have been working closely with harvesters on that in time, last year, late-night phone calls, and as we move into the next season as well.
Senator Busson: My issue is the real-time response to what we see this summer so that we can avoid spoiled spawn again.
Senator C. Deacon: We just released a report called Carbon Removal From Air to Sea on carbon removal and ocean alkalinity enhancement. I have heard a lot of good intentions around regulatory modernization and agility. There is no question that is required here, but we interviewed the regulators. When I asked the DFO regulator if they wanted to see any of the proponents, they said, “Yes, we sent our enforcement officers.” That doesn’t demonstrate the culture of wanting to be agile and modern.
Prime Minister Carney, when he was a private citizen, was sitting in your seat, Minister Thompson, and he said how important carbon removal is to an effective climate change strategy. We have a global opportunity here. Our committee has identified a really important opportunity for Canada. The risk factor, without question, is our regulatory agility. It is something we would like to have conversations with you on a further basis about: how DFO can be part of a multi-departmental effort in regulatory agility as it relates to maximizing our opportunity in this hugely important sector.
Ms. Thompson: I agree with you. We need to do this work, and we need to do it together. We need to meet the moment in terms of what we have been tasked to do with productivity, but we have to do it by understanding that the climate challenge is real. We have to do both. I would be happy to meet at any time.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I have two quick questions.
The Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, is supposed to have financing programs for the fishing industry. However, at the February 26 committee meeting, a witness indicated that he didn’t know anyone who had managed to obtain financing from the BDC.
Minister, is your department aware of this situation? How does Fisheries and Oceans Canada work with BDC?
[English]
Ms. Thompson: Thank you for the question. A specific point always brings it forward. We have very specific programs to help diversify our harvester industries, our markets and very specific streams we have just announced. If there is an individual who has had challenges accessing funds, it is better if we do that one on one. We are happy to work with whomever to find a solution.
I spend a significant portion of my work ensuring that we are connecting harvesters to markets. As we see supports, some are sunsetting, but as we see them in new form, it is about marketing, diversification and strengthening the industry.
If there is a specific example, I’m happy to work on that with you.
Senator Surette: My question was similar to the question that Senator Gerba asked. More specifically, we already had a discussion before regarding the difficulty of young people getting into the industry, and the challenge of having an older workforce and succession are issues. The cost is prohibitive for a young person. According to what we heard, we thought they could have access to money from the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC. The witness before us said that he doesn’t know of anyone who has had success through BDC in purchasing an enterprise.
I’m just wondering if the department is looking forward to this big upcoming challenge, and if there is any assistance through the BDC, another loan program or another structure where we would facilitate access to younger people or new entrants into the owner-operator specifically.
Ms. Thompson: I want to quickly share — and the deputy can pick this up again later — that we have collectively begun to engage in dialogue regarding a strategy that we hope to have enough of a framework in place, very shortly, to bring forward to collectively work on. It is exactly that: the next generation and how we support young harvesters — both Indigenous and non-Indigenous — accessing the industry. Part of my earlier comment applies here. We want young people to see the industry as a viable career.
We are looking at all aspects of entry, and the financial aspect is one of them. We are looking at ways that we can begin interactions when kids are in school — Indigenous and non-Indigenous. We need to learn from each other early on and appoint knowledge and wisdom. I see this as something that we do together at the beginning stage.
It’s urgent. We should have started this work many years ago. We didn’t, but it is urgent because in 5 or 10 years we will see a significant problem across the country.
Thank you, and I hope to have more to share shortly.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I thank the minister for her appearance this morning. We’ll keep you on recall just in case.
Ms. Thompson: It was a pleasure to be here. I’m happy to come back.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you to our witnesses for being with us. I just wanted to dig in further to my final question with the minister about ocean alkalinity enhancement and the importance of building social license, the consultation process, the learning process amongst regulators and our ability to coordinate with all stakeholders, whether they be rural communities, fishers or Indigenous communities. There has to be a robust consultation process. That has not been the history in Canada. We do not have the muscle memory. This is new. We saw it was new for fisheries and oceans when the response was, “Yes, we sent our enforcement officers in.” It demonstrated an approach that is not one of learning about a new opportunity for the country and building a new regulatory structure.
In that situation, how can we build confidence that DFO can help lead Canada in participating in this new industry and being a leader in this new industry in a way that is safe, effective and definitely showing the opportunity of being a low-cost, effective, cost-efficient and scalable opportunity in carbon removal that improves ocean ecology? It will take a combined effort to scale through time as rapidly as possible.
Ms. Levesque: I will start, and I have colleagues here as well. As you know, the oceans account for about 30% of the world’s carbon sinks, so overlooking that opportunity would be amiss fundamentally from day one.
There are a couple of hats we wear at the DFO in terms of the regulatory role we play. At the end of the day, we have to be that regulator and enforce that. We must draw up and enforce all the regulations, but how we get to that point is where the real magic can happen and where the trust can be built. It starts, frankly, from a scientific perspective as opposed to a regulatory one or drawing some clauses down on a piece of paper, and how we work with proponents, industry and First Nations to actually identify where those opportunities are, what those emergent technologies look like, get the data to find where those areas are most promising and create the regulatory space within which to explore that. That’s the case whether it’s restoration projects that happen on the side of a major project development or individual fish and fish habitat work or the aquatic ecosystem work that we do.
Absolutely, doing it on our own does not build capacity, it doesn’t change things at scale and it doesn’t allow for that major transportation that your report very rightly pointed to as we undertake those recommendations.
We’re also working with our colleagues at NRCan and ECCC so that it comes back as a joint response instead of three siloed sets of responses coming back to you as a committee to show that we are working in a horizontal way as you are.
Bernard Vigneault, Director General, Ecosystems Science, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: There is a lot to be learned in terms of the benefits and potential impacts on the ecosystem. Working together to get the science we need to address those questions from the piloting that is successfully ongoing in Canada, from our collaboration internationally with other jurisdictions that are looking at the exact same question.
There is an international and national effort to look at all the angles of that new technology so that we can support sustainable development.
Senator C. Deacon: Briefly, I have one point. We saw a disconnect between, for example, the London Protocol, which is for open-ocean alkalinity enhancement. We’re talking about harbours and rivers, where that is a terrestrial activity, so it doesn’t involve DFO at this point in time.
The other thing is that we saw a disconnect between DFO’s scientific approach and that of global researchers who are expert in the field. So there is a need for DFO to open up beyond its own scientific processes to look at what else is going on, and maybe build partnerships with external research experts in this particular area.
Those are just some observations in response. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I’d like to come back to my question about the BDC in relation to loan and financing programs for fishers, small coastal fisheries and remote communities. Could you tell us more about the collaboration between the BDC and these small fisheries?
Ms. Levesque: Thank you for the question.
In terms of how BDC engages with individual potential clients, I can’t comment, because —
Senator Gerba: No, but how do you, the department, work with them?
Ms. Levesque: We try to create close ties between BDC and other Crown financial agents to match them with organizations, such as the Fisheries Council of Canada or the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation, to make sure they know which financing tools they have access to.
At Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we are not a funding organization. However, we try to connect those who are looking to access licences or the equipment needed for fishing to make sure they know which path to follow.
You’re absolutely right that it’s an important part of the tool kit. We organized working sessions to ensure the right people were in contact so that this could be shared with members.
Niall O’Dea, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I’d like to add that some financial institutions do this better than others. The caisse, which provides financing to fishers in Quebec, is a good example. We’re also trying to bring together various federal and private financial institutions so that they can share their experiences.
In some cases, it’s the lack of knowledge on the part of financial institutions in the fishing community that creates a barrier to financing for small fishers.
Senator Gerba: The High Seas Treaty, which aims to protect marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions and provide a framework for the sustainable management of ocean resources, came into force in January 2026. Canada signed it in March 2024, but has yet to ratify it. Why hasn’t Canada ratified this treaty yet? When does it plan to do so?
Mr. Vigneault: I can answer that.
We’re absolutely committed to ratification. We have internal processes, including a 21-day study of the treaty before Parliament before it’s ratified. We’re going through the process. We are committed to doing that as soon as possible.
We’re optimistic that we’ll be able to do so in the coming months.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Surette: As you know, we are studying the owner-operator and the independent fishery on the East Coast, as well as the fishery on the West Coast — the Pacific Coast. I’m just curious as to how it came to be so different from the Pacific to the East.
It seems to date back to the 1970s when the Right Honourable Roméo LeBlanc was minister. I’m assuming there have been consultations. I kind of followed it, and it was during my days growing up. A lot of my friends were in the fisheries.
On the East Coast, we had the ITQs, and unfortunately, we saw the result of the haddock cut last week. Then we had the owner-operator from the lobster industry. How can it be so different, if the same minister was there, so that what is on the West Coast is far different than what is on the East Coast? Was that a consultation process? Was that the desire of the industry on the Pacific Coast to what it looks like today?
I tried to figure out what the history was on this, and I had difficulty finding it anywhere. Even if you can refer me to something I can read as to how this came about.
Ms. Levesque: We will be very happy for DFO officials to come back as you get deeper into the study, including our colleagues from the Pacific region, who can speak to some of the historical pieces. There’s probably a great book somewhere that we can all benefit from, and we will follow up with any resources.
But you’re right, the industry is very different. The composition and the historical context got us to where we are today. Trying to recognize the different levels of the companies that exist on the West Coast is a different model that has evolved as a result of previous decisions.
Our consultation process has been very focused on the gaps that have been identified at this point in time. So talking about that independence, that data piece, the license quota transparency, et cetera. Other questions have emerged around vertical integration. Would an owner-operator model work? Can you just copy-paste it to the West Coast?
That is exactly the work that is under way on the West Coast modernization in real time. You can imagine there is no one uniform position on the west coast; everyone wants vertically integrated, or everyone wants owner-operator. Different fisheries have evolved.
It is the same as on the East Coast. We have differences on whether it’s effort-based, quota-based, and how the models of ownership look there. We don’t want to prescribe a one-size-fits-all model. We want to take a fishery-by-fishery approach, which is absolutely the work that is under way. I am very happy to come back and speak to that in further detail.
Mr. Burns, is there anything that I’ve missed?
Adam Burns, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Harbour Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: No. I would make the point that, in the early days of Canada, the objective of the fishery was for food security. Even in the Fisheries Act, it’s really a very open-ended, get-out-there-and-fish kind of approach. Over time we have evolved from that to an economic activity, to ultimately getting foreign vessels out of our waters.
That transition, which is still ongoing, quite frankly, has been done in collaboration with industry, with very different contexts on the East Coast and the West Coast, which have driven a very different approach to “Canadianizing” the fishery and structuring the industry. That evolution continues and is the base of the discussion of the West Coast modernization as well.
However, I don’t know specific places I could point you to look for that, but we will find it.
Senator Surette: Thank you.
Senator Prosper: I’m going to revisit my previous question to the minister and you, Ms. Levesque, to provide further detail. Thank you for that added detail you provided.
I just want to dive into that a bit more because, in September, a question was posed to the Government Representative in the Senate about the subject matter that I mentioned previously. His discussion with your department indicated that an answer would be forthcoming soon, and that was September.
I’m just curious because your department still has a reconciliation strategy that it employs. In light of certain budgetary cuts, it seems like a good win-win situation where a community has the capacity, they have the money, they want to manage, they want to have positive relationships on the water, but for a designation under the Fisheries Act, it seems like a good fit.
I’m just curious if you can revisit the steps being employed within your department and how that is going to translate to Millbrook getting a bit of clarity further on this issue.
Ms. Levesque: Thank you for the question. I’m happy to come back to it.
Indeed, as I mentioned, those conversations are under way. We did a vessel transfer last year to the community as part of that process, so trying to demonstrate concrete, at-the-table actions with Millbrook. I know that Conservation and Protection, C&P, has been meeting with the officers themselves in terms of what designation and what authorities, et cetera, would be appropriate. As you’ve noted, there are some very qualified folks in the community.
I believe the next step would be a meeting with our enforcement head and the leadership in the community. That is something I made sure to verify while you were asking your questions. So I’m not answering in terms of, “It would be nice to,” but, rather, those are the concrete steps.
Senator Prosper: Thank you. Clearwater, obviously, has a Mi’kmaq interest associated with that. We were informed by leadership with respect to cod and redfish about the total allowable catch. They have undertaken science and have data, which I believe they shared with your department.
What is the status of discussions in terms of potentially increasing the total allowable catch as it relates to cod and redfish?
Mr. Burns: Thank you, senator. I would need to follow up further in terms of which particular stocks they are referring to. If it’s referring to the Northern cod off Newfoundland, the 2J3KL NAFO division zones, for that particular stock, the consultations are not done. We would normally conclude that work and have decisions later in the spring for that one.
In terms of redfish, it would depend on the particular stock. I’m happy to follow up with further detail on that.
Senator Ravalia: Can you outline for me the plans for future Marine Protected Areas vis-à-vis the growing agriculture industry as well as new oil and gas projects coming on stream?
Ms. Levesque: Thank you for the question. As you may recall, across the street last year when the King was here making the Speech from the Throne, the government’s commitment to 30 by 30 was reaffirmed in that space. DFO has continued work to create Marine Protected Areas, working closely with jurisdictions, First Nations and Indigenous groups to ensure that we do advance the protection to reach 30 by 30. We are currently at about 15.6% of that objective and have concrete plans going forward in terms of the mapping.
One of the challenges is that we do not want to publicly state which areas specifically — it’ll be this piece of paper — until the conversations have been had with those who will be potentially impacted or engaged because the consultation itself is quite robust to get there. But these are put in mind with advancing not only conservation objectives but ensuring the economic opportunities of the fisheries are maintained. As we have seen, for example, in the Great Bear Sea Project Finance for Permanence, tourism and other economic opportunities can have the benefits of these Marine Protected Areas themselves. So we are working concretely on a plan to go forward and close the remaining gap, but as the minister said, some of those are tied up in some outstanding decisions. So I don’t want to get ahead.
Ms. Saxe, is there anything you want to add on specifics there?
Jennifer Saxe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I think you have covered all the key pieces.
Whenever we approach any of these Marine Protected Areas, thorough engagement is done. There is thorough analysis that is done from scientific and socio-economic perspectives. It is done with industry and local communities. That process is a thorough one that we engage with and would inform. So that would include the aquaculture industry. That would include industry members as well as communities to ensure that we are moving toward the right objectives together.
The Chair: I just have a comment on that. I know that in Newfoundland and Labrador there was feedback that the community engagement wasn’t where people wanted it to be, just so you’re aware of that. A telephone call to a community is not necessarily engagement. They want to see people.
Senator Busson: I commend you all for the work you do in a very complex department. People don’t realize the type of complexity you have to deal with. We have been talking about some of our more recent studies, but I want to bring you back briefly to our Sealing the Future report. In that study, we had a number of recommendations that involved the Department of Fisheries and some calls to action from them. Would someone like to comment on how that call to action is progressing with regard to your department and the things you’re dealing with as they relate to the seal population?
For your information, as we were informed during that study, from the West Coast, your scientists didn’t really even have the information and the data about the numbers of seals and the different kinds of seals on the West Coast. We had a much better focus on the numbers on the East Coast. From the West Coast, there was very little data even collected around that, and it continues to be a huge issue for fishing, fisheries and your department. Can you enlighten us on where you’re going with that?
Ms. Levesque: Indeed. Thank you for that report. It continues to be something that guides our own thinking as well from both a scientific research perspective — as you noted, some of the data points to the gaps that were identified — and also in terms of opportunities for fisheries. We continue to open the fishery year over year. We have created an ability for youth to join and learn traditional harvesting methods without having to be formally licensed but to obtain the training that goes with that so that there is a formal knowledge transfer and also the knowledge transfer of the communities and the traditional methods that underpin that.
We are also continuing to look at market access and opportunities for international export, in particular, in the sealing space, looking at advocacy and Trade Commissioner opportunities, trying to really identify where the highest potential for seal products is internationally as well. We do this so that when products are harvested in a sustainable manner, to help from an overall population management perspective and watching the science closely as well, there are real opportunities for value-added products that lie there.
One of the important elements of that report as well was around the education piece, misinformation and disinformation, if I may say that, which was highlighted. We are working carefully to make sure we are publishing updates on our website with clear information that is based on science, but also in terms of equipping our trade commissioners and others representing Canada abroad with those clear facts that represent how Canada has an ethical, sustainable and humane approach to seal management.
Mr. Vigneault: On tracking the population, that work is ongoing in collaboration with the stakeholders. On the West Coast, we are continuing to publish regular updates to the population of sea lions and harbour seals. That is done regularly and published when it becomes available.
Another area of work is to study with partners the impact on fish stocks and the diet of the population. That is where there is more of a data gap. It is more a work in progress. But in terms of our population assessment, both for the West Coast and, in particular, on the East Coast fishing for commercial species, we are following the population very carefully with updates to the technology. We use a model to assess the population and track the impacts of climate change, for example, on some of these populations.
Senator Busson: Is the population control of the seals in our coastal region part of your future work?
Mr. Vigneault: Not from the science perspective. We provide advice on the status of the population in the context of a precautionary approach for fisheries management, but the decision is to use the available resources from a fisheries economic perspective.
Mr. Burns: Senator, thank you for that. That is not currently part of the plans. As the deputy noted, we are very engaged in trying to help the industry rebuild market access to various markets, with the objective of full use of animals and not simply a population control exercise. That has been our focus. We’re certainly well aware of the impacts of the seal population and the lack of active markets, but that continues to be the approach we’re focused on.
The Chair: That, folks, is the last word. Thank you to our senators and witnesses, and especially the minister, for taking the time to come join us. We look forward to seeing you again sometime soon.
(The committee adjourned.)