THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 23, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 8:36 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the independence of commercial inshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and the policies and legislative tools used by the Government of Canada to preserve it, such as the Owner-Operator Policy.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Fabian Manning. I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and chair of this committee. I have the pleasure of chairing this committee meeting.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue.
Before we begin, I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Dhillon: Good morning. Thank you for being here. Senator Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario. Welcome.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
On November 18, 2025, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on the independence of commercial inshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec and the policies and legislative tools used by the Government of Canada to preserve it, such as the owner-operator policy.
Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from Claire Canet, Project Manager. I will leave the rest to her to explain. On behalf of the members of the committee. I thank you for being here today, Ms. Canet. I understand you have some opening remarks. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Claire Canet, Project Manager, Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie: Hello, Mr. Chair and senators.
On behalf of the fishers of Quebec, I’d like to thank you for giving us the honour of appearing before you today to talk about an issue as important as the independence of commercial inshore fisheries.
My name is Claire Canet, and I’m here today representing the Alliance des pêcheurs indépendants du Québec and the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie or RPPSG. Collectively, our organizations represent more than 570 independent fishing businesses in Quebec. Our members primarily fish for lobster, but also for crab and various groundfish.
The RPPSG is one of the three founding members of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters’ Federation, along with Fish, Food and Allied Workers, or FFAW, and the Maritime Fishermen’s Union. I serve on the federation’s executive committee for Quebec.
I can only support the eloquent and meaningful testimony of my colleagues Jim Isaac, Melanie Sonnenberg and Dwan Street. Therefore, I won’t reiterate how crucial the principles of maintaining owner-operators and prohibiting control agreements are to the economic health of our coastal regions and to preserving access to our shared public resource for the people who depend most — socially, culturally, and economically — on this strategic resource.
However, I’d like to make a few additional observations.
The deep pockets of unregistered private investors seeking to derive direct or indirect profit from access to the resource, coupled with the financial interest of certain financial institutions in granting large loans over 20 or 25 years — once they know that a major private investor is providing backing — have fuelled the dramatic rise in fishing licence prices. This creates an environment increasingly conducive to the next generation being drawn into an imbalanced system of financial power that favours control agreements.
Today, in Quebec, conservation and protection officers have drawers full of investigation files involving licences subject to control agreements. Since 2019, none of these cases has been brought before the courts. Why? I’m told that the problem stems from drafting flaws in the regulations that, according to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, make a successful outcome in court unlikely. The regulations were drafted in such a way that licence holders operating under control agreements are given one year, at the request of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, to revise their agreements so that they’re acceptable to the department.
Consequently, conservation and protection officers see their investigative capabilities weakened, if not completely undermined. I would like to note, however, that today Fisheries and Oceans Canada appears to have a more detailed understanding of the mechanisms leading to control agreements, and that there is an apparent willingness to address the problem.
Today, after seven years, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada must take swift action. It’s essential that, as part of the review of the Fisheries Act, the captain-owner-operator principle be placed at the heart of this review so that it has enough teeth to compel Fisheries and Oceans Canada and legal services to act.
Furthermore, the owner-operator principle is also important for commercial community fishers. As highlighted by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations in 2002 in its sixth report on the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations, the issuance of commercial community fishing licences raises fundamental issues. In my view, those issues have not been addressed through subsequent regulatory amendments or Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s administrative practices. I can only observe that some community commercial licences are not being operated by members of the communities that hold them.
Also, although the examples I’m about to cite do not reflect the reality of many Indigenous communities, Indigenous fishers have reported directly to me that they find themselves operating their band’s licences on behalf of the band for extremely low pay, with some of them not even being allowed to keep a single lobster for themselves.
Some boat owners who subcontract commercial fishing to their band are forced by the band to accept a price per pound that doesn’t allow them to operate their boat safely, pay their crew adequately or cover other operating costs, leaving them at the end of the season with low income and insufficient funds to prepare for the next fishing season. Some live with the risk of having their fishing rights revoked and being replaced by more “accommodating” fishers.
For these reasons, as part of the review of the Fisheries Act, we recommend affirming that fishery resources are a shared strategic public resource, as well as clarifying the purpose of the act to create conditions conducive to the profitability, sustainability and adaptability of Canada’s various fisheries for the benefit of all Canadians and coastal communities.
We also suggest clarifying the framework for the minister’s exercise of discretionary authority and improving transparency regarding agreements that may be signed by the minister. Furthermore, the consultation process and the role of science and knowledge should be strengthened to ensure sustainable fisheries management. We also propose that Indigenous community commercial licences be converted into individual commercial licences. Finally, we recommend that funding and support measures for independent commercial fisheries — based on the model used to support Canadian farmers and aquaculture — be implemented very quickly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, senators.
I am available to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony this morning, Ms. Canet. You said that Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, is beginning to respond today and that they’re beginning to understand the issue. Can you elaborate on that? What does that mean, in real-world terms, as far as how that is actually being put in place into everyday practice and what are the results that you’re seeing?
Ms. Canet: Thank you very much for your question. That is extremely relevant.
DFO is now understanding that the financial context of the cost of the licences and the financing of those fishing licences are at the heart of the control agreements. Therefore, they have studied to a great extent over the last few years the different mechanisms that have been put in place in contracts and private agreements during licence transfers in order to better address the regulations in the context of the red tape review that was started by the current government.
Senator Dhillon: If I could build on that then, are those findings that you speak of publicly available? Have they been made available to others, and is DFO using that —
Ms. Canet: No.
Senator Dhillon: Okay, I see. Why would we want to share best practices? Sorry, that’s me being a bit facetious. Inside voice, yes.
The other question I have — and I’ll welcome questions from my colleagues here — is there an ombudsperson or a fair practices commissioner or an independent body that oversees some of this work whom you have been working with?
Ms. Canet: If I understand your question correctly, you’re asking whether there is an independent body that is supervising the licence transfer process. Is that correct?
Senator Dhillon: Correct.
Ms. Canet: No, there is none. And I believe that it is a recommendation that has been put forward before different instances to have this independent body, and I do support that approach.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome to the committee.
Access to capital has been identified as a key factor, particularly for fishers, who often need to raise significant sums of money. These fishers do not have access to appropriate financing mechanisms. What does this reality look like, particularly in the Gaspésie? To what extent does the lack of dedicated financial tools influence the use of economic dependency agreements, as you mentioned?
Ms. Canet: In Quebec, we’re fortunate to have certain loan mechanisms available through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, these loan mechanisms are largely insufficient, given the operating costs and investments required to start and maintain a fishing business. This holds true for the Gaspésie and everywhere else in Quebec.
Today, a young person who wants to get started in the fishing industry — particularly lobster fishing, which is truly the economic backbone of the Gaspésie — will, in some cases and depending on the sub-zone, have to invest anywhere from $1.5 million to $6 million or $8 million to launch their fishing business. This includes the vessel, fishing gear and the transfer of the licence required by the current operator.
It’s quite clear that the next generation of fishers is often young, typically between 25 and 40 years old. I consider 40 to still be young. For the very large minority who do not benefit from an intra-family transfer, they lack the financial resources necessary for banks to guarantee a large loan of several million dollars. They must therefore turn to individuals who can act as guarantors for the loan. In some cases, these individuals also contribute a very significant sum of money, which can amount to several hundred thousand dollars.
The financial arrangement is structured in several stages. First, there are private agreements between these lenders and unregistered guarantors.
Next, a comprehensive agreement is concluded with a registered financial institution, that is, a bank, that is aware of these private agreements, and of the prohibition on control agreements and the owner-operator principle. However, for various reasons . . . . I can only speculate that this is related to a conflict of interest. For banks, it’s very lucrative to issue large, interest-bearing loans over 20 to 25 years. That’s where they generate their profits. There is therefore a conflict of interest, and certain financial institutions turn a blind eye to the private agreements of which they are aware. This inevitably leads to a control agreement due to the imbalance of financial power between the next generation, who are acquiring the fishing enterprise, and the lenders.
Senator Gerba: Thank you. Several witnesses have mentioned the Farm Credit Canada model as a source of inspiration, precisely as a way to support the next generation and limit reliance on private lenders.
To what extent could this model be applied in this context in Quebec?
Ms. Canet: The Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters’ Federation, which we’re a part of, is very actively looking at the Farm Credit Canada model, and the different funding and support mechanisms that are applicable to farmers and aquaculturists right now.
For reasons that have not been explained to us, commercial fishing has been excluded from these mechanisms, even though it’s a primary sector subject to the same kinds of risks and uncertainties as farmers.
We’re actively studying this model and making recommendations to ensure that key measures are put in place and that fishing is included in the legislation that governs Farm Credit Canada and in the federal legislation that ensures the implementation of the various programs we recommend for the fishing sector.
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, Ms. Canet, for your testimony. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little further on the state of the Indigenous fishery. You alluded to possible exploitation, fishers being left with very little money at the end of the day. What is the reason behind this? Would you be able to tell me what the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous fishers is? Thank you.
Ms. Canet: Indigenous and non-Indigenous fisheries, you mean?
Senator Ravalia: Yes. The relationship between them and also the state of Indigenous fishers. You alluded to the fact that many of them are left virtually penniless at the end of the season.
[Translation]
Ms. Canet: First, I want to reiterate that this situation does not apply to all Indigenous communities. Many Indigenous communities place the commercial licences held by the bands at the heart of their operations. This principle is similar to that of the owner-operator, meaning that licences must be operated by their members, for the benefit of those members and the community.
However, for several years now, in various regions of Canada — I want to clarify that this is not unique to Quebec and that these are accounts I have heard in other regions when I visited Indigenous communities as part of my work, because we have regular exchanges and joint projects — according to some accounts that have been reported to me, this occurs when the approach to commercial fishing licences is highly profit-driven, meaning that the commercial fishing licence is, first and foremost, viewed as a revenue source for the band council to implement structural and transformative projects for the band, and not necessarily as the foundation for the exercise of rights that have been recognized and defined by their members, for individuals within their band.
That’s the context in which I’ve seen and heard these testimonies. Whether it’s an Indigenous band or anyone else, this is one of the fundamental causes of the challenges surrounding the implementation of the owner-operator principle and the prohibition of control agreements. Once we consider that access to the resource is, first and foremost, a means of raising funds — a purely commercial approach — we see certain financial mechanisms, such as the individual commercial licences I mentioned earlier, or situations where fishers become subcontractors for their own band. We see these control mechanisms when the objective is not to practise a trade to support a community and uphold rights, but purely to make money for other purposes, whether to fund shareholders or implement structural projects for a band, projects that have nothing to do with the exercise of a community fishing right by individuals.
That’s when we see problems emerge. It’s really when the focus is solely on this single objective of financial gain, access to the resource and use of that resource that problems arise. Unfortunately, this is the way of thinking we saw in the 19th century through to the middle of the 20th century in the Gaspésie, with the Robin or Le Boutillier models in the cod fishery. The objective was to empty the sea to generate financial gain for export on behalf of a private company or organization with financial objectives that had nothing to do with making a living from fishing. That’s where the problems lie. It’s a matter of concept. I don’t know if that answers your question.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much. That’s very helpful.
To what extent, then, are you concerned about foreign ownership in your fishery in Quebec? Is that an issue that comes up at all?
Ms. Canet: It does come up now and then, not to the same extent as our colleagues in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia are facing. However, we do have private investment and foreign investment at this stage that are starting in our processing sector, and the processing sector can also be very much at the heart of control agreements. This is where foreign investments flow into individual commercial fisheries.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much. That’s very helpful. I appreciate that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you very much, Ms. Canet. I want to pick up a couple of points that have been raised already.
You had mentioned that investigations had been embarked upon, but there is a one-year window they have to comply with, and it does not seem that they were able to bring charges over that period of time. Could you elaborate a little bit more on that? Was the DFO doing it? Was the CRA involved? Give us a little bit more insight into those investigations and why they didn’t yield anything.
Ms. Canet: Under the current administrative process under the current regulations that are implementing the owner-operator policy, when a fisherman asks the minister to transfer his or her licence to a new entrant, the paperwork that is being handed over to DFO by this current licence holder is being studied by some DFO agents, not by Conservation and Protection, or C&P.
These administrative employees have some criteria to determine whether or not there is a risk of a control agreement or whether it doesn’t fit with the regulations. At this stage, they do ask the parties who are involved in the transfer to change the paperwork that is causing problems. So the effect is that it hides even better the control that is taking place because, ultimately, behind that, you often find the financial arrangements still remain, but the paperwork is hiding better this potential control agreement or this risk of control agreement.
Parallel to that, C&P, in some instances, is aware of potential control agreements, either in the context of a transfer request or during their daily work. So they start their inquiry. There are quite a few issues. Conservation and Protection is clearly understaffed in order to do these very complex financial inquiries. The expertise within DFO for financial inquiries is not there.
When they are starting to investigate control agreements in the context of a transfer request, because of this one-year window to change the paperwork, all the evidence that Conservation and Protection may have gathered to further their inquiries and to go further is heavily tempered. So it cancels, basically, the evidence that they had gathered. It is tainted; therefore, it will no longer be able to be used in court or — I mean, the whole process around the evidence is tainted.
So that is the reason why it is not proceeding.
Senator Cuzner: It is almost like DFO is complicit in rejigging the game — building the bed to fit the man sort of thing. If you set it up this way, then the control agreement can go forward. That’s sort of what I am getting from the story you are sharing.
Ms. Canet: When the regulations were put in place in 2020, I just could not understand how this one-year window time frame had been put in place and what the purpose of it was, given that the principle of the owner-operator has been put in place in the policies for years, since 2007, that it was embedded in the legislation since 2019 and that fishermen who were in control agreements had years to become compliant. So I cannot understand why this part of the regulation has been put in place.
There is a lack of implementation of the regulations. Why? I cannot put intentions in the minds of the various ministers; I am not them.
Senator Cuzner: You did say that there seems to be more of a willingness of the part of DFO to proceed. What has given you that kind of hope or that kind of perspective?
Ms. Canet: It is in the context of the red tape review that has been started under the current government that involves DFO. I have been able to see that there is a much deeper understanding from the employees and directors at DFO in Ottawa of the various mechanisms and that they want to address the issues in the regulations.
That said, only time will tell, once new regulations are in place, whether they are being implemented efficiently or not and whether they have been written in an efficient way and that, ultimately, when a file is ready to be prosecuted, the prosecution services of Canada are able to say to DFO, “Yes, we can go ahead to prosecute this case or that case.” Even if there is a risk — there is always a risk — the government and the prosecution services are willing to go before the court and test the regulations. If we never test the regulations, we will never know, but there is the need to be willing to do that.
Senator Cuzner: Do most of your core lobster fishermen — I should know this, but I don’t — have a share of the crab quota? In the Atlantic, in 2005, we brought in a crab-share plan where everybody who held a core licence would get a share of the crab quota, which would take a little bit of the stress off the lobster resource and would diversify their portfolio. Is that a thing in Quebec, or is it that only single licence holders hold a crab licence?
Ms. Canet: Okay. Some crab licences have been granted to fishing organizations such as the RPPSG or the MFU, and that is in order to further science and projects for the whole community.
Some individual commercial lobster fishermen may have purchased a snow crab licence and a small quota, but it is not all of them. It really depends on each and every individual fisherman, whether they have purchased a licence or not.
Senator Cuzner: We had crab sharing that worked out really well in the Atlantic.
Finally — and I know everybody on the committee will be interested — your folks are on the water now. How are things looking? What kind of shape is the resource in, and what is the shore price?
Ms. Canet: The lobster fishery has not started yet in Quebec. It should be starting on April 29, and I am sure that everybody is looking forward to it.
Senator Cuzner: Are crab boats out?
Ms. Canet: Yes, there are some snow crab boats. So, in Area 17, from what I understand, it is not going well because the water temperature is not very good. The landing price is okay. The retail price is extremely high. The main fishing area in Quebec is Zone 12, which has just started. At the moment, it is not doing very well because of the water temperature and the weather. But it is going to pick up. We do not have the landing prices yet.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for joining us today. There is certainly a lot to learn around this whole area and our commercial inshore fisheries.
I want to take a moment to go back to something that we heard a few weeks ago, at the end of March, and it is in that area of young people and succession. What do things look like for the future?
At the end of March, we had Dwan Street here, the president of the relevant Unifor. She said that the union initially took on the leadership of creating a committee for young harvesters that meets twice a month to discuss their world, the barriers and how to break down and overcome them to take on this life and this long-term commitment. In that, it was explained that the top concerns were access to capital and inflated fisheries licence prices. This came up more than once. My question for you is this: Are access to capital and the high cost of fishery licences also top concerns for young harvesters in your region?
Ms. Canet: Certainly.
Senator M. Deacon: Share with us what the other challenges might be that harvesters face in your region. Are you responding to it? Do you have a committee, a thought or a vision of this moving forward?
Ms. Canet: First of all, I would like to commend the initiative of my colleague Dwan Street. That is a fantastic initiative. Access to capital is certainly the most important, core issue for new entrants.
At the RPPSG, we do not have the human resources or the financial strength that the FFAW-Unifor has to support new entrants and to have a committee like this, et cetera. It is not that we do not want that, but most fishing organizations are understaffed and do not have the financial means to take such initiatives.
That said, at the RPPSG, we are one of the lucky ones to have received a snow crab allocation. That allows us to do quite a lot of projects. One of the projects that we have done is to financially support new entrants whereby the ones who acquire a new licence can come to the RPPSG. This program is stopped at the moment, but we were providing them with $25,000, which was the most that we could do. It may appear as a drop when you are looking at a fishing licence that is between $1.5 million and $6 million to $8 million. Twenty-five thousand dollars is not very significant, but this is what we can do to help our own industry.
The other thing that we have done is, since 2010 — from memory, but do not quote me on that exact date — we have had in place and financed a program of effort reduction in the Gaspé area in the lobster fishery in order to have fishing enterprises that are more sustainable and a bit more solid financially so that they can operate year after year.
We were financing the retrieval of licences when a fisherman or a group of fishermen were willing to reduce the efforts in their sub-LFAs. We were asking DFO to completely remove that licence, and we were compensating the retiring fishermen in order for DFO to completely remove and never reissue that licence. That reduces the fishing effort in that sub-LFA, and that allows the remaining fishermen to have more sustainable fishing enterprises.
So these are the things that we have been doing to help our fishermen, but, obviously, our financial means are extremely limited compared to what the federal government could do in the context of programs, such as the ones for Farm Credit Canada, et cetera.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that. As we step back, you may be able to share with us whether that incoming generation of young harvesters sees hope. Do they see that there is enough for their families, with the business, with the kinds of things that are around them that we’re going to have a good pipeline of harvesters moving forward?
Ms. Canet: There are two situations. When we are looking at a family transfer, fishing is in the blood of the family. It is part of our culture. In the Gaspé area, it has been 300 years that fishermen have been living off the sea, so it is in their blood. They are seeing hope, and family transfers have the ability — there are some mechanisms that make access a bit easier. That said, it is still very complicated.
For new entrants who do not have the chance to access a licence through family transfer, they want to come into the fisheries because of passion. They believe in it. They are core Gaspesians and core Magdalen Islands people. The sea is their life. And for many people, there are not that many work opportunities. The fishery is very important to sustain our economic dynamism and provide employment.
Those young entrants, those new entrants do believe — rightly — that their future is in the fisheries. It is a fantastic area to work in, but it is a very hard one. Currently, the context and the cost of the licences are certainly major hurdles for them, and that puts them at risk, in addition to the fact that it is a risky industry. They cannot control the weather, the resources or DFO’s decisions. They cannot control whether DFO is going to put a moratorium on the resource or drop quotas in a way that their fishing operations are not going to be sustainable anymore. They cannot control these kinds of things. So it is already a very risky enterprise.
But when you add the financial hurdle, that makes it very risky. It is only because of their love of the sea and the love of the work that they go into it, and we need to support them.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for your honesty. Thank you so much.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Ms. Canet. That’s all very helpful.
If I could frame this for you, and then you can tell me if it aligns with what you are sharing or correct my thinking, with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, or PPSC, as it is today, would you agree that they are not able to prosecute any types of violations with the current regulations, or would you say there is no will to prosecute because the cases that are being brought to them by DFO are not complete or are not prosecutable?
Ms. Canet: Obviously, I do not have the details of the cases because that’s confidential and being kept secret by DFO, understandably. That said, the regulations are such that one needs to test them. If there is no willingness to test the strength of a regulation before the court, we will never know.
I am not the PPSC or a PPSC lawyer, et cetera, and I have asked, but I have not had the answer on what the regulatory risks were or what the exact issues were that made the PPSC recommend not to go ahead with one case or another. But there is one thing that I know that is very clear, and that is if you do not test your regulations when you have cases that are very clear — I’m sure you have all heard about the situations in Newfoundland where all the evidence was there and it was not being prosecuted. To me, the only explanation is that there is no willingness to take 1% of risk.
One is not going to make a case law out of one case. We had the Elson case years ago that was a lot more risky under the previous legislation and regulations. It was a lot more risky, yet DFO and the PPSC went ahead before the court. Now we’ve got stronger legislation and stronger regulations, and the risk is not taken to test those regulations. I don’t understand why.
Meanwhile, the ones who build control agreements have free rein to develop private agreements and contracts that are harder and harder to undo before the courts, and that opportunity has been given to them by DFO since 2020.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. That’s helpful.
Very quickly, one of the issues or areas that this committee is also looking at, especially on the West Coast, is the influence or the presence of criminal organizations and money laundering that is starting to seep into fisheries. Have you had that experience, or do you have knowledge of any of that happening in Quebec?
Ms. Canet: No, I haven’t had that knowledge in the Gaspé area or in Quebec.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I think Ms. Canet has answered most of my questions.
I’d still like to come back to your assessment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s enforcement of sanctions measures, particularly with respect to licence suspensions or withdrawals. I’d like to know if you see a gap between the regulations and the implementation on the ground.
Ms. Canet: Yes. The gap is glaring, because we know that the department has numerous files involving control agreements or suspected control agreements, and there have been no prosecutions in Quebec. None of these cases has ever been brought before the courts. The gap is glaring for the reasons I explained earlier. No, the regulations have not been enforced for a number of reasons and, as a result, the gap is significant.
Senator Gerba: To conclude, if you had one recommendation to make that is important to you, what would it be?
Ms. Canet: Since everything flows from this, I would anchor the purpose of the Fisheries Act in creating the conditions for the profitability, sustainability and adaptability of Canada’s various fisheries for the benefit of all Canadians and coastal communities. From that point on, if that principle is clearly set out in the act, recognizing that the owner-operator principle is the primary expression of that objective in the management of this strategic public resource, everything else will follow, in my opinion.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you to our witness for her great testimony, and thank you to our senators for the questions. Certainly, you have added much to our deliberations from your perspective, but we certainly hear a lot of the same thing wherever our witnesses come from. We thank you for your time this morning, and, as I say to all our witnesses, if there is anything that you think about in the next couple of days, thinking, “I wish I had said that; I wish I had informed the senators of that,” feel free to send it along to our clerk, and we will have that as an addition to our work here. We thank you for your time this morning, and thanks to all senators.
(The committee adjourned.)