MP’s official response regarding DFO’s proposal to expropriate a significant portion of quota from commercial license holders

Jacinta Berthier
Regional Director, Fisheries Management
Maritimes Region

Sent via email to the Elver Review Committee

November 15, 2024

In response to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) recent proposal to expropriate a significant portion of quota from commercial license holders to individual fishermen, I must voice my strong opposition.

We must first start by acknowledging that quite simply DFO is breaking the law with this proposal. Quoting a 2018 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ahousaht Indian band and Nation v Canada 2018, the court recognized that voluntary relinquishment of licenses promotes reconciliation, whereas involuntary relinquishment does not. 

Madam Justice Humphries stated:

“…reconciliation is achieved through voluntary relinquishment of licenses by commercial fishers. It is not necessary and is unhelpful to the principles of reconciliation to move to involuntary relinquishment of licenses by the commercial sector.”

Why does the Minister and DFO believe they are above the law?

This move, politically motivated and out of step with DFO’s mandate, constitutes a concerning overreach that fundamentally disregards the principles of a willing-buyer, willing-seller system on which our industries depend. This decision, absent of scientific rationale or broad industry support, destabilizes an entire sector that has served as a cornerstone of our coastal economy. DFO is not an economic arbitrator and should not wield such control over the business models of Canada’s resource industries. By tampering with established quota systems, DFO is imposing unnecessary upheaval on legal businesses, threatening their stability, and jeopardizing their employees’ livelihoods.

Time and time again, this Minister proves she does not understand the industry in its entirety, and she has failed law-abiding commercial fishermen countless times. Stakeholders and Nova Scotians who rely on the fisheries to feed their families are speaking up.

Darren Porter, a Hants County weir fisherman who holds an adult eel licence says this is the only species where DFO manages babies and adults separately.

“For conservation of the species it has to be managed as one,” he told media.

Robert Selig, a fisherman in my riding told media he’s unhappy with the uncertainty this proposal brings, given it’s not clear how much quota he will receive, and he worries what will happen if prices nosedive. He said he instead wants a return to a “nice, safe, reliable fishery.”

“I don’t have any trust and I don’t have any faith in DFO to manage this problem,” he said.

Combined with changes previously announced, this Minister is proposing to expropriate without compensation 75% of the commercial quota (most recently set at 9,960 kilograms) from the eight commercial licence holders and the First nation’s license holders. The Minister proposes that fifty percent would go to new First Nations entrants and another 25 per cent would be stolen and given to employees of the current license holders and a conversion of 30 of the 239 adult eel licnese holders. 

While the Minister’s actions threaten the current industry structure, they also ignore crucial scientific data that supports sustainable management options. The science on adult eels and juvenile elvers shows that there is room for new entrants without compromising the ecosystem or the economic stability of current license holders. Yet, the Minister ignored the science, choosing instead to upend established quotas and disregard scientific backing in some socialist attempt to redistribute income. The Minister’s lack of knowledge of the industry is evident in that her plan will mean those who once worked for and earned a good living fishing elvers for the license holders will earn significantly less, and without the capital, will have to sell to brokers who will earn the bulk of the revenue.

This decision is reckless, short-sighted, and detrimental to the long-term health of our fisheries.

DFO Overreach: A Mandate to Protect, Not to Govern Business Models

DFO’s mandate is to conserve and protect marine resources, not to redefine economic relationships within the fishing industry. The Minister admitted in the House of Commons Fisheries Committee that she is doing this because she thinks the current license holders earn too much. Perhaps the Minister could share with the public where in the Fishery Act it gives her the power and authority to regulate the income of any fish harvester? I am sure elver harvesters would agree that this Minister’s annual salary, at almost $300,000, is too much and would be better spent by having it reallocated to those harvesters she is stealing their business from.

Interfering with the business models of license holders, many of whom have invested heavily to ensure sustainability, is a gross overreach. By upending the principle of voluntary transactions—where value is determined by market dynamics – and where licenses are only transferred if there is a willing seller – DFO undermines the very economic framework that sustains the industry. This approach does nothing to enhance sustainability; rather, it disturbs the foundation on which businesses operate, unsettling license holders, employees, and communities alike. Not to mention the impact this arbitrary and unprecedented assault on the industry will have on the ability of all fishing businesses to obtain debt financing in the future.

Expropriating 50% for First Nations Without Consultation

DFO’s idea to expropriate up to 50% of the elver quota to Indigenous harvesters is deeply concerning, especially given the lack of transparency and consultation in reaching this decision – once again, another arbitrary amount. While it is essential for Canada to honor treaty rights, such decisions must be balanced and based on open, fair, and transparent processes that engage all impacted parties, the Minister does not have authority to ignore rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada is this regard. An allocation of 50% of the fishery’s quota far exceeds the proportionate representation of Indigenous communities in the population of the region and raises questions about the long-term impact on resource availability for all stakeholders. As it stands, this one-sided approach risks jeopardizing both the economic stability of non-Indigenous fishers and the sustainability of a limited resource. Without adequate consultation, this substantial take-over could heighten tensions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, fostering division rather than reconciliation. By excluding commercial fishers from critical discussions, DFO is sidelining those who have long relied on these fisheries to support their families and local economies. DFO is not proposing to compensate commercial licence holders for this quota that would shift to Indigenous fishermen.

Former Nova Scotia Liberal Party Leader and lawyer Michel Samson has stated this is “devastating.” Samson represents commercial licence holder Wine Harbour Fisheries. “This is something that’s never been done in other fisheries, and why DFO is adamant of continuing to take away quota from licence holders who built this fishery over 30 years without compensation just simply doesn’t make sense.”

A more balanced, inclusive process would not only respect Indigenous treaty rights but also uphold the livelihoods of commercial fishers and the economic well-being of coastal communities. New entrants can be accommodated with new quota according to the science, not from existing quota, or from willing buyer/willing seller only. Instead, DFO’s approach risks destabilizing established fishing businesses and sets a precedent for future decisions that could further erode trust in the agency’s regulatory processes. All stakeholders deserve a seat at the table for decisions of this magnitude. For meaningful reconciliation and fair resource management, quota should consider both the demographic makeup of the region and the needs of all affected communities. This approach would better support the sustainability of the fishery while upholding the values of equity and fairness essential to Canada’s fisheries and coastal communities.

Dangerous Policy Precedent and the Rise of Organized Crime

DFO’s approach to fisheries management appears to be driven by a politically motivated agenda that ignores real threats, including the rise of organized crime within the fishery. Illegal and dangerous poaching activity has surged while DFO has failed to take adequate action to protect both the fishery and its officers from heavily armed criminals. Recent investigations reveal that organized crime poses a clear and present danger, with officers reporting threats from armed individuals and gang-affiliated poachers. Yet instead of addressing these critical security threats, DFO has chosen to penalize lawful fish harvesters and license holders. Such policy choices raise serious questions about DFO’s priorities and the competence of its current leadership. For at least the past 2 years, we have watched as the Minister locked legal harvesters out of the lucrative industry because she was unwilling to address poaching and crime with any measures that had real teeth.

Michel Samson said DFO has invited all employees of commercial elver licence holders to apply to receive individual quotas expropriated from current license holders.

“That includes people who might have driven the delivery truck, people with no experience fishing elvers,” Samson told media. “How are they going to enforce this when they had a hard time doing so with a limited number of legal participants?”

The Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs said in a statement to media that it learned of DFO’s proposal the same week it was announced and that it was “unexpected.” The assembly said that while increasing participation in the elver fishery is a treaty communal right, DFO’s plans need to be examined.

“We want to assure our communities that we understand the cultural significance of eel to our people and the importance of the elver fishery as a significant economic contributor,” the statement said.

Who exactly is DFO consulting – and who are they trying to reach – through these decisions?

Ignoring Community Input and Eroding Trust

The lack of consultation and transparency has only deepened distrust within our coastal communities. Expropriating elver quota, which is essential theft, without fair consultation or compensation, disregards the legitimate concerns of commercial fishers and the stakeholders who rely on these quotas for economic stability. In addition, the current license holders not only pay a fair wage, but they have taken on all the financial risk to build this industry up to world-class standards. This ill-advised decision threatens the entire structure. Stakeholders, including municipalities and industry organizations, have repeatedly called for inclusive dialogue and transparent decision-making. However, DFO’s unilateral expropriation disregards these requests, raising tensions and risking further division. To foster community trust, decisions of this magnitude must be made with local and regional input, ensuring that all voices are heard and respected.

Impact on Fisheries and Our Coastal Communities

The proposed expropriation threatens to destabilize not only the commercial fishery but the entire economic ecosystem surrounding it. Job security for hundreds of legal fishermen and their communities is at stake. This move will have severe economic repercussions for families and local economies, which have always relied on responsible and predictable fisheries management. Furthermore, this decision risks creating friction between Indigenous and non-Indigenous fishers, undermining community stability. The DFO’s shortsighted approach disregards the socio-economic balance within these regions, fostering uncertainty rather than stability. For five years DFO has failed to enforce the law. With 100% of Nova Scotia rivers being poached, while only 24% are licensed. How will DFO enforce the law with 120 new entrants when DFO is the cause of the lawlessness? Until DFO enforces the law under the current 8 license holders, it is not believable that they all of a sudden will be able to enforce it with 120 new entrants. Poaching will escalate and we will face the decimation of the species.

Conclusion: A Call for Common Sense and Responsible Governance

This idea exemplifies a political agenda at its worst: economically destabilizing, irresponsible, and indifferent to the real, pressing concerns facing the industry. The DFO’s inability to protect the rights and livelihoods of legal license holders reflects an urgent need for leadership that prioritizes security, science-based management, and local consultation. A Common-Sense Conservative Government would prioritize sustainable management, meaningful enforcement, and respect for the willing-buyer, willing-seller principles that have sustained this industry for generations.

For the health of our coastal communities and the integrity of our fisheries, the DFO must abandon this ill-advised proposal and return its focus to the real threats undermining the industry, including organized crime, violence and illegal poaching. The fishing industry deserves a competent, consistent, and predictable regulatory environment—one that honors the longstanding economic foundations upon which it has been built, rather than dismantling them for fleeting political gain.

Rick Perkins
Member of Parliament
South Shore – St. Margarets