Fisheries Committee on June 16th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You have 30 seconds.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Ms. Canet, you talked about an approach by government that might be able to take to look at socio-economic opportunities and leakages. Can you share just a little bit of perspective on how government could improve in terms of plugging these leakages?

[Claire Canet]

With just 30 seconds available now, I may need to give you a written answer to be thorough and precise.

How could it plug it? If I may, Mr. Chair, I would like to respond in writing to that question to be appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm sure that would be appreciated by the committee members.

We'll now go to Mr. Mazier for five minutes or less, please.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses today for coming out. This is really good testimony.

Mr. Sproul, at the previous committee meeting on this study, we heard from a vice-president at Clearwater, who stated that the topic of moderate livelihood fishing is entirely separate from the Clearwater transaction.

In your view, is there any potential impact of the Clearwater transaction on the issue of moderate livelihood fishing?

[Colin Sproul]

Most certainly there is. When my members and I heard that there was the potential for the sale of Clearwater fishery access, we were elated, because we assumed that the government would buy that access and convert it to moderate livelihood fishery access. I think at the height of a fishery crisis in Atlantic Canada, this tremendous opportunity presented itself, and the government turned a blind eye to it. The truth is that there is a tremendous economic potential in Clearwater's offshore lobster monopoly, and the opening of adjacent LFAs to that area would reduce fishing pressure in the inshore and open a tremendous area for moderate livelihood fishing, whilst at the same time building acceptance among the commercial fishing industry for the integration of indigenous people. It would be a win-win for all communities in Nova Scotia. It might not be a win-win for politicians involved in this deal, but I think it's important to point out that it can still happen that way and that it would be mutually beneficial to indigenous and non-indigenous fishermen.

The lobster access was granted to swordfishermen in the 1970s because of the mercury crisis and was broken up into many different licences; and since then, because of manipulation of policy and lobbying, they've been conglomerated onto one vessel, which to my knowledge, has no indigenous fishermen aboard it. That one profit-driven enterprise would replace the potential for hundreds of jobs in the moderate livelihood fishery.

I find it beyond belief that Minister Jordan would ignore that potential.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Wow. Thank you for that.

To Mr. Sproul again. I know that the Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance has written to the minister on multiple occasions to raise concerns relating to the future of Canadian fisheries. Do you feel that the minister is listening to the views of the UFCA and to the fishermen that your organization represents?

[Colin Sproul]

I would say absolutely not. That's my view, and it's the view of my members, and as proof, I would point out that the minister appeared before the Senate standing committee last night and said that very thing. She was quite proud of the fact that she'd had zero consultation on the deal with the commercial fishing industry. As I said in my earlier statement, when communities adjacent to resources lack a voice in regulatory regimes around them, they invariably lose, be they indigenous or non-indigenous. I think it's important to point out that what's best for indigenous leaders may not be best for indigenous fishermen. I'm concerned about the outcomes for fishermen on the water.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Okay. Thank you.

This is for anybody. I guess we can start with the others. Can you expand on the effect we could expect, in principle, if the principle of owner-operator is weakened and not enforced? We'll start with the others and go from there, because you've spoken enough already, Mr. Sproul.

[Martin Mallet]

I can make a few comments on that. I think we have an example on the west coast, where they have not set up the same protections as we've had on the east coast to protect the owner-operator concept and principles. Today, their fishery is mostly owned by corporate entities and owners of the resource or licences and quotas that don't operate the vessels. You get less benefit at the end of the day for the communities and the survival of these communities all along our coasts when the benefits of these resources are concentrated into a few hands and pockets instead of spreading it out to captains and crews.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Ms. Canet, do you have any comment on that?

[Claire Canet]

Yes. One of the core issues relating to the protection of owner-operators is that we are protecting a diversity of independent enterprises. When we don't protect that and that socio-economic fabric, and instead go into corporatization in the hands of one, two or three big groups, automatically we then see another economical logic going into it. That is not new: We had the Robin's company in Quebec for 100 years, and other companies. Today, we are facing the same situation where, if the fabric of multiple small, independent enterprises fishing our waters is not protected, then we go into the logic of having two or three big companies with other economic interests. It goes quickly, and the clear example is what happened, unfortunately, in British Columbia.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

Mr. Morrissey will now finish it off.

You have five minutes or less, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair. I will be splitting my time with Mr. Cormier.

To the witnesses, I want to compliment all three of you. I was very impressed with the testimony you gave. You articulated very well the situation facing the east coast fishery. We all know who loses—fishers, in the long term, at the shore price when you have corporate consolidation. In the buying area, they have to recover their investments. They recover it through reducing the price to fishers for the raw resource. That is a tried-and-true corporate philosophy and policy. It won't be any different in this case. We have to be vigilant.

I have just one question before I turn it over to my colleague. The issue that we as a government have to be vigilant on, in ensuring that our first nations communities, who fought so long to get access to the fishery and to communal fishing licences, is that those communal licences must remain within the ownership and control of the first nations communities who have them.

Am I correct, Martin, Mr. Sproul and Ms. Canet?

[Martin Mallet]

I think you mentioned two very important words there, Mr. Morrissey, those being “ownership” and “control”. The second word is the most important. This is another area of concern right now. Through the new Fisheries Act and the protection for owner-operators that came with it, there really needs to be a look at what is protecting first nations from the same corporatization and international interests coming in and controlling first nations' assets down the road.

I would strongly suggest that these conversations also happen with indigenous communities to see if they have any options or ideas concerning this situation, which eventually will happen.

[Colin Sproul]

I think the ownership of resources is what this all boils down to. The deal clearly creates a path for the removal of ownership from indigenous people in the future. If the government cares about economic outcomes and about social outcomes for indigenous fisheries in Atlantic Canada, they will develop a way to deliver this access to individual fishermen on the water, for their benefit.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Cormier will continue, Mr. Chair.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

Mr. Mallet—this is not because you're my favourite, but you are from my province—you said earlier that licences are at a high price right now. For crab it's around $12 million or $15 million, and for lobster it's $1 million or $1.5 million. When I see licences leaving my province and leaving my area, it's troubling to me.

Is there anything we can do to stop that? I know that the residence criteria are all different within different provinces. What do you think we should do to stop that?

The new Fisheries Act was about fleet separation and protecting owner‑operators, but I think the spirit of the act was also to keep these licences in our communities so that they would not only benefit the fishers, but also the communities.

What should we do to stop the licences from being sold to other provinces and to foreign interests?

[Martin Mallet]

The answer is not easy, Mr. Cormier. For some years now, we have been asking ourselves what we can do to encourage fishermen to sell their licences to family members or to people in the community, particularly through programs. In fact, at the Maritime Fishermen's Union, or MFU, we are working on programs to support newcomers to the fishery.

At the same time, all of a sudden, funding and capital is coming in from outside the province, and it's not clear where that money is coming from. Sometimes it's resources or levels of investment that make no sense in terms of the real value of the business. It's money that comes from companies with very deep pockets that are eager to scoop up control of the resource for various reasons.

So there really needs to be a thorough study of the whole issue of foreign interests in general, as mentioned earlier, but also how to ensure that the assets remain in the smaller regions.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Do you think that the Fisheries Act could be amended to prevent foreign takeovers and to ensure that the assets do not leave our regions and our provinces?

[Martin Mallet]

It is possible.

The provinces clearly have a responsibility to have a structure in place to protect those assets. They also need to provide the resources to be able to analyze the issue and find solutions.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you very much.

I think my time is almost up.

Ms. Canet, would you like to add anything briefly?

[Claire Canet]

One of the things that could be added to the Fisheries Act is the economics of the fishery as applied to licence holders. This is not in the Fisheries Act, of course, because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not have an economic mandate. So it is important to include the economic aspects of the fishery in the Fisheries Act.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you very much.

That answers my questions. Thank you for joining us this evening. I very much appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Cormier. That was only a few seconds over on the five minutes.

That absorbs our full time this evening, a little over two hours for our committee meeting.

I want to say a big thank you, of course, to our witnesses: Madame Canet, Mr. Mallet and Mr. Sproul. Again, it was a very informative meeting for our committee as a result of the knowledge you shared with us this evening.

I want to say thank you to committee members, the clerk, the analysts, translation and the interpreters, and everyone involved in making this meeting go as smoothly as it did this evening.

I'll bid everyone good night and call the meeting adjourned.