Evidence of meeting #135 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was habitat.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
How did you get from there to here without my seeing you? Welcome.
Of course, on Zoom, we have Dwan Street, inshore member representative of area 3Ps and president-elect for the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you for taking the time to appear today.
You will each have five minutes or less for your opening statements.
Mr. Wareham, you have the floor.
Alberto Wareham Chair, Board of Directors, Fisheries Council of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak before you all today.
I'm Alberto Wareham, FCC chair, and president and CEO for Icewater Seafoods. As the national voice for commercial fishers in Canada, the Fisheries Council of Canada represents a diverse group of enterprises, from small family businesses to large processors and indigenous organizations, that are all contributing to the harvesting and processing of seafood across our three coasts. Collectively, our sector employs nearly 90,000 Canadians, contributes close to $9 billion annually to the GDP, and holds a global reputation for excellence in sustainable fisheries management, with Canada ranked second worldwide in sustainable certifications.
The Fisheries Act is the primary legislation affecting our members, and we appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the committee's review of the 2019 amendments. The Fisheries Council of Canada and its members were actively involved in the discussions leading up to the 2019 amendments to the Fisheries Act. These amendments were the product of extensive dialogue and compromises among all stakeholders.
A key outcome of these discussions was the inclusion of ministerial discretion, which allows for flexibility in adapting to changing environmental conditions and socio-economic factors. For instance, under the fishery stock provisions, fisheries are managed using the best available science. However, there are instances in which the science may be incomplete and ministerial discretion enables common sense decision-making to address such gaps.
With this context in mind, I would like to centre my remarks today on the importance of stability in the fishery sector and the pivotal role that thoughtful, collaborative and science-based policy-making plays in ensuring the long-term sustainability of this critical industry. Our members, like so many Canadians, have experienced the challenges that come with uncertainty. Inconsistent policies or abrupt changes can destabilize access, undermine investment and disrupt the livelihoods of thousands of individuals in sensitive coastal and indigenous communities.
Stability is not just a policy reference; it is a necessity for maintaining the resilience of our fishery sector and ensuring the socio-economic prosperity of the communities we serve. To this end, stability in access and allocations is foundational. Secure access enables businesses to invest with confidence in their operations, creating jobs, supporting local economies and advancing environmental sustainability.
Recent uncertainties in allocation decisions have eroded this stability for some stakeholders. FCC strongly advocates for transparent, consistent frameworks that recognize the importance of predictability in fostering long-term success.
Equally essential is the need for rigorous, well-funded fishery science. Science is the bedrock of effective fisheries management, ensuring that decisions are informed by robust data and evidence. It supports not only sustainability, but also market access, as our international reputation depends on science-driven stewardship. Addressing gaps in stock assessments, integrating ecosystem-based approaches and fostering indigenous co-management are all critical areas requiring attention and investment.
Marine conservation and sustainability are cornerstones of Canada's global leadership in fisheries. With 95% of our fisheries already managed sustainably, we must continue to balance conservation goals with the economic realities of those who depend on the ocean for their livelihoods. Policies should be guided by sound science and developed in close consultation with industry to avoid unintended consequences that could harm the communities they aim to protect.
Finally, the stability of our sector depends on its people. Labour challenges, including an aging workforce and shortages in remote areas, require immediate attention.
Effective policies are essential for fostering a healthy and vibrant Canadian fishing industry. They help attract and retain skilled workers while also enhancing the industry's resilience and long-term productivity. Getting this right requires ongoing dialogue and collaboration between all stakeholders.
In closing, FCC urges the government to prioritize collaboration with industry stakeholders in every step of the policy-making process. Stability and sustainability in Canada's fishery sector can be achieved only when policies are thoughtful, informed by science and designed to balance environmental, economic and social goals.
Consider us your boots on the ground. FCC members are ready and eager to help ensure that the Canadian fisheries industry thrives in these uncertain times. Thank you for your time and your commitment to advancing Canadian fisheries. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Wareham.
We'll go now to Mr. Carl Allen, who is in the room, for five minutes or less.
New Brunswick Executive Member and Treasurer, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
Mr. Chair, committee members, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present today to the fisheries committee on the review of the Fisheries Act on behalf of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation.
As we examine potential revisions to this important legislation, the federation would like to focus on four key areas that are crucial for the continued health and sustainability of Canada's fisheries, as well as the communities that rely on them.
The first is strengthening the owner-operator principle in the Fisheries Act. The concept of owner-operator has been a cornerstone of fisheries policy in Canada for decades. However, the 2019 amendments to the Fisheries Act raised concern among stakeholders that the principle, which aims to ensure that fishermen own and operate their vessels rather than leasing or selling licences to absentee owners, does not provide the necessary strength to protect this important component of Canada's inshore fishery. The current wording in the Fisheries Act does not provide a concise level of protection for the owner-operator principle, which leads to a situation in which the sustainability of small boat harvesters and coastal communities is at serious risk.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Mr. Allen, have you provided a copy for the translators?
You might want to slow down a little, because they're trying to translate it as you're saying it. No, I'm not telling you to go very slow.
New Brunswick Executive Member and Treasurer, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
I'm trying to stay under the time, but I'll keep that in mind.
In section 2.5 of the act, additional wording that provides harvesters from coast to coast the protections that we believed would come from the 2019 review is urgently required.
We will include written suggestions and a more comprehensive response to the committee.
We strongly urge the committee to strengthen owner-operator requirements in the Fisheries Act to ensure that only those who actively participate in the fishery with boots on the boats and a real financial stake in their operation are granted access to licences. This would help prevent corporate consolidation, foreign ownership and absentee ownership to ensure that coastal communities remain at the heart of fisheries management. Additionally, stronger owner-operator provisions will ensure that the benefits of the fishery remain local and that connection between harvesters and their resources is maintained, thus protecting the resource for future generations.
Second is incorporating harvester knowledge into scientific assessments. It is vital that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans continue to enhance the integration of traditional knowledge and harvester expertise in scientific assessments and studies. Harvesters, particularly those who have worked in the industry and on water for decades, possess invaluable insights into the ecology, behaviour and social patterns of fish populations that cannot easily be captured through standard scientific methodologies.
We recommend that the Fisheries Act be revised to explicitly require the inclusion of harvester knowledge in all scientific assessments and studies conducted by DFO. This could be accomplished by fostering more formalized partnerships between DFO and harvesters, particularly through the use of collaborative research networks. By recognizing the importance of this on-the-water experience and knowledge, we can ensure that fisheries management decisions are based on a more holistic understanding of ecosystems, leading to better, more sustainable outcomes.
Additionally, this inclusion would help bridge the gap between the scientific community and the harvesters themselves, fostering trust and collaboration and ensuring that the management strategies are grounded in both scientific and traditional knowledge. This is essential for making informed and effective decisions that are reflective of the realities on the water as well as adapting to the rapidly changing ocean environment.
Third are socio-economic considerations in fisheries decision-making. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must be explicitly mandated to consider socio-economic factors when making decisions regarding fisheries management. In particular, when DFO makes a decision that affects specific fisheries, the socio-economic impacts on local communities, harvesters and related industries must be fully accounted for. These considerations include the impact on local employment, the livelihood of harvesters and the broader community economy, including dependent industries such as processing and support industries such as boatbuilding, machine shops, rigging companies and the like.
In some cases, well-intentioned conservation measures can disproportionately harm the livelihoods of coastal communities if socio-economic impacts are not sufficiently considered. Examples are changing of fish quotas and closing of fishing areas, or restrictive regulations that may have unintended consequences for local economies. It is crucial that the Fisheries Act require the minister to assess the socio-economic effects of decisions with a focus to ensure that communities most impacted by these decisions are supported in their transition to new practices or alternatives, should those be necessary.
A more integrated approach to decision-making, one that balances ecological sustainability with social and economic considerations, will help ensure that the Fisheries Act remains a tool that supports vibrant, resilient fishing communities.
Finally, the fourth is about strategic assets. The federation recommends that the Fisheries Act include criteria to protect our public resource by declaring it a strategic asset. This could be done by mirroring recent action taken around the Canadian critical minerals strategy. In the interim, we recommend that the federal government freeze licence transfers to any entity other than independent harvesters.
The continued erosion of our independent fleets living in coastal communities depends on strong action by the Government of Canada. This strategy would focus on the importance of resource protections to ensure sustainability and include the value to Canada of food security.
In conclusion, the Fisheries Act is an essential framework for managing one of Canada's most important natural resources, and its review presents an opportunity to improve the way we manage and protect our fisheries, ensuring the long-term sustainability and prosperity of the communities that depend on them. By strengthening the owner-operator principle, incorporating harvester knowledge into scientific assessments, declaring this important resource a strategic asset and ensuring that socio-economic considerations are integrated into decision-making, we can create a more inclusive, effective, balanced fisheries management system from coast to coast.
We urge this committee—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Mr. Allen, you're over on your time now, but for anything you didn't get out, hopefully it will come out in questioning. I'm sure you'll send in a copy of your speech to the clerk, and we'll be able to have a look at it if you don't get through it.
We'll now go to Dwan Street from the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union of Newfoundland and Labrador.
You have five minutes or less, please.
Dwan Street Inshore Member Representative of Area 3Ps and President-Elect, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union
Thank you, Mr. Chair and esteemed members of the committee, for the opportunity to address you today on behalf of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union.
As president of the FFAW, I'm here today on behalf of the over 13,000 fisheries workers our union represents in Newfoundland and Labrador. From owner-operators to crew members to processing plant workers, our union has dedicated the last five decades to fighting for the preservation of community-based fisheries. These are inshore fisheries. They are the lifeblood of our coastal communities.
There are the over 3,000 under-65-foot vessels, which are owned, operated and crewed by over 10,000 professional fish harvesters, who fish sustainably and support over 500 rural coastal communities. This dependence cannot be understated, and I beg each of you here today to consider the effect that recent decisions have had on continued sustainability within our coastal communities. Our union fully supports the comments of our colleague and partner, Carl Allen, and the work of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation.
I'll focus on two key areas today: number one, protecting the owner-operator from controlling agreements; and number two, adjacency and socio-economic considerations in ministerial decision-making.
Corporate entities—multinational processing companies—have a long and clearly documented history of subverting owner-operator and fleet separation. They illegally buy up inshore licenses, take advantage of financially vulnerable individuals and take control of the resources and industry, one small vessel at a time. In 2007, PIIFCAF was announced because controlling agreements were recognized as a threat to the viability of the inshore. PIIFCAF had no teeth, and controlling agreements continued to proliferate. That led to 2019, when Bill C-68was passed successfully through the House of Commons, providing important modernizations and improvements to the act.
The legislation officially came into effect in 2021, but very little has been done by the DFO to utilize these new provisions. It's clear that additional strengthening is desperately needed. The owner-operator policy is the backbone of our coastal communities and the foundation of a sustainable, equitable fishing industry. It ensures that the benefits of our resources flow directly to the hard-working fishers and their communities, rather than being concentrated in the hands of large corporations or absentee owners.
We strongly recommend adopting recommended improvements to the wording around owner-operator to ensure a more robust legal framework to protect independent fish harvesters and to prevent the corporatization of our fisheries. To ensure compliance, we also propose increasing penalties for violations of the owner-operator policy, allocating more resources for monitoring and enforcement, and implementing a transparent reporting process for infractions. We also urge the committee to reinforce fleet separation within the act, explicitly prohibiting vertical integration of harvesting and processing sectors in the inshore fishery.
Honourable members, we ask that you enshrine the principle of adjacency directly in the act, ensuring that coastal communities have priority access to nearby fish stocks. While this may seem obvious, the ministerial practice in recent years has been quite the contrary. Specifically, Minister Lebouthillier has defied adjacency and socio-economic considerations by allocating primary shares to corporate dragger fleets in the new redfish fishery, meaning that the owner-operator fleet, which depended on that transition, is now facing bankruptcy.
Similarly, Minister Lebouthillier and her Liberal colleagues were pleased to break a 40-year commitment to our province by allowing domestic and international dragger fleets back into a struggling northern cod fishery. This decision not only harms the owner-operators who rely on that fishery but also directly threatens the continued rebuilding of that historical stock, and it was contrary to advice provided to the minister by DFO science.
The federal Fisheries Act must protect Canadians from these kinds of ministerial blunders that threaten the very future of our economic sustainability. When ministers are permitted to bend to lobby groups and corporate interests in the name of votes and international clout, something else must be done. We cannot let our community-based fisheries be destroyed by unethical decision-makers and political agendas. The Fisheries Act must be amended to include references to adjacency and to the socio-economic considerations of those adjacent economies.
While we advocate for these changes, we also recognize the importance of maintaining certain aspects of the current act. The consultation processes with stakeholders, including fish harvesters and indigenous groups, should be preserved and protected from the inclusion of extremist environmental groups as stakeholders. The review of the Fisheries Act presents a crucial opportunity to strengthen the foundation of our industry. By protecting and enhancing the owner-operator policy and by making adjacency a part of the act, we can ensure a sustainable, prosperous future for our coastal communities and the next generation of fish harvesters and plant workers.
We at FFAW-Unifor stand ready to work with this committee to craft legislation that will serve the best interests of our fishery, our communities and our marine resources for generations.
Thank you again for your time. I welcome any questions you might have.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Ms. Street.
We'll now move on to the questioning.
We'll start with Mr. Small for six minutes or less, please.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to welcome the witnesses and thank them for taking the time to contribute to this study.
My first question is for Ms. Street. Earlier today, we had a witness, Mr. Porter, who said the act wasn't the problem; it was the inconsistency of its application. Do you have anything to add on this as it relates to owner-operators and the enforcement of that policy?
Inshore Member Representative of Area 3Ps and President-Elect, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union
We were very hopeful when owner-operators were introduced into legislation that we were finally going to see some action, but unfortunately, I don't feel we've seen it, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador. We've seen a number of investigations, especially into folks we know are in controlling agreements and into buyers who have folks in controlling agreements, and there just has not been any action.
One example that I'm sure most folks are aware of is of young Jimmy Lee Foss in La Scie. Mr. Foss is the perfect example of how the current regulations have so many loopholes that corporations are able to manipulate. We have a young harvester who is passionate about the industry and was headhunted and manipulated into signing a terrible agreement by a corporation. Now, rather than following his passion for the industry and having his family participate in it, he's facing bankruptcy. His vessel, which was the dream of his family, is rotting on dry dock and will be repossessed in La Scie.
The fact that his case was able to get to the level that it has and where it has, and to see a young harvester, who has a very young son who wants to be a fish harvester, just lose his passion for the industry and see no future in it is, I think, a perfect example that something's just not working. Nobody is being held accountable for what's happened to Mr. Foss.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Ms. Street, how widespread do you think a situation like Mr. Foss's could become if the crab quotas were to be slashed in half? What would happen in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Would you see more and more cases like Mr. Foss's?
Inshore Member Representative of Area 3Ps and President-Elect, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union
I don't even think it's a matter of it becoming the case. Jimmy Lee has been very vocal, and a lot of folks just aren't.
We've known since the nineties and the early 2000s, before PIIFCAF, that there's a problem when it comes to controlling agreements. It's no secret that you can go to certain wharves and everybody knows the company vessels. There's no question.
The fact is that DFO has been handed envelopes of evidence and cases to investigate, and we still see those vessels sailing. We still see companies and certain individuals concentrating licences and vessels. It's a problem with access.
We keep saying we have a recruitment and retention issue for young folks in the Newfoundland fishery, but we do not. We have individuals who are interested. The problem is corporate concentration, and that goes for fishing licences as well as in the processing industry.
It's a severe problem, and until the act reflects penalties and deterrents for this to occur and we actually see action, it's just going to continue. If you're going to go and speed on the highway and you know there are no cops, what's stopping you from putting the pedal to the metal?
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you, Ms. Street.
I have a question that I'm going to put to Mr. Allen and Mr. Wareham.
Many of your members have expressed concerns about the interests of groups that are showing up as stakeholders at stock advisories. Can you summarize some of those concerns, Mr. Allen? How can the Fisheries Act make sure that stock advisories are made up of valid stakeholders?
New Brunswick Executive Member and Treasurer, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
That's very good question.
Ms. Street alluded to that a bit. My vision of a stakeholder is somebody who actually has a stake in the fishery. I am a harvester, so I am a stakeholder. When I arrive at an advisory table, it is my livelihood that is at stake.
Over the past number of years, we've arrived at many stakeholder tables and seen entities at the table that have no stake in the fishery whatsoever. When you ask them whom they may represent, they say, “Well, we represent the fish.” No. It's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' job to represent the fish at these tables.
It begs the question as to how their advice to the minister is weighed against my advice to the minister. As the person who is on the water.... I personally spend more time on the water than I would dare to wager most people at 200 Kent Street do. There are fishermen who spend a lot more time on the water every year than I do.
That's why we want to see the harvester knowledge reinforced. Right now, I believe the wording is something along the lines that the minister may take into consideration “community knowledge”. What is community knowledge? We'd like to see that the minister “shall take into consideration harvester knowledge”. It's as simple as that.
Conservative
Chair, Board of Directors, Fisheries Council of Canada
Thank you.
At FCC, we've had some members who experienced quota cuts very recently resulting from the involvement of ENGOs, and other members have not seen a big impact on their business. We were concerned when they got involved in advisory committees, but overall for FCC, I guess, we haven't had a firm position on where we would stand. For some it's been impactful, and for others, not so much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Small.
We'll now go to Mr. Cormier for six minutes or less, please.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Allen, you were talking about strengthening the owner-operator principle, and I know that your association.... Well, as some of us have seen, you're part of so many associations that we don't know which one you're representing—I'm just kidding.
For example, the MFU, which you're part of, was very happy back then with owner-operator. Now we're talking about maybe adding more strength to it. What kinds of measures do you think we should add to the Fisheries Act that would tighten the rules a bit more around all of that?
New Brunswick Executive Member and Treasurer, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
Well, I would say to Mr. Porter's point earlier in the committee meeting that he's partially right in saying the act in and of itself around owner-operator is not so bad as much as the application of it is.
However, from a federation point of view, and even from the point of view of the Maritime Fishermen's Union in New Brunswick, we'd like to see those same provisions added to the west coast, because, as it exists today, it's only for the Atlantic coast and Quebec. I don't understand how you can have a law and a regulation that is applied to only one coast of a country. Why doesn't it apply to the other?
If you look at what has happened to the broader fisheries economy in B.C. as a result of harvesters that are paying 75¢ on the landed value of fish to the licence-holder, who might be living in a condo in Vancouver, it has destroyed the fisheries economy abroad. You yourselves would know that in your backyard, the fish itself is only a very small part of the fisheries economy, right? There's the processing, the boatbuilding, the ship rigging, the equipment—all that other stuff that fish creates—so that when I have the entire benefit of my enterprise, I can reinvest in my community.
We'd like to see that brought in for the west coast, and then there's the actual enforcement. As Dwan said, if you have a speed limit, it's great, but if nobody's there to enforce it, it's not worth the paper it's written on.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
In your opinion.... I know this case is probably familiar to you, because it's in your area. There was a crab licence that was bought from a P.E.I. person for $10 million or $15 million. There was some question about where the money came from. Are you familiar with the case I'm talking about?
New Brunswick Executive Member and Treasurer, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
I am, vaguely, yes—not in very much depth, but—
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I think my question is, do you think that for Atlantic Canada, for example, we still have some of those controlling agreements, even with what we have in place?
New Brunswick Executive Member and Treasurer, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
I think so, because the department in and of itself has turned a blind eye to the enforcement of it. In reality, the perception is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would just like to have the entire fishery operated by five or six big companies. They're easy to deal with.
You know, I have a thousand members in New Brunswick, and they're prickly at the best of times, but they're good people. They're good and honest people who contribute to the vitality of their communities, and that's what we're trying to support here.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
You also were talking about “boots on the boats”. I totally get what you're saying with that. As you know, my dad was a fisherman all his life.
Don't you think that sometimes those rules are a little strict? For example, you get sick. Sometimes it's very difficult to get a substitute captain. Do you still have this kind of problem, even with the act, when your members try to get a substitute captain for that? Can I say it that way? Is this a good word in English?