THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 9, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9:04 a.m. [ET] to study 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, I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to me, as the chair, or to the clerk, and we will try our best to resolve the issue for you. Before we begin our meeting, I would ask the participating senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Boniface: Gwen Boniface from Ontario.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
Senator Francis: Brian Francis from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Welcome, Senator Boniface, who is filling in for Senator Busson today. We know there is a long list of people trying to get into this committee, so this will give you an opportunity to see what it’s like. You never know.
On February 10, 2022, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on issues related to the federal government’s current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada’s fisheries and oceans.
Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from the following representatives from the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association: Molly Aylward, Executive Director, and Ian MacPherson, Senior Advisor.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like to thank you for taking the time to join us here today. I understand that both our witnesses have some opening remarks. I will ask them to present those now, and then I’m sure our committee members will have some questions for them.
Ms. Aylward, if you could begin, followed by Mr. MacPherson.
Molly Aylward, Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the invitation to be here. Thank you to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for the opportunity for the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association, or PEIFA, to present on the very important topics of owner-operator policy and the independence of commercial inshore fisheries.
Today, my colleague Ian MacPherson and I are representing not only 1,260 owner-operators, but also 1,260 small, independent businesses. These businesses employ a minimum of two crew members each, which broadens their financial contributions to the Prince Edward Island economy even more. We are, in essence, a chamber of commerce for the inshore fleet.
As with any chamber of commerce, it is our role to represent the interests and concerns of our members. There have been many positive developments over the past 10 years — which have resulted in increased lobster landings and expanded conservation and sustainability programs, as well as fairer and more equitable prices being paid to harvesters. The change of owner-operator and fleet separation policies into legislation has also been a positive development; however, finalizing and fine-tuning regulations and consistent enforcement of these regulations are a must.
Numerous challenges remain, such as the over-dependency on several species, measures related to the preservation and protection of the North Atlantic right whale and a world economy that can quickly shift into a state of flux due to the pandemic, geopolitical events, inflation and other unforeseen events.
Our sector is adaptable and resilient, as was proven at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We were deemed an essential service by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. We showed unprecedented industry cooperation, resulting in the commencement and completion of both spring and fall fishing seasons when many industries were shuttered. Our inshore fishery is consistently a top-three economic driver of the Island’s economy, and it is also one of the largest contributors, on a percentage basis, to the provincial gross domestic product versus other provinces in Canada.
I’ll turn it over to Mr. MacPherson now.
Ian MacPherson, Senior Advisor, Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association: Thanks, Ms. Aylward.
Today, we are not here to strictly discuss financial contributions, but also the impacts that our captains and crew contribute to coastal communities. Local employment on boats and plants, the ability to keep rural businesses viable and volunteer activities are all contributions made by our members. We are proud that some communities can claim five generations of fishers in their areas.
It is also important to note that our captains protect the Canadian food supply in terms of providing food security. As the world depletes our ocean resources in some areas, it is vital that our food sources be managed, caught and processed by Canadians. Many of our Eastern Canadian-based fishing organizations would like to see Canadian seafood designated as a “strategic asset” — much the same as some critical minerals have recently been designated by the Government of Canada.
The value of seafood has increased significantly in the past 10 years, which has attracted venture capital firms and offshore interests in the industry. With a primary focus on shareholder return, we must ensure that our food sources remain under strict Canadian control and ownership. In addition, we are seeing a concentration of ownership develop, where large Canadian companies are buying up smaller regional processors. These transactions do not always meet the Competition Bureau thresholds for review, and must be monitored. The recent public announcement that British Columbia-based Premium Brands has engaged in talks with Clearwater Seafoods on a possible buyout is an example of potential ownership concentration on both the East Coast and the West Coast. Proposed mergers such as this could lead to fewer buyers and less competition on the wharf.
As companies seek to secure supply, it is our concern that fleets are being financed through arrangements that resemble the very controlling agreements that the Owner-Operator and Fleet Separation legislation was meant to end. Recently, senior officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, have noted that the financing arrangements for some licences — that are currently under review — can be very complex. One has to wonder about the complexity of financing for licences that are under strict federal government control.
The relationship between harvesters, buyers and processors is a symbiotic one. The mix of independent owner-operators and diverse competition on the wharf, coupled with processing that contributes to the local coastal communities, is a healthy one. It is the primary goal of the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association to protect this model, as independent owner-operators ensure that the best interests of Islanders and Canadians are maintained as stewards of our very vital Canadian seafood resource.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Aylward and Mr. MacPherson.
We’ll now proceed to questions from senators.
Senator Francis: Good morning to you both. It’s nice to see fellow Islanders, even if virtually.
Inshore commercial fishery licences are non-transferable; the licence holder must be present when the fishing activities, as prescribed in the fishing licence, are carried out, except in specific circumstances — and only approved by the DFO — in the case of illness or disability, for example.
Did enshrining elements of the fleet separation policy, the owner-operator policy and the policy on the issuance of licences to companies into regulations impact the legitimate use of the transfers — for example, in the case of illness or disability? I wonder if either, or both, of you could please explain that. Thank you.
Mr. MacPherson: Thank you, Senator Francis. That’s a very good point.
It is an area that has been quite inconsistent throughout Atlantic Canada in terms of the requirements for captains to be on the boats. The DFO is currently reviewing that policy, and I would believe the targeted outcome is to tighten that up so that owner-operators are operating their boats, unless there are extenuating circumstances, like a medical condition or such. That’s the spirit of the legislation, and we’d like to see that maintained.
There are a few areas that definitely need to be tightened up in that regard, and the DFO is working on that.
I will say that I feel that the DFO had a good process for that. They’ve gone out several times to individual fishing organizations to seek input. It’s my understanding that a change might be forthcoming in the fairly near future. Thank you.
Senator Francis: Thank you, Mr. MacPherson.
Ms. Aylward: I concur with what Mr. MacPherson said in that, yes, the DFO has had consultations with the PEIFA around streamlining those processes so that they’re consistent across different jurisdictions, and not just for P.E.I. Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to both of our witnesses.
Could you comment on regulatory changes pertaining to the inshore fisheries that we implemented in April 2021? When I talk to fishers, they generally feel that they’re over-regulated and that there is an evolution of changing regulations — and that tends to impact their functionality and business. Would you care to comment on that? Thank you.
Mr. MacPherson: Thank you, senator. That’s a very interesting question.
Certainly, it is a very heavily regulated industry. One of the frustrations that comes from industry is that, for example, if your boat breaks down, it can be quite an onerous process to borrow someone’s boat so that you can keep fishing.
Those are the kinds of things we continue to work with the DFO on, and hopefully we’re making some progress. But, at the end of the day, there are definitely certain parts of the current regulations that wouldn’t apply in the agricultural sector, if the same types of challenges were faced on land. I think we’re trying to get comparable regulations in place if they’re needed — but regulations that are not too onerous and don’t impede how business operates. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Aylward, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Aylward: No, thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you both for being here this morning. My first question is also related to regulations.
How much consultation is there when there are proposals for the regulations to change or be tweaked? Everybody always gets a little bit nervous when they hear regulations are going to be tweaked. How much consultation is there so that the regulations, if they are changed, are going to be practical and workable for the fishers in the industry?
Mr. MacPherson: Mr. Chair, I wanted to explain to the committee that, previous to my current role, I was the executive director of the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association — Ms. Aylward is in that chair now, but maybe I have a little more history on that. I’m not trying to suggest I know all the answers to the senators’ questions, but I will say that, regarding the consultation model that the DFO used, we want to give credit where credit is due: It was headed by a gentleman named Mark Waddell and his team. It could probably stand as a benchmark for future consultations in that there was an extreme amount of back and forth in terms of what would work and what wouldn’t.
The DFO had individual consultations with individual fishing organizations. I believe they went out twice and held meetings. Then, a what-we-heard document was generated. From that, recommendations were made to change the legislation. We did have quite a bit of input on the regulations as well.
I’m not saying it was all perfect, or that the harvesting sector got everything they were seeking. The sub-operator issue I just mentioned to Senator Francis — that was a piece that was left out of the regulations; that has not been finalized, so there is still discussion on that.
There is one other area that I can’t recall right now.
It was a little different in that the legislation went through, but the regulations were not in place. I won’t profess to be a parliamentary procedure expert, but I understand that doesn’t always happen; generally, the regulations and the legislation are adopted at the same time. I believe it was about a year later when the majority of the regulations came in, except for those two areas.
One thing that we’re currently working with the DFO on is an ongoing issue that has taken quite a bit of time. There were a number of cases — for example, the owner-operator policy — where there was concern that “controlling agreements” could still be in place; that means someone else is receiving the benefits of owning that licence — and not the licence holder. We’ve been working with the DFO as recently as last week. A group of us were in Ottawa to discuss the status — there are certain situations where it appears those agreements are still in place — and how the investigations are proceeding.
Lastly, I want to mention that we do understand that when legal proceedings are involved, the government has to be careful about what is divulged. However, it is frustrating for some of our members in that they’re feeling that the enforcement could be stronger. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. That was a very thorough answer, and much appreciated.
I was also struck, Mr. MacPherson, when you said that income from fishers keeps rural area businesses viable. Sometimes those of us who live in the city forget that if we’re going to have businesses and opportunities for those who live in rural areas, we need to have that income base where people can spend the money in the region.
I was also interested when you said that the value of seafood has increased significantly, as well as your comment that the food source must stay under Canadian ownership. I jotted down “conglomerates.” That wasn’t a word you used, but there is your fear that there would be ownership by a few businesses, or a few people, which would mean fewer choices for the buyers and for those who are selling the fish to the companies.
Could you expand on that a bit? You mentioned Clearwater Seafoods possibly owning on the East Coast and West Coast. Could you expand a bit on the fears that the fishers may have, and also the positive parts of it?
Mr. MacPherson: I don’t have the exact statistics, or examples, in front of me right now, but I do know that colleagues in Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned about the influence of Greenland. They have been aggressive in buying up a number of operations — fairly substantial ones — over there.
It’s important to understand that this is an important food source, and when you trace back the ownership of some of these operations, there’s potential government influence or ownership involved in these companies. That can distort the marketplace in terms of what’s being paid for fleets and things like that.
We have to be mindful that we’re in control of our seafood. Yes, we’re an exporting country. Our domestic consumption isn’t close to where a lot of other countries are in terms of seafood. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be exporting, but we have to be clear: There appear to be many more complex ownership arrangements out there, and we need to make sure there are enough degrees of difference, and that they’re still under Canadian control.
Senator Cordy: Is there a plan in place to increase consumption of seafood by Canadians? Back in the day, growing up, we had fish every Friday. That isn’t the case anymore. Are there programs in place? People seem to be getting more conscious about their diets, and seem to be recognizing that seafood is an important and integral part of a healthy diet. Are there programs such as that?
Mr. MacPherson: A positive development is that, in the last few years, a fund has been launched called the Atlantic Fisheries Fund. For many years, we were under the agri-food designation, and didn’t have programs unique to the seafood industry.
The Atlantic Fisheries Fund is a good program. It touches on four different areas. I can’t recall them all, but technology is certainly one — and to encourage innovation and those types of things.
The fourth pillar — which came into effect, I believe, three years ago — was, specifically, to market Canadian seafood more effectively, both domestically and internationally.
I can’t speak to how successful that’s been, or what the access to those monies has been. As we all know, advertising and promotion are very expensive, irrespective of where you are, especially in some of the countries we export to. It’s my hope that this fund has been taken advantage of, and that we are starting to see more of that. I know the Lobster Council of Canada has accessed some of that funding, and tried to broaden the scope of promotion of Canadian lobster.
I agree, senator. I don’t know that we focus on our own Canadian market as much as we could.
Senator Cordy: Thank you so much.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much to the witnesses, both of whom are with us.
Both of you mentioned enforcement of regulations. I would like to follow up with some questions around that.
The first question concerns the monitoring of non-compliance and then responsible enforcement of non-compliance with the regulations. Are there any specific concerns that your organization has around this particular issue?
Second, what is the relationship between fish harvesters in P.E.I. and the Conservation and Protection branch of the DFO?
Mr. MacPherson: I’d say the relationship, by and large, Senator Kutcher, is a strong one between Island harvesters and the Conservation and Protection branch. One of the cornerstones is that harvesters are always looking for a level playing field, and that, if there are infractions, they’re treated seriously and are actual deterrents.
I’ll share something: I don’t know if other fishing organizations do this, but we have written impact statements in numerous cases on how a potential stock can be negatively impacted if there has been some illegal activity. That’s how seriously we take it.
In terms of non-compliance, that’s a little more complicated. The DFO is receiving more resources for that. The report — that our group received last week — indicated that they’re going to need a lot more forensic accountants in terms of checking into some of these arrangements and whether they are controlling agreements.
What we have seen in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland is a rapid escalation in the price of licences. We know of cases in small communities where someone doesn’t have significant financial means and then all of a sudden they’re borrowing $2 million or $3 million. How does that all work?
I know it’s a well-used phrase, but to “follow the money” is critical. As the DFO investigates some of these arrangements, they’re finding that they’re complicated. That goes back to a comment in our opening remarks. It’s a licence that’s owned and heavily regulated by the people of Canada. Why are we seeing such complicated financing arrangements?
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, Mr. MacPherson. In your opinion, does the Conservation and Protection branch of the DFO have the capacity to actually do the required monitoring that you were just discussing?
Mr. MacPherson: That question would probably be better asked to some of the DFO people who are involved in this. My understanding is that they’re seeking funds to expand that. They work with the Department of Justice in terms of trying to make sure that, if a case does come forward, it’s going to be one that can be prosecuted and dealt with.
There was the Elson case in Newfoundland where, I believe, the federal government won not only the original judgment, but also the appeal. In that particular case, it was proven that the licence was controlled by someone else other than the licence holder.
Other than a few other cases, it seems to be a slow process, but I think we all know that forensic accounting is a specialty, and that you have to get those people in place. But we’re hoping that we’ll see more situations resolved.
Senator Kutcher, there was one quick point I was going to make: Getting out of controlling agreements goes back a few ministers to former minister Gail Shea. When former Minister Shea said, “We have 7 years to get our agreements into compliance,” that was probably 10 or 12 years ago — maybe more. I guess that’s the question from industry: Do we have sufficient resources devoted to what appears to be pretty complex financing arrangements out there?
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that. To follow up on something else you said, I would ask you — through the chair — if we could get a copy of the report that you did on illegal harvesting. That’s not the first time this issue has come up in discussion with fish harvesters.
What’s your thought on the scope of the problem in P.E.I.? I know more about the stories I hear in Nova Scotia. How does that affect this issue of licences and the price for the catch at the wharf?
Mr. MacPherson: Maybe I will take that question, too, Ms. Aylward. I don’t mean to go on here, but, again, some of this is historical. Senator Kutcher, it appears that this particular issue is maybe a little more developed, or more prominent, in other jurisdictions; I would say Nova Scotia is probably one of them. But that doesn’t mean that everything is lily-white in P.E.I.
Because we are a small population, people generally know each other on the wharves, and know the families and things like that. I would say the majority of harvesters finance through several institutions on the Island. If there were concerns, I think people would be bringing those forward. There is a number that people can call to report anonymously if they feel that a situation isn’t upfront.
As I alluded to earlier, a problem can be created where, sometimes, a price might be paid — for a licence or a particular quota — that doesn’t make economic sense. How do the numbers work? I guess that’s part of it.
The other thing is that we want young people to be able to get into the industry. That is why it’s a concern. We all know that inflation is out there, and the cost of everything is going up, so it makes sense that the prices of fleets and licences are escalating. Having said that, it needs to be a long-term business case to make sense.
One other area that the DFO might be looking at a little more is this: What’s the business plan? Also, if there is a business plan and a significant amount of debt, what is the basis for the price of the main product? Is it based on a high price? Is it based on a medium price over the last 10 years? These are areas that we — as an association — are not involved with directly, but they all come into the mix.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you. I raised that issue because we are fortunate to have four grandkids on P.E.I., so we have a little place on the North Shore. When I walk along the beach, I often find traps — some have tags, and some don’t — so I was wondering about that.
That brings me to my last two questions. We’ve heard concerns about ghost gear, particularly lobster traps. Is there a difference between how corporate organizations and owner-operator organizations deal with the issue of ghost gear? Are there particular programs in place where corporate groups or owner-operator groups can participate as part of the necessity to clean up this ghost gear?
Ms. Aylward: I can speak to some of that. Thank you for the questions. Through the PEIFA — our organization — we have been, over the last year, heavily involved in ghost gear cleanup — through a sweep prior to the season in lobster fishing area, or LFA, 25, and then a ghost gear retrieval in the LFA 25 post-season. Hurricane Fiona did have a bit of an impact on that, I would say, but we were very successful in removing a large number of traps out of the water and, therefore, decreasing the amount of gear that continues to fish in the water. We are indefinitely involved, and we’re looking at plans for next year as well to engage in more activity around ghost gear cleanup.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. Is there a difference — that you know of — between owner-operator activities and corporate activities in cleaning up ghost gear?
Ms. Aylward: From an owner-operator perspective, I guess, there are many volunteers — this fall, we had about 45 volunteers who helped remove gear out of the water. Those are all owner-operators who live and fish in our coastal communities. Maybe Mr. MacPherson can speak from the corporate perspective?
Mr. MacPherson: There were several situations a few years ago where, I believe, Clearwater Seafoods was fined twice due to their offshore fleets leaving traps out after the fishing season. We haven’t seen a recurrence of that, I believe, in the last number of years. Things like that are a concern, but we don’t like to see any traps left in the water. I think, senator, it’s getting a renewed focus, and I think you’ll see more programs developed. The federal government’s offered up a number of programs to help with those costs because, obviously, there are operating costs when boats are out there pulling traps.
There is another thing we are trying to work on with the DFO, but there’s a bit of a snag that you may not be aware of: When ghost gear is spotted, basically, under most arrangements, only the DFO can go out and retrieve it — using the coordinates. We feel that there may be other options. The DFO waived that provision post-Hurricane Fiona — I believe that’s correct, Ms. Aylward? The DFO was on the wharf when the traps came in, and were able to document that.
As more groups get involved with this on a wider scale, and also from an enforcement standpoint, there may be a better way to get more gear out of the water without putting it all on the DFO. Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that.
The Chair: Senator Kutcher, did you ask Mr. MacPherson for a copy of the report?
Senator Kutcher: Yes, I was under the impression that he said they had done a negative-impact study on illegal fishing.
Mr. MacPherson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for clarifying that. I was going to get back to the senator on that topic. Senator Kutcher, on a number of occasions — let’s say there’s a charge pending — the enforcement officers have asked for an impact statement on that illegal activity. It’s not a report; it’s on an as-required basis. At the end of the day, our board at the PEIFA has supported this, and we provide it on a regular basis.
I will give you an example: If someone is charged with fishing lobsters that are too short, then we’ll generally provide a scientific impact statement on the negative impacts that could have on the resource. That’s used in the actual proceedings. Hopefully that clarifies things a little more.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much. My apologies; I was mistaken. Thanks for the clarification.
Senator Boniface: Good morning to both witnesses, and welcome to the committee.
My question follows up on Senator Ravalia’s and Senator Cordy’s questions around the new inshore regulations from April 2021.
The DFO created online infographic content to effectively communicate and summarize the regulatory changes. I’m curious whether you think the communication to fishers was effective. Was the campaign effective overall, and is it well understood?
Ms. Aylward: I will defer to Mr. MacPherson, as he was in this role at that particular time.
Mr. MacPherson: That’s a very good question, senator.
There were pros and cons, as I alluded to earlier. There were a lot of changes. The other thing that was disappointing — and a lot of time and effort went into it — was everything got pushed through in an omnibus bill. We were led to believe — I’m not saying this is what we were told, but the assumption was that it would be a stand-alone piece. You can say, “Well, that’s just part of an omnibus,” but it was a bit of a surprise. The fact that we didn’t have the regulations developed yet was a bit of a concern.
But, by and large, it was a real education on the process of how legislation moves through the House. We were part of it.
I will say, though, that there were some very tight timelines — that really put pressure on organizations. One thing that sometimes gets missed in the discourse with some of the government departments is that it’s not Ian MacPherson; Molly Aylward; or our president, Bobby Jenkins, who can make decisions on this; we have committees — like you do — that study either particular species or particular sectors. For instance, we have an ad hoc committee on whales.
That takes time. People are busy. Especially if it’s within the summer months, it is extremely hard to get people engaged, get them in and get enough people there to get a sense. Generally, our committees are structured to try to have representation from all over the Island.
I definitely recall that, near the end, some of the deadlines were very tight for us to gather the kind of feedback we would have liked to because there was such a suite of changes.
Senator Boniface: Mr. MacPherson, you indicated this in your comments: seafood designated as a strategic asset. Can you expand on that so I have a better understanding of it?
Mr. MacPherson: It will be a little more of a [Technical difficulties]. Our Canadian seafood is highly valued worldwide because of our processing safety — and all those types of things.
We see it as being all interconnected in that we need to ensure that it remains under Canadian control. If we don’t ensure there are enough checks and balances there, it could actually lead to a situation where someone has quotas. I understand Mr. Jim Pattison controls a number of licences out on the West Coast. He’s a good Canadian, but, at the end of the day, what happens if he wants to pass on those licences, and to whom does the control of the licences go?
So, much like the recent critical mineral designations on some of the minerals in Canada, I think we should have something similar for seafood. We’re very mindful that, as demand goes up, we’re not only maintaining our stocks, but also ensuring that seafood remains strictly under Canadian control.
Senator Boniface: Thank you.
Senator Quinn: Thank you witnesses for being here this morning. This is continuing an interesting piece of committee work.
I would like to return to the point about coastal communities, and link some of the things we talked about with previous witnesses and their discussion around the importance of coastal communities in terms of the fisheries, feeding the economy and the ongoing cultural presence there.
I’m trying to picture it in relation to P.E.I. — and we hear about good things in P.E.I., such as economic growth, increasing population and things of that nature. There was discussion around fear for the future, and getting young people to come into the business and pick up from their predecessors. But there are problems, as young people don’t seem to have an interest in the things we have previously heard about. We also heard about the prohibitive costs. You have referred to that as well.
What’s the situation in P.E.I.? Are the coastal communities experiencing the same — the perception I have is that P.E.I. is doing well. Are they doing well? Are they thriving communities? Do they have a younger worker base that is ready to step in? What are your feelings around those things?
Mr. MacPherson: Those are good questions, senator.
There have been some success stories. First of all, generally, licences are being bought up as they become available. We have a new entrant program that helps. It’s a three-year program that helps set our future captains up for success. It covers a number of things.
That cohort goes up and down, but there have been years where we have had 25 new people. That’s an encouraging sign.
If we look at the west end of the Island in the Tignish area, yes, maybe the plants aren’t being staffed like they were with local people, but I know at Royal Star, for example, the co-operative up there has done a great job in bringing foreign workers in. The goal is that they stay and live in the community, and that’s turned out to be a really positive model for them — not shuttling back and forth.
With COVID, I think a lot of rural Atlantic Canada and Quebec have seen a resurgence in people moving to rural areas, and we want to capitalize upon that.
We’re still a long way from having things fully automated, but I think we could see a day — for example, on some of the processing side — where, maybe, there are fewer people, but they are in highly skilled technical jobs to keep that specialized equipment going. We’re in a transitional period now.
But, as I said earlier, when you’re buying a fleet, you have to ensure it makes economic sense. Unfortunately, we’re challenged in New Brunswick to a large degree, too, in that we get iced in during the winter, and we have two seasons. We are very dependent on two or three species, and we have a limited amount of time to harvest those fish.
That’s a challenge, too, because the payments are the payments, and they need to be made. We’re really hoping there is more understanding in terms of having licences that are valued appropriately and set people up for long-term success.
Senator Quinn: Would it be fair to say, in summary, that if you had to grade the coastal communities to Prince Edward Island — are they strong? Are they doing okay? Or are there economic concerns with those coastal communities who depend on the fishery?
Mr. MacPherson: I think the biggest thing — Ms. Aylward, you may have more current information on this — is that pre-COVID we were seeing a significant slide to a lot of the rural communities. That has been either slowed significantly, stopped or, in some communities, reversed, which is a really positive sign. It doesn’t mean that everyone coming in there will be involved with the fishery, but it keeps the schools open and the hardware stores and supply stores going.
Ms. Aylward, you might have more current information on that, but I think that’s been the trend post-COVID.
Ms. Aylward: In terms of immigration, you mean?
Mr. MacPherson: Yes, immigration and stabilizing the population. For example, eastern P.E.I. was declining rapidly prior to COVID, and I think a lot of that has been stemmed.
Ms. Aylward: I would agree that things have stabilized since COVID.
I want to echo what Mr. MacPherson mentioned, namely that coastal communities are the lifeblood of the province here in P.E.I.; they’re crucial — not just to our sector in fisheries, but even for tourism. People come here to experience our culture, and that is definitely part of our culture.
It’s important to ensure that people who want to get into the industry — the new entrants — have an opportunity to do that. As Mr. MacPherson has said, we do have some supports through a new entrants program, as well as supports through the provincial government in terms of financing. Those are key. For fishing fleets that succeed from one member of the family to the next, it’s important that they have an opportunity to access capital to be able to do what they love to do.
Senator Quinn: I want to return to the enforcement question. Previous witnesses have talked about their concern of not enough on-water, on-dock presence of enforcement — and maybe, I would say, a stronger concentration of resources in regional offices, or in the headquarters in Ottawa, but not enough resources out in the field.
You mentioned that enforcement could be stronger. To pursue that — in the case of P.E.I. — is there a regular presence, an adequate presence, on the dock, on the water, to enforce the policies and regulations that are being discussed here in this committee? I know it could be stronger, but I’m looking for more clarity. Could it be stronger — or is it better to say that it’s inadequate, and this is why it’s inadequate, and this is where it needs to be strengthened? Are there specific areas we could learn from?
Mr. MacPherson: Some historical information might be helpful here, senator. We have advocated — for many years — to have more resources on Prince Edward Island. We understand that in some of the larger provinces, like New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, you can’t just do a population-based formula that this many harvesters equals this many DFO personnel. For example, in New Brunswick, we know that the recreational fishery is quite a large part of the overall fishery, so there will be resources devoted to that fishery.
That being said, for a number of years, we have been advocating for more resources on the water on Prince Edward Island. The DFO replied a few years ago that they were devoting more resources to undercover operations. We’re trying to beef up that side of the business.
Perhaps your committee can see if that is, in fact, the case over the last 5 to 10 years in terms of whether there is the focus and enough people on the water to regulate the industry like it needs to be regulated.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a follow-up to some earlier discussion: I live in a small fishing community in Newfoundland and Labrador. Every chance I get to go home, I go down to the wharf and talk to the lads. Many tell me they are inundated with paperwork, and that they’re concerned about the costs of operating. One fisherman said to me, “I’d rather be out on the water fishing than at the kitchen table filling out papers for the DFO.”
In July 2019, in the Canada Gazette, the DFO noted in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that education and outreach will be required to ensure that licence holders understand how to craft agreements and arrangements, such as supply agreements and vessel charters — which you talked about earlier — in the manner that allows them to retain the rights and privileges of the licence.
To your knowledge, has the DFO undertaken the work since the regulatory changes were implemented in April 2021? Where does that stand with regard to what they said they were going to do versus what is actually happening on the ground?
Mr. MacPherson: Mr. Chair, it would be interesting to know the working definition of “outreach,” and what that encompasses.
We had an interesting conversation last week with some senior DFO people in terms of the degree to which a licence should be brought into compliance, and how active the DFO should be involved with that.
When people are getting their licence, there is a declaration whereby the fisher confirms that they are in compliance. Once an investigation commences, it’s my understanding that, certainly, more things are revealed.
In terms of outreach, a lot has been put on the various associations. Not only do we issue trap and net tags, but we also do licensing for a lot of our members that maybe aren’t as computer proficient as others; we’re doing a lot more in terms of contract work; a lot of the science has been downloaded to the local organizations. In terms of the people you talk to, it is correct that there is still a lot of bureaucracy involved.
In 2024, electronic logs are supposed to be coming in. That has been delayed for a few years, which may reduce some of the paperwork on the boat, record-keeping and things like that. There are concerns around data because it’s vital data that will be electronically stored. We need to make sure that’s protected as much as it can be — because we’re talking about people’s livelihoods. That would be very valuable data to a lot of people.
Ms. Aylward, I can’t think of a time when there has been specific outreach to individual members in order to help with any of these things that have come down the pipe in the last five or six years.
Ms. Aylward: Certainly, since I have been with the organization, I can’t think of any opportunity where they had provided that outreach either, to be honest.
The Chair: I want to thank our witnesses for their time this morning, and thank the senators. You have contributed greatly to our discussions.
It’s a touchy issue in a lot of corners of the country — and certainly trying to deal with it, as Mr. MacPherson touched upon earlier, in relation to former Minister Shea. I was in the House of Commons in 2007, under former Minister Hearn at the time, when discussions were ongoing about the seven-year span. That was more than 15 years ago. Maybe it’s one for two; one year equals two years. Maybe we’ll get something next year. Who knows?
On behalf of the committee, thank you for taking the time to join us this morning, and assist us with our work. Your contribution is greatly appreciated.
(The committee adjourned.)