THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 14, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 6:33 p.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 evening. My name is Fabian Manning. I am a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the pleasure of chairing this committee.
Today, we are conducting a 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 or the clerk and we will work to resolve your issue. I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Kutcher: Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
Senator Ataullahjan: Selma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran from Manitoba.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson from British Columbia.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
The Chair: I want to thank Senator Kutcher for filling in for me on Friday on the committee as we requested our funding to travel to Newfoundland and Labrador in late April to continue with our study on the seal industry. I haven’t heard results of the meeting. I hope he did very well. If not, we may have to deal with that afterwards. But for now, all is good.
I would like to wish anybody that is interested happy Valentine’s Day seeing that we are here on this special day.
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 representative from the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW-Unifor), Jason Spingle, Secretary-Treasurer. Great to see you. On behalf of members of committee, I thank you for joining us today. I know you’re having a bit of winter weather back in St. John’s, from what I heard from my daughter a couple of minutes ago. I understand you have opening remarks. I will give you the floor and then we’ll have questions from our senators. The floor is yours, Mr. Spingle.
Jason Spingle, Secretary-Treasurer, FFAW-Unifor: Honourable senators, thank you very much and happy Valentine’s Day. I’m on the west coast of Newfoundland this evening where my residence is. It looks like I did escape the big storm of Valentine’s Day on the Avalon.
On behalf of our over 14,000 members from Newfoundland and Labrador, thank you for the opportunity to address the honourable Senate committee at today’s meeting.
The Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union represents every inshore fish harvester in our province, encompassing approximately 3,000 owner-operator enterprises and their over 7,000 crew members. Our scope of membership also includes thousands of workers in fish processing plants, marine transportation, metal fabrication, hospitality and more sectors across the province.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the value of the inshore fishery cannot be understated. It is our oldest industry, closely connected to our culture and continues to give economic stability and opportunity to our coastal and rural communities. Throughout our rich history, hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have devoted their lives and livelihoods to the ocean around us, and this dedication continues to be the backbone of the province — supporting a $1-billion industry each year that continues to grow and present new opportunities.
The inshore fishery is also an integral component of provincial tourism and one of the key reasons people are drawn from all over the world to visit our province.
Today, our collective success depends on keeping the value of this industry in their capable hands. Not just for Newfoundland and Labrador, but for Canada. The federal government has made progress to strengthen the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. It’s been acknowledged time and time again that preserving our foundation of an owner-operator fishery is crucial to the economic sustainability of coastal communities. Yet, year after year, we have witnessed the shifting control of the processing sector and our members have continued to raise concerns about the corporatization of the fishery, particularly those owned by other countries. Increasing corporate control has had clear negative repercussions. It has depressed wharf competition, stifled the ability of harvesters to seek new buyers and forced labour relations into a binding arbitration system that is tilted in favour of processors due to the lack of transparency and, I would say, competition.
The negative impacts are only worsened when corporate control is in the hands of foreign entities. In 2020, the provincial minister — who holds the ultimate authority over processing licences in Newfoundland and Labrador — approved the addition of five sites to Royal Greenland’s existing nine locations in Eastern Canada. This brings their total presence to 14 sites in the region, 12 of which are in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have experienced the negative impact of this transfer first-hand. A foreign-owned crown corporation has become the largest processing company in Newfoundland and Labrador through several acquisitions. Royal Greenland is owned by the Government of Greenland and, as a constituent country of Denmark, is able to access unprecedented capital to further expand into any market.
One of the critical unanswered questions that FFAW intends to impress upon honourable members today is: What does a larger footprint for fewer corporations mean for domestic enterprises, workers and communities?
In just five years, Royal Greenland went from having no presence in the province to becoming its largest fish processor. The success of Royal Greenland depends upon vertical integration between the fishing fleets and the processing side of the seafood industry. Royal Greenland secures conditions to control all aspects of the fishery, including ensuring subsidiaries have privileged access to quotas or landings, despite such practices not being permitted in the inshore fishery. To circumvent Canadian federal regulations, Royal Greenland has created its own form of vertical integration through the acquisition of contracts that place them illegally in control of harvester licences.
Enshrining owner-operator policy into law in 2021 was celebrated across the industry as it set out to protect the value of fisheries by ensuring that they remain in local communities. However, as a regulatory body, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, has proven to be unequipped to enforce this policy. DFO has yet to move forward with any penalty for the over 30 files they have investigated since policy became enshrined in 2021. Instead, the reaction has been to gently guide corporations back into compliance. Much to the significant disappointment of independent harvesters across Canada, owner‑operator policy has proven to be nothing more than a workshopping exercise for DFO without any deterrent or consequence for violation.
Last year in 2022, the inshore shrimp fishery was locked out because Royal Greenland refused to pay a fair price to Newfoundland and Labrador shrimp harvesters, telling them to steam or travel their vessels and product over to Quebec if they wanted a better price. Meanwhile, Royal Greenland paid more for a less valuable, twice frozen product from the factory freezer trawlers to process in the same Newfoundland plant. This is the type of abhorrent behaviour working Canadians are now faced with as they continue to make their living in this industry. This is the level of respect Royal Greenland gives to fish harvesters and plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Therefore, honourable members, we need to ask ourselves as Canadians — as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for sure — will the future of our fishery be vibrant and sustainable? Will it continue to contribute to the rich fabric of our culture and our economy? Will it be composed, like it is today, of thousands of owner-operator enterprises and crew of coastal communities that land and process their catch where the value of the fishery is spread among those adjacent to the resource? Or will it be controlled by a small handful who process it offshore or internationally with hoards of wealth going out of our communities, our province and our country? What would be left of our province as we know it?
It is incumbent upon every member here and all Canadians who value our oceans to protect this public resource and ensure it is the people of Canada who enjoy the economic and societal benefits that come from our waters.
In concluding, I appreciate the attention given to the gravity of this issue by committee members, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Spingle. You are certainly not mincing any words with your concerns.
We will now go to Senator Busson, the deputy chair of our committee, for the first question.
Senator Busson: Thank you, Mr. Spingle, for being here in the midst of the weather you’re dealing with there and the time of evening that we’re forcing you to come and speak with us. We value your opinion.
My question is about the fleet separation policies of DFO. You mentioned that you are concerned about the way these policies are being implemented. These policies are an attempt to prohibit processing companies and foreign entities from procuring fishing licences and establishing this vertical integration of the inshore fishery. Could you discuss whether or not you think there is any efficiency to the policies that are being put in place? If not, what other measures would you like to see the federal government adopt to guarantee that fishing licences are exclusively granted to inshore fisheries and protect the fishing culture and resource of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. Spingle: Thank you very much for your question. Certainly, the government has now enshrined the policy, as I mentioned in my opening statement. We have asked DFO ourselves about follow-up. We have very strong indications that the department is much informed that there are agreements between companies and individuals. One of the rumours — for lack of a better term — or reports we have heard is that they are actually giving individuals, including the companies, an opportunity to make it right. Now, to me, if someone has financial irregularities, for example, whether that’s personal or in business, organizations like the Canada Revenue Agency — as I understand it — can quickly look at the trail of finances, right? It’s very basic investigation properties here.
With all of these enterprises, like with snow crab, which is a major species — the report I heard is that it is being purchased not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but in Atlantic Canada for up to $50 a pound. If you have a quota of even 10,000 pounds, you can see the math on that, right? We are talking about large amounts of money here. It would seem to me that if you have many of these enterprises being basically funded by corporations — I know we mentioned Royal Greenland, but there are others — people within the federal department or at other agencies that work with them would be able to track that down.
Based on the feedback we have from the department, there doesn’t seem to be a push to get to the bottom of what is going on in a lot of these transactions. The phrase “We’re giving them the opportunity to rectify if they may be in a controlling agreement” is not good enough from our perspective. This has been out for over a decade now where the government — and DFO as their primary agency — are running the fishery, and has stated that they’re going to be cracking down on this. It was formally implemented last year.
What I see that we need is a task force of people that have the expertise to do these investigations. People like that would know the background better than me, they could quickly look into this and get the details on this. If people are in violation, they have to face the consequences for it because everyone well knew what was involved.
What I would say to sum it up — sorry for being a bit long‑winded — is follow the money. None of these things are handed over for free. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in many cases. I may be missing something, but someone should be able to find a paper trail in those aspects.
Senator Busson: Just to sum up. It seems to me that you’re saying it’s not the policies that are at issue, it’s the oversight and enforcement of policies that raised the most concern with you?
Mr. Spingle: Yes, I think the policies are very clear. If you’re a processor of fish, you’re not allowed to own or have any influence on a fishing licence or enterprise. You offer money for the fish, you buy it and it’s the end of the story. Like I say, there are reports all over that say there is money being handed out to individuals to buy enterprises or control enterprises, and then where the fish go, when they fish and all these aspects.
The policy is pretty clear. Fleet separation and owner-operator. However, the enforcement doesn’t seem to be as clear as the policy.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, Mr. Spingle, for being here with us. I would just like to note for the record that I’m asking questions on my behalf and on behalf of Senator Ravalia who can’t be with us today. He has anointed me an honorary Newfoundlander for two hours — not a second more, he said.
Thank you for raising those concerns with us. The issues that you mentioned about Royal Greenland — have you raised those concerns with DFO or other authorities?
Mr. Spingle: We have raised those concerns. I’m new to this leadership position, just a few months in, but I know we’ve raised those concerns. We have a foreign company here that has basically established themselves in Atlantic Canada overall. They’re growing more and more every day. I have seen their mission statement, which is basically to grow their influence or their presence in the North Atlantic fisheries, right?
I went to a conference in Iceland in 2018 and talked to a representative from Greenland. Royal Greenland — I guess they were named there, but they went in there, paid higher prices and gave bonuses and such things that the other small independent companies couldn’t afford. Basically, within a couple of years, they had really put the squeeze on the small companies. They own most of what is in Greenland right now. That was coming right from the representative there, the gentleman from Nuuk. I apologize that I can’t quite remember his name now, but I could send that to you folks.
In any case, these are the types of things we’re seeing here where Royal Greenland is involved. They are paying more than other companies that have been established, more than the local or regionally based companies. I know for sure they pay more for products like halibut and shrimp as well. There were some cases a couple of years ago and recently, too. They certainly partnered with some larger companies here in Newfoundland and Labrador as well.
I mentioned communities in my opening statement. I’m from a small fishing community in the Labrador Straits. Those are the people I have represented. I know we have demographic issues and challenges. We can talk about tourism and things like the magical ads. I think Newfoundland and Labrador is noted for them, but I see them from Nova Scotia and P.E.I. I have talked to a lot of tourists, even before I worked with the union, and that’s why the tourists come to these places.
In summary, that is the fear for us, and we can see it. People are often enticed by short-term gain. It’s difficult to tell a harvester that, “Well, you shouldn’t go for a bit higher price because there are other concerns.” I think that’s the responsibility of the government and the leaders in the industry to protect that as best we can.
As to the previous comment by Senator Busson, the policies are very clear. They should protect that. Will we look to do more work to enforce these policies? That will be the question: Where do we go next?
Finally, I think we’re going to see changes. Sorry for belabouring. We’re going to see changes that we can’t help because of demographics, but that doesn’t mean we have to lose all of our coastal communities and our rural heritage. That’s what I would say. And that doesn’t just include Newfoundland and Labrador, that includes Atlantic Canada and Quebec as well.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that. We appreciate it. We are very interested in the concerns that you have shared with us, and they are very important.
I’m trying to understand what has happened. When your association raised these issues with DFO, how have they responded? What has been the outcome? Have they done anything that you see that shows they are taking your concerns seriously? What has been the action, if any?
Mr. Spingle: Again, I apologize. I’ll try to focus in here, and thanks for repeating the question for me. We really haven’t seen any action at all from DFO. Like I said earlier, it’s been kind of passing the buck. “The policy was just enshrined. We’re working on this. We’re trying to do our investigations.” Then there are issues with the amount of personnel available. “These matters are complicated,” and all these things. We seem to be getting more excuses a lot of time than we do action or concrete steps that are outlined to deal with this. We don’t really see things changing, quite frankly.
If something doesn’t change, I don’t see this as a gradual thing. I think this will compound itself. Not to get off topic, but there are some other policies — fish harvester policies — that are related now that could really compound this significantly in the next couple of months, depending on how they go. Honestly, we’re really not seeing any concrete steps where things are being addressed.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. There have been other concerns raised around non-compliance, not just around Royal Greenland but other aspects of non-compliance. Do you have any suggestions for us about how DFO could better address these particular issues? What kinds of things would they need to do? What would make you feel comfortable that you would see as them actually addressing these issues? If you’re giving advice, what kind of advice would you give on what they could do?
Mr. Spingle: Well, I would say this, without trying to sound self-serving in any way. Our organization is recognized within the province, certainly within the country, as the formal representative for inshore harvesters in the province. But we’re a democratic organization. I’m on here tonight. Our president, Greg Pretty, might be on in a couple of weeks’ time, or we might be on the open-lines or on television.
We just finished a meeting a couple of weeks ago with over 30 of our elected representatives, who comprise what is called the Inshore Council. That would be very similar to any elected body. Senator Manning would be familiar with most of these individuals. They represent every single corner of the province, and every single fleet, including crew members. We meet in a very formal setting, usually over a two-day period, twice a year, and we debate these policies. We make formal motions. We’re finding that there is less and less attention being paid. We’re seeing that less and less credence is given to, for example, this elected leadership throughout the province.
Certainly, everyone within DFO in the province as well as in the provincial government knows about the Inshore Council. They follow the pulse of what’s going on overall. I would say we have debates as tough as you would ever have, at the end of the day. We make motions. When they’re passed, it’s not me or our president speaking, it’s the council speaking.
We’re finding that there seems to be less and less attention paid to the Inshore Council and other elected committees. There seems to be more attention paid to individuals sometimes, and lots of times, they have different views than we have. They are speaking very often for themselves or for smaller groups who aren’t elected.
As I said, anyone has the opportunity to put themselves forward, but those are some of our concerns. I certainly see those concerns, and I think a lot of our members would agree that our council in particular hasn’t been given enough credibility for the work that they do.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much.
Senator McPhedran: I know that this committee has heard testimony from a number of representatives describing the impact on communities caused by the controlling or the de facto controlling agreements.
We are hearing from you tonight, but I want to make sure that I haven’t read into your comments. We know that these controlling agreements have been not only discouraged formally, but they are completely against policy. That’s been the case now since 1979. That is the information we were given.
We’ve heard from previous witnesses who say that the Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s oversight, if it exists, does not appear to be very effective.
We were also told very recently, I think it was April of 2021, that there were regulatory changes and those changes were supposed to be geared to responding to exactly the kinds of concerns that you have raised tonight. Am I correct in understanding from your testimony that those changes appear to have made no difference, certainly no positive difference?
Mr. Spingle: Again, I would say the answer to your question is: There is nothing that we can see that has given us any indication that there has been any positive changes made to enforcing those policies.
I really appreciate your point, senator. This was implemented in 1979. I mean political stripes aside, the Honourable Roméo LeBlanc implemented these and was well praised for that throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec for protecting enterprises and, most importantly, coastal communities.
I say “rural” but some of them are larger than that. Twillingate and Bonavista are rural, but still 2,000-plus people live in those communities. They are vibrant communities as well in the context — dynamic, you know, especially in recent years.
No, we have not seen anything effective.
I have been thinking about this, and you asked. I would say what we really need is a committee or a task force. I think someone needs to understand fisheries, but someone needs to understand investigation and finance as well.
If we have the rules implemented, and we all believe in them — you cannot find anyone out there who says, or very few people, “Yes, we don’t want those policies.” There are some who say let’s get rid of all the rural communities. I have to have the discussion with our own members sometimes.
Right now in Conception Bay, that is where our vice president Tony Doyle lives, he has a 40-foot boat and fishes snow crab, cod and lobster, and his son fishes with him. There are 100 such enterprises in Conception Bay. They support the communities like Bay de Verde. There are not many places that I have not been in the province. I got there. That would be one that I would go and visit to see a historic and current fishing community.
In any case, we’re having these conversations now. You only need a couple of longliners, and they could come from anywhere. Just look at the Alaskan crab fishery. I do not mean to be exaggerative, but some would say that is the kind of boat that you would want to fish snow crab with, no matter how far you’re fishing from shore. Refrigerated sea water and all this. These boats haul their pots, and within three hours they are back ashore again. The crab are, with a bit of ice on them, almost like they came out of the water.
My fear is these are the types of things that some people have a view of, and they are doing it through having more control, being able to buy enterprises for other people and fronting the money. This is where they want things to go. They want more consolidation, fewer vessels. They want to basically own the fish in the water at some point, and tell people when and where they want to go catch it.
That is a model. There is no doubt about it. But I don’t think that it is one that any of us here believe in, to any stretch of the imagination. There is no need to let it even be able to precipitate itself, in my view.
I think we need to send — as a government, as a country and as a people — a message that we value our coastal communities and we’re going to protect them.
I talked about it. I don’t hear anyone phoning me saying that they can’t sell their enterprise. But I get lots of young people saying they can’t afford to buy the enterprise.
I know we cannot set the market per se, but a young person who has to go to a formal lending institution is not going to compete with an international company that is funded, potentially, by a country, or by other significant entities.
This is what we are facing now, and we will have to make a decision.
Senator McPhedran: Mr. Spingle, you have just painted a picture of the future for us that is going to turn independent, proud individuals in communities into servants and serfs — in the scenario that you have given us tonight — of an international corporation.
I wonder whether one of the issues here that we, as a committee, need to grapple with is the difference between a policy and a law, and whether the lack of enforcement that we are hearing from pretty much everyone coming from Fisheries and Oceans may have to do with the fact that these are policies, and that the regulations are not easy to access and apparently are not being used in the optimal way they could be for some kind of enforcement.
My question to you also picks up on the point you have made repeatedly about this being an international corporation. Part of the lack of enforcement, is this due to partly it being a policy, not a law? Is this partly due to international corporations like this being really beyond the reach of a national institution like Fisheries and Oceans? Is this what you are seeing unfold?
Mr. Spingle: It is certainly what we are starting to see unfold. I’m no expert in law, let alone international law, but I really appreciate your comment. Maybe that’s the issue, maybe this is bigger. I have thought about that before. I think that there are good people. Most people that I know in DFO are good people, but I do not know if they have the expertise to deal with this. Especially if it is a policy, and not a law.
Sorry for belabouring the points to a degree. I really feel privileged to have this opportunity. It is almost 25 years I have represented coastal fishing communities and the people within them, including our members, harvesters and processing workers. The communities are what is most important. I have said that. Our members agree.
Do we have a vision of how we want things to be? I don’t think we do. I’m not pointing fingers or elbows at everyone. We’re saying we cannot get young people into the fishery. This is not a new question, but what are we really doing to say that this is what we want? Is this what we want Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland and Labrador to look like going into the future?
I do not think that is a fairytale question. And this is what it could look like. This is what some people want it to look like. We are in a battle now over redfish to try to save a shrimp fleet in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and New Brunswick in particular. We have people saying, “Oh, no, it is too bad, that is the way it is. We want to bring a factory freezer into this small to medium-sized pond of the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, take that fish and send it overseas” when we’re going to wipe out a fleet that lives in Rivière-au-Renard, Shippagan, Anchor Point, Port au Choix — I do not know if you know these communities — or Matane.
This has become critical. It is all tied together now. We have formed a coalition. We were probably more adversarial 20 years ago, whereas now we see that we have to come together to try to secure a future for our harvesters and their communities.
I think we’re on the cusp. I think the problem is that it has probably been happening relatively gradually over the past 30 years. Depending on the decisions we make, and the leadership we take — I say that collectively — it is either going to level off or fall right off the cliff, and it will be too late then.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for the thorough answers that you are giving us and for the greater understanding that I think we have about what is at risk here.
Mr. Spingle: Thank you.
The Chair: I want to echo the comments of Mr. Spingle earlier when he mentioned Tony Doyle from Bay de Verde. I had many meetings over the years in the harbour authority office on the hill in Bay de Verde. What a beautiful community to visit. They are great people to deal with, including Mr. Doyle. I had a great experience with them.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, Mr. Spingle. I really appreciate you being here tonight. I appreciate you naming some of the communities around Newfoundland and Labrador. I can share with you that I have been to most of the fishing communities in Newfoundland when I sailed on a small oil tanker supplying various plants. Those plants, as you know, have diminished greatly.
I am looking for clarification. Royal Greenland, as an example, when they acquire a processing facility, who approves that? Is it the federal government or the provincial government?
Mr. Spingle: The provincial government approves that, yes.
Senator Quinn: My question is twofold here because we are in a bit of a quandary in that the policy that DFO created — which seems, from other witnesses, vastly underresourced to be able to enforce — is one part of the problem. But the other part of the problem is the provincial government is allowing the development of the situation with respect to offshore companies acquiring resources. It is a double-edged sword.
What is really sad to see is that it appears the provincial government is not taking a long-term strategic view because they are watching the coastal communities, the processing plants, the jobs, you name it. There is a consolidation of fleets, and fewer people on the water, which feeds into killing communities.
I do not understand why the provincial government does not take a stronger position in not allowing offshore companies to threaten the very existence of the few communities that are left here on coastal Newfoundland.
I do not know if you have any thoughts on that. I throw that out there for you to comment on.
Mr. Spingle: I try to be fair, I guess. We all have challenges to deal with from the day-to-day. We have issues with it.
I am certainly getting outside of my area of expertise now, but the premier has been trying to find a doctor for an emergency room the last few months in a lot of these communities because there hasn’t been any available.
Then we have the demographic issue. I look at it now. I will just put this on the table, and this is going to be a reality: I think we’re in for, potentially, an unprecedented situation with the biggest snow crab fishery in the world. That would include Newfoundland and Labrador, which has the biggest quota in the world — now, I’m not sure about Russia, but certainly in North America. In New Brunswick, the area adjacent to Shippagan is not that far behind us.
Twenty-five years ago when I started with the union, we had three to four times the world’s capacity to process all the snow crab that was being landed. Alaska had a lot more quotas then. The average age was somewhere around 40 in our plants.
I can tell you right now that, without an extension of the season this year — without some scheduling that we have not had — we don’t have the capacity to process the snow crab. I think Atlantic Canada is suffering some of the same issues, whether it is P.E.I. or —
People say to me, “Bring in some outside buyers to buy our snow crab.” Well, the question is who is going to process it because they have the same challenges in New Brunswick, Quebec and other places as well.
Again, I do not want to point any elbows, but it has really been a matter of seeing the iceberg coming, but it is not to us yet and we have just kind of steered this way or that way a little bit without really coming into a strategic plan for things. I think it is upon us now. Really, it is. We’re having a conversation about it as an industry, but this is the first opportunity I have had to talk to people like yourselves who have some influence. You know what I mean?
Getting the Minister of Fisheries and all of the people around the table to have that conversation to not only talk about conservation and fish quotas, but to talk in detail about what type of a fishery we see in 10, 15 and 20 years — that is, a strategic plan or a vision. I do not think that that is just in Newfoundland and Labrador. In all fairness, I do not think that that has been discussed in enough detail anywhere.
I hear the premiers talking about health care, oil and gas and energy. But a billion-dollar fishery in Newfoundland, just as much in Nova Scotia — in every Atlantic province and Quebec, the fishery is so critical to anywhere around the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Then the tourism is tied to that.
Maybe I will criticize myself for not suggesting it, but that discussion needs to be had — and soon — because the bigger implications are there for us.
Senator Quinn: I am wondering if you would agree that a split jurisdiction is not helping the situation. In other words, the province with the acquisition of fish plants, and the federal government having policies but not having the people assigned to the file to actually do the enforcement on the dock and on the water, that surely cannot be helping. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Spingle: Yes. Certainly, it is leaving something to be desired there, overall. Whether there’s something that can be examined — again, if you had a committee of experts, I would say to look into owner-operators and corporatization, and enforcing the rules. That probably should involve someone from a provincial standpoint as well given that all of the processing is controlled by the provinces. Maybe the answers are there and we really have not found them yet. The thing is what do we want there?
Senator Quinn: Right. Where I was going with previous witnesses on different topics, at one point there was discussion in my province, New Brunswick, where there is an enforcement issue in a different fishery.
There was discussion about why or how the Province of New Brunswick should take on a larger role. In other words, have a delegated responsibility from the federal government to carry out a function that directly affects their economy, and they have not been able to resource it federally to look after that aspect of their economy.
I am wondering if that is something that we should be, as a committee, observing in whatever report we come up with in terms of the split jurisdiction. I am a firm believer that the people who are affected most have the most interest in ensuring that that fishery is protected, particularly in their jurisdictional waters.
I am wondering if that is something that you would recommend this committee talk about and consider more in terms of having the province play a bigger role.
Mr. Spingle: I certainly would recommend that 100%, senator, yes. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Spingle, I want to get back to something that you mentioned earlier, and I know I hear a fair bit where I live in Newfoundland and Labrador in regard to young people getting into the fishery and the cost.
Once a licence goes for sale, as you touched on, we have no idea sometimes where the money is coming from to purchase that licence. There is a process. I am not sure if all the senators are aware. In order for someone to own a licence, you have to reach what they call Level II. That’s a five-year process. You have to be involved in the fishery for five years and 75% of your income per year in order to move up the chain to Level II.
I am just going on memory from a conversation I had on the weekend with a young person.
Is that the case? Is it five years and 75% of your income over the five-year period in order to get to Level II in order to be able to hold a licence in your name?
Mr. Spingle: That is correct. That was something that was brought in formally in 1997, and it is administered through the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board. There are two things there. You have to have that fishing income — 75% — within the fishing season. But in most cases, they are very flexible with defining the fishing season. You can always appeal to the board or provide information. Basically, if you fish the crab or lobster season, then they will give you a credit for that.
The other point is that within two years of operation, you get Level I. I, or anyone off the street, could go out tomorrow, get an apprentice and go crewing with a professional fish harvester. They have to be with the professional fish harvester. But within two years, that person can be deemed Level I — two short years, I would say. Then they can operate any enterprise, whether there is a medical designation or a casual designation. Basically, they can be on their way then. But they cannot fully own the enterprise for three more years. It doesn’t have to be consecutive. I mean, you can do two years, go do something else for a year and then come back. The flexibility is there.
If I could be so bold as to make a recommendation to this committee — because I really appreciate that point, and I think it is misconstrued — Mark Dolomount is the executive director of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board, and he is more eloquent with this topic given that he lives it every day. To paraphrase Mr. Dolomount, he says that we have over 2,000 Level IIs — and I kind of mentioned it earlier — and most of them want to be able to get their own enterprise at some point. They are being hampered by something.
I don’t have any enterprise owners saying they can’t sell their enterprise, but I have hundreds of Level II professional fish harvesters who are saying the situation is such that they just can’t get access to the enterprises that are becoming available or they’re being outcompeted for them in whatever fashion.
The Chair: So if you were there for two years, you can operate, but you cannot own.
Mr. Spingle: That’s right. You can’t own.
The Chair: But you can operate.
Mr. Spingle: You can’t own, and I’m assuming that if someone was looking at being the next enterprise owner in Bay de Verde — since we’re mentioning it — this is what that person wants to see, I would hope. In Bay de Verde, they would want to see that someone is going to continue fishing out of Bay de Verde. Now, you’ll have some enterprises that move up or down the bay or whatever. But as I said earlier, I think our goal — and that’s talking about a vision — is to have this because that is a wonderful way to catch snow crab, cod, mackerel and other species. You need bigger boats to go further offshore, but in Conception Bay, for example, you do not need a large boat. I would say the economics are against that.
Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Dolomount would really give your committee great insight into professionalization. A lot of people are saying that it’s hampering people and the next generation. I don’t think that is what is hampering it. Like I said, Mr. Dolomount can certainly give you more of an insight than I can. I understand the basic rules, but he is really dealing with those individuals every day of his life in that capacity. He knows what sacrifices they make to get their professionalization. He knows their goals or aspirations to become the next generation of independent fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Canada.
The Chair: I appreciate that. We will certainly follow up on that suggestion. Thank you very much for it because, as you mentioned, there are a lot of people out there who may not know the ins and outs. The opportunities they have to move up the chain are not necessarily rigid. There is some flexibility there. Some people I have talked to are maybe not even aware of the flexibility that is there. I thank you for that.
As I say to myself, I sit here and have the privilege to be chair of the committee, but I have never fished in my life. However, I know how important it is to the community I live in and to the communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of my education has come from another member of your Inshore Council, Andy Careen, who I’m sure you are familiar. You may not necessarily agree with everything he says, but he has great knowledge and he doesn’t mind passing it on when the time is right.
I wish to thank you. It had been a pleasure to have you here to give us some insight into the concerns that are out there. It is a very important issue for us. We are hoping, through our work here, to be able to at least make some recommendations on behalf of the committee based on what we have heard. We have several other witnesses to come before us yet.
It is an ongoing concern, as you said, from back in the late nineties, so let’s try to find a way to get to where we need to be for the protection of not only the harvesters but the communities that depend upon those harvesters.
With that, Mr. Spingle, thank you for your time. We wish you well. Thank you, committee. The meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)