THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 20, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 8:31 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the independence of commercial inshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and the policies and legislative tools used by the Government of Canada to preserve it, such as the Owner‑Operator Policy.
[English]
Melissa Doyle, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, welcome. As clerk of the committee, it is my duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of the chair and deputy chair, and to preside over the election of an acting chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Are there any nominations?
Senator Cuzner: It would be my great honour to nominate Senator Ravalia for the interim position.
Ms. Doyle: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Cuzner that the Honourable Senator Ravalia do take the chair of the committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Doyle: I declare the motion carried. I now invite the Honourable Senator Ravalia to take the chair.
Senator Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Senator Cuzner. The cheque is in the mail.
Honourable senators, good morning. My name is Mohamed Ravalia. I’m a senator representing Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will resolve the issue.
Before we begin, I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Good morning. Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Good morning. Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki Territory.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia, sitting in for Senator Bev Busson.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
On November 18, 2025, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on the independence of commercial inshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and the policies and legislative tools used by the Government of Canada to preserve it, such as the owner‑operator policy. Today, under this mandate, the committee will be hearing from the following individuals: Melanie Sonnenberg, President of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters’ Federation; Ruth Inniss, Fisheries Advisor of the Maritime Fishermen’s Union; and Carl Allen, Vice President, Maritime Fishermen’s Union.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here. I understand that both organizations will provide opening remarks. Following the remarks, members of the committee will have questions for you.
Ms. Sonnenberg, you have the floor.
Melanie Sonnenberg, President, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters’ Federation: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to appear today. On behalf of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters’ Federation, this is a great opportunity for us to talk about this very important topic.
I’m here today on behalf of the thousands who form the backbone of Canada’s most enduring economic and cultural asset, the independent owner-operator fishery. This is more than just a business model; it is the socio-economic foundation of our coastal communities, from the small harbours of Newfoundland to the coastal villages of British Columbia.
The other important factor is that the fishery is Canada’s common public resource that is owned by the people of Canada. It must be protected for future generations.
Our message is simple: The health of this independent fleet is directly tied to the health and survival of our coastal towns and villages. If we lose the owner-operator, we lose the community. We are asking the Senate for your help to protect the framework to protect these essential Canadians and important coastal communities.
What defines an independent owner-operator? It is a harvester who owns their vessel, operates their enterprise with boots on the boat. This model, enshrined in policies like the Owner-Operator and the Fleet Separation policies were designed with a clear purpose, which is to keep the economic benefits of Canada’s public fishery resource in the hands of the people who live and are invested in their local coastal communities. When an independent harvester lands their catch, the revenue stays local. The profit is reinvested locally, supporting the local mechanic, the gear supplier, the grocery store and the community centre. This creates a vital economic multiplier effect.
The stewardship is paramount. These harvesters are multi‑generational stewards. Their success depends on the long‑term sustainability of the resource, making them our most reliable partners in conservation.
They’re a cultural anchor. The independent fleet is the living heart of our coastal heritage. Their presence ensures the continuity of a critical way of life for the next generation. In short, they represent accountability, sustainability and local prosperity.
The sad thing is that we have great erosion in owner-operators. This vital model is currently under threat. We’re witnessing a slow but steady erosion of independents. I really should not say slow; it’s quite rapid now.
That’s due to a number of factors. There are barriers to entry. The cost of entry into the fishery — vessels, licences — has become prohibitive, often locking out young aspiring harvesters. That creates a grey wave where the average age of the harvester continues to climb, with no clear path for succession.
The corporate concentration and the controlling agreements continue to grow. These agreements often provide financing by large corporate processors or buyers. They circumvent the spirit, if not the letter, of the owner-operator policy and the inshore regulations. They allow corporations to control licences, dictate where fish are sold and siphon off the economic value, essentially turning the independent harvester into an employee, much like exploitative sharecropping in past times.
The true economic value is being funnelled away from the harbour by bypassing the community entirely. When this happens, the fundamental purpose of our core policy is severely undermined, and the community stability those policies were designed to protect collapses.
We suggest three steps to strengthen the existing policies and regulations. We cannot afford to let these critical policies become paper tigers. We are urging this committee to consider three essential recommendations to strengthen the model.
We need a clear definition in the Fisheries Act. We must introduce a clear, legal and binding definition of the “independent owner-operator” entrenched in the Fisheries Act. This will eliminate all ambiguity and provide the necessary legal teeth to enforce the policies and regulations against complex corporate arrangements.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada must be empowered and mandated to conduct rigorous and regular audits of all corporate arrangements and ensure there are no back door controlling agreements, which ensures true independence. If a relationship undermines the owner-operator’s control over their enterprise and pricing, the policy must be enforced decisively and swiftly.
We must invest in succession planning. We must lower the barrier to entry for the next generation. We recommend creating a next-generation harvester program featuring low-interest loan guarantees to make licences accessible to young Canadians who commit to the owner-operator principle. This would be much like what farmers enjoy with Farm Credit Canada.
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, the choice before us is clear. Do we want our fishery to be dominated by a few large corporate entities, or do we want to support the diverse, resilient network of independent owner-operators who sustain our coastal way of life? Strengthening the owner-operator fleet is the single most effective way to guarantee sustainable harvests, ensure local economic vitality and preserve the unique culture of our coastlines for generations to come. We urge you to recommend concrete action to enforce and legislate true independence.
Thank you for your time to this critically important matter, and I welcome any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Inniss, you now have the floor.
Ruth Inniss, Fisheries Advisor, Maritime Fishermen’s Union: Thank you, chair and members.
On behalf of our organization, the Maritime Fishermen’s Union, or MFU, we thank you for the opportunity to present to you today as you study the independence of commercial, inshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec and the policies and legislative tools used by the Government of Canada to preserve it, such as the owner-operator policy.
The Maritime Fishermen’s Union is an organization that represents over 1,300 inshore owner-operator fishermen in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Since our inception in 1977, the MFUs mission has been to represent, promote and defend the interests of inshore fishermen and coastal communities in the Maritimes.
We ask you to imagine a Canadian landscape without a vibrant, economically viable coastal community based on an inshore fishery. Without the inshore fishery fuelling our coastal economies, this landscape will drastically change. We are all aware what communities look like with a failed economy; schools close, businesses close, residents are forced to relocate, many of those residents who have generations in the community. Our coastal communities become ghost towns. Is this the Canadian vision for the future?
For decades, inshore-fishing organizations have strived for an owner-operated fishery. Over the years, we have witnessed erosion of these important policies, as Ms. Sonnenberg has mentioned, and the inaction by our government to support the fishery through the legislative tools such as the Fisheries Act, owner-operator policies and fleet separation policies.
We have formed umbrella, like-minded organizations such as the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation, whose sole mandate is to protect and strengthen the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. Our colleague, Melanie Sonnenberg, is here today presenting on the importance of the owner-operated fishery and offering solutions we all support.
We have spent much time assessing, analyzing and subsequently lobbying governments to close loopholes in the policies and to enforce regulations. This work is time consuming and arduous, but we continue because our vision of Canada includes vibrant, inshore fisheries and economically healthy communities.
The federal government has an opportunity to save, protect and even help grow these economies. We have recently worked with the Coalition of Atlantic and Québec Fishing Organizations on an economic study that outlines the importance of our fisheries. We will leave this with you today and ensure you all have access to the study and its results.
It is incumbent on our federal government to utilize legislative tools to protect the inshore fishery and the communities that depend on it.
Below are the MFU solutions utilizing policies and legislative tools that our organization vehemently believes must be actioned.
Strengthening owner-operator protections: in 2018 the MFU supported all proposed changes to the Fisheries Act related to increasing protections to the owner-operator fisherman concept.
The central theme for independent inshore fishermen is ensuring the benefits of the fishery resource flow to the people who fish it, as Ms. Sonnenberg has already mentioned, not to large corporations or outside investors.
While the 2019 amendments to the Fisheries Act and subsequent regulations in 2020 put these policies into law, loopholes in the regulations and ineffective enforcement remain a problem. As such, controlling agreements or other creative, legal workarounds are still used by fish processors and outside interests to exert effective control over fishing licences and the proceeds from the catch, thereby undermining the independent operator.
The government must mandate stricter, more frequent and more proactive enforcement of the anti-controlling agreement provisions. This must include following the money to trace the ultimate beneficiary of the catch and increasing penalties — fines, licence suspensions, cancellations — for confirmed violations by non-harvesters who exert control.
Close the Indigenous commercial communal loophole. The Marshall decision and subsequent Indigenous fishing access transfers were never about bands leasing-out fishing licenses and quotas to non-native interests. It was about giving fishing access to band members so that they could pursue a livelihood in the fisheries, which we totally support.
Currently, bands can purchase and accumulate owner-operator licenses, convert them into communal licenses and then lease them out, bypassing owner-operator protections. It should be made mandatory through policy or regulations to have Indigenous participation in the prosecution of Indigenous communal commercial access.
Effective enforcement on the Fisheries Act: More effective penalties designed to dissuade would be offenders, and especially punitive for repeat offenders, are needed for conservation-related offences. As some resources and fisheries have become more lucrative, financial penalties have not followed increased income levels from these fisheries. A review of appropriate penalties in all fisheries is required.
Enhancing co-management and consultation: Fishermen often feel management decisions, particularly in crisis situations, are made for them and not with them. While the minister may consider social, economic and cultural factors, these considerations are discretionary and not mandatory. If the act is opened, it could be amended to make consideration of social, economic and cultural factors a mandatory requirement for the minister when making decisions related to the inshore, commercial fishery.
Ensure that the expertise and livelihoods of commercial fishermen are fully integrated into fisheries governance: The modernized Fisheries Act must mandate formal, structured and ongoing consultation processes with fishermen and their associations. This would require that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans systematically incorporate industry data, local ecological knowledge and socio-economic considerations into the development of all integrated fisheries management plans, regulatory changes and major policy decisions.
By embedding a requirement for meaningful engagement and transparent reporting on how industry input informs final decisions, the act can ensure that management strategies are not only scientifically sound but also practical, equitable and effective for those who depend on the resource for their livelihoods, thus ensuring the orderly management and long-term sustainability of the fishery.
Mandate the establishment of DFO-industry working groups or taskforces for major management decisions requiring direct and meaningful consultation with independent harvesters to leverage their local and technical knowledge. The right-whale crisis is precisely a situation where, if DFO and the minister had worked more closely with the industry from the get-go and considered its expertise in the management and technical aspects of fishing, better solutions for whale protection could have been developed and implemented.
While this doesn’t sound like I’m talking about the owner‑operator fleet separation policy, I am. It’s more encompassing, and everything that the federal government is doing for the fishing industry needs to be done with the inshore commercial fishing industry.
Review the act for redundancies and inefficiencies: Since the last revision of the Fisheries Act, it has become evident that DFO workload has expanded significantly, but without necessarily improving the results. For example, the additions to section 6 of the Fisheries Act, the part that mandates the minister to develop and implement fish stock rebuilding plans, leads to management redundancies and focuses rebuilding of fish stocks on fishing effort, when in many instances climate change and changing predation dynamics are the leading causes of fish-stock collapse and of their inability to recover. In some cases, fish stocks may never recover into historical healthy zone status according to the current, outdated precautionary-approach formula.
These sections could be repealed and resources redirected to enhance holistic ecosystem science and resource management through current advisory committee structures.
Finally, the precautionary approach should be modernized to account for habitat carrying-capacity changes related to climate change and other changing environmental factors.
These are our opening remarks, and we thank you for listening.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms. Inniss, for that very informative presentation. I will now open the floor to questions from senators, beginning with Senator Surette.
Senator Surette: Thank you. First, I’m looking forward to seeing the report that was released last night. I think that’s a good base to show all of us the socio-economic impacts of the independent harvester.
My first question has to do with the controlling agreements. It’s been a while since I’ve heard about controlling agreements. It seems like a number of years ago you’d hear a lot about it in the local communities. It seems like I hear less about that now, and it’s prohibited in the regulations. It seems like it’s still a big issue for you. I’m assuming it’s still happening on a regular basis.
As you mentioned, succession is difficult. For a young person to get into the business, it’s not easy to get access to capital. Some of the processors, then, are borrowing money to help them purchase a licence and a boat.
Is that the issue here? Are most of the controlling agreements for local processors that are still doing that type of thing?
Ms. Inniss: We’ll tag team to answer this question.
We know that a lot of it is the processors. It’s difficult. I think one of the things you mentioned in your question that is critically important is the access to capital, and the price of fishing gear and fishing licences for a young person to enter the fishery. “When you pay the company store, the company store owns you.” That makes it really difficult.
As processors and investors buy up licences, we’ve had guys come to us and say, “I worked diligently to get the funding, go to the bank, get everything in order with DFO for a transfer, only to be undermined by somebody who had just a bit more money and got in a bit faster.” And Fisheries and Oceans did the licence transfer for the second person who had just a bit more money. It was actually going to be a controlling agreement. That’s one example of what’s happening.
What you’re looking at today is the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans to help stop this or to work with us on this. Those sorts of transfers shouldn’t be happening. Back to what both of us had mentioned, it’s following the money.
Ms. Sonnenberg: Senator Surette, it’s a tangle. It’s not one thing that does this; it’s a series of things that are being allowed to happen without arresting them. Ms. Inniss just touched upon some.
What’s happening now is that the licence becomes available through retirement, and we start to see a bidding war. You see a family trying to get access to capital to support a son to also enter the fishery. Then we see a corporation of some variety — processor or buyer — behind, and they waltz into the picture with more money. When you’re retiring, what’s the end game? You want to make a comfortable retirement for yourself. Normally, most people don’t close their career out on principles and morals, because they can’t afford to, especially not in this day and age. So the highest bidder wins. Therefore, we see controlling agreements.
I think the reason you’re not hearing it is because the industry feels beat down. We worked very closely with government in 2017, 2018 and 2019 with Fisheries Act changes and new regulations. We had high hopes in 2019. We stood on the Hill and applauded the work that was done by the Senate to get it across the line, as well as the work the House committee did. Everybody was happy. We went home.
Here we are in 2025. Has there been one enforcement action as a result of those changes? The answer is clear: It is “no.” The problem is that there is a deep sense of discouragement and despair in the industry.
Senator Surette: When you mentioned regular audits by DFO in your opening remarks, that’s what you’re making reference to, and that’s not happening, clearly.
Ms. Sonnenberg: We are seeing a bit of that happening in the press now, but we need more and we need it faster. You can do the audits, but it’s what happens from the audits. Being this many years out from the regulation, we’re grateful to see the action that’s starting to happen, but it needs to be swift. Every day that something doesn’t happen is another day for somebody to do something different. People are working all the time on the loopholes to circumvent the policies and the regulations.
Senator Surette: Are there two pieces that have to be done in terms of recommendations — one is to strengthen the act itself, and the second is enforcement. Is that right?
Ms. Sonnenberg: Yes. Those are the two most important things.
The current language in the act says “the minister may do this” at section 2.5. That has to change. The “minister must” consider these factors: coastal communities, socio-economic considerations, owner-operators at the forefront of this narrative, et cetera. Those things are critical in the review.
Senator Surette: I have a last question on this if I could. Foreign ownership — does this play into this now, or is it because there’s foreign ownership of processors that translates down to what we’re talking about here and that drives the price up — as anything else?
Carl Allen, Vice President, Maritime Fishermen’s Union: That’s the next level of concern. I can remember 25 years ago when I first heard the term controlling agreement. At that time, we were talking about doctors, lawyers and dentists looking for an investment opportunity. Then it moved, whether it be a processor or a middleman buyer for procurement purposes. For them, it’s about guaranteed access to a resource.
It went from controlling agreements to financing agreements. Financing agreements looked like something out of a mob mentality, with no end. I didn’t realize we were doing 100-year loans on fishing enterprises.
Now, the concern is watching foreign interests move into the processing sector for reasons that — you hear a lot of doom and gloom about how our resources are managed, but, in reality, Canada has some of the most sustainable fisheries in the world and some of the highest standards through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency about how all that stuff is handled. It is really top-tier, world-class-quality product. As the populations grow, protein demands increase. It makes sense why the world wants that.
But now we wake up one day and we suddenly have foreign entities that have bought a processor or a buyer that has 25 or 30 controlling agreements. Are we going to wake up one day where the bulk of the industry is controlled or owned, in one form or another, by nobody within the country? The benefits of all that are all gone; it flows out of the country.
I’m a harvester, for those who don’t know. I’m an independent owner-operator based in eastern New Brunswick, and I fish in the central Northumberland Strait. For those who are familiar, we went through a downturn in the fishery after the building of the Confederation Bridge. At one point, we thought the fishery would never come back in the central strait, and it did. The first few years it came back — and we are all owner-operators there — it was so bad and we were so poor, nobody wanted to own us. They want to be in Southwest Nova where they’re really making the money.
I remember somebody came up to me, shook my hand and said, “You had a good season this year, right?” I told him that we did and that we were all excited. He said, “Good. When the fishermen do good in this community, the community does good.” For better or worse, fishermen aren’t that great at saving money. We’re good at turning dollars over. We watched it: new vehicles, additions on houses, new kitchens, new vessels — our vessels are rundown. All this spinoff is created because I can take 100% of my revenue after taxes and reinvest.
It’s bad enough if it’s going to Toronto, but if it’s going to go to Norway, Beijing or somewhere else, that’s a double death.
Ms. Inniss: I’d like to add something. Regarding your question about not hearing a lot about it, as I said in my opening remarks, we’ve been at this for decades. There’s been a demographic switch, and, as we know, with any demographic change, something that the old generation fought vehemently for becomes somebody else’s new normal. Do you know what I mean?
This can’t be the new normal, but in communities like Southwest Nova and so on, it has been so long and it’s so eroded that it’s not top of the discussions. Our phones ring — Mr. Allen is a leader; Ms. Sonnenberg and I are staff. We have our leadership and our members at us about this. Don’t let there be any doubt about that.
To Mr. Allen’s point, British Columbia does a lot of very good safety training. Their second language for their safety training is Vietnamese. I’ll just let that sink in.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you very much, chair, and you are doing an outstanding job in your interim role.
I recall I was in the House seven years ago when the law was passed, and I know that good work was done then. Little did I realize that after I left the House that it would go to hell. Your testimony today is important and relevant.
Nancy Wadden is behind me. Her family would have done business with my in-laws, the Hopkins, for generations. It was always a problem getting access to the banks. Fishing was a pretty modest living at one point, and it has certainly become more lucrative and more substantive.
At one time, if you needed an engine and you had to do some work on the boat, it was the bank of Hopkins that would carry that loan, but when the season would start up, the money would be repaid. If a young fellow wanted to get into the fishery when it was still reasonable to buy a licence, they could float the loan. And there was a gentleman’s agreement. You fished and they were the only guys buying out of the area, and you helped each other along.
I really thought after the owner-operator was included in the act, there seemed to be a sigh of relief throughout the community. It’s a long way to go around to ask the question, but are there one or two or three entities that are really benefiting from this, that are really pushing for this and trying to find the ways? Could you address that?
The banks seem more amenable to play in the fishery now than they were way back when. Is there something the government should be doing with the banks?
Ms. Inniss: I will make this quick. As far as the banks and so on, if a young, new entrant can get the funding through the bank — or in Nova Scotia, as I’m sure you know, we have the Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture Loan Board which can be quite helpful outside of banking. If licensing in DFO is going to defer to who gets there first and the other people can get there first, that’s a problem. I think that answers part of your question.
If the banks will loan Carl the money but Ruth is attached to a processor and can just go really fast, DFO — and they have the tools that we’re here talking about today — can follow the money or whatever it takes to utilize those tools can then keep Carl, who is the owner-operator, small-time, smaller-than-a-corporation fishermen from the community — and then we can have vibrant communities. It is connecting the dots. It is incumbent on the federal government and the Department of Fisheries to support the owner-operator, and that is one way to do it.
When the request for licence comes in, follow that money. Don’t just turn it over. And that’s happening. That answers part of your question. I’ll turn it over to my colleagues.
Mr. Allen: I will touch a bit on that. To your point about what governments can do in New Brunswick and with the MFU, we worked hard with UNI and the government where we did develop a program. It is a good beginning. I think some sort of fisheries loan board like Farm Credit Canada, a national thing, is a good idea where you would have reasonable rates.
Part of the problem that led to a lot of the provincial loan boards collapsing was the boards did get into a habit of letting fishermen slide, then you had a lot of bad debt and the government had to write it off. There has to be an honest relationship between new entrants and a loan board, or however you structure it. Okay, you are not borrowing $5,000 for an engine like we did 30 years ago. You have some responsibility. If you are investing in an enterprise, any sort of business, you have a certain amount of responsibility to ensure that you get there if we’re going to give you some reasonable rates. That’s a good step.
Let’s think about fisheries in terms of culture. We talk about how cultural fisheries are. There is a problem in the culture of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. If we want to have an honest conversation, there is a problem within the culture of the department. This is why post the new act being brought in and the drafting of the regs — and had it not been for Dominic LeBlanc at the time really telling the bureaucrats that it has to get done, there is a lot of senior officials within the department that will just as soon give the entire control of the fishery to four or five companies. I’m not going to name names. In reality, they can go in to this individual on the West Coast, these two individuals on the East Coast and say, “Look, we just signed an international agreement. We get to do this. How can you make it work? Make it work and we’ll let you do what you want.”
MFU represents 1,300 fishermen. We belong to the federation, and we have 30-plus organizations. There is another 30-odd organizations that don’t belong to us that represent 15,000, 20,000 quasi-independent fishermen across the country, and we’re a little prickly to deal with at times. We’re like herding cats, so to speak. It is hard to deal with.
That’s the problem. The department wants the path of least resistance. Whether that is the ultimate destination, is better or not, they don’t really care. They want the path of least resistance. If it ends up that the three companies are owned by three foreign countries, they don’t really care, as long as it fits within their model and they have hit their target. At the end of the day, it is like, as a country, we have lost so much economic development and it is no good if we all end up on welfare in the end. How can we get to the point where we can support ourselves?
Senator Cuzner: I will comment on that. Sometimes memories are short, and I recall being fisheries critic in 2008 or 2009. The government of the day was driving directly to where you are saying. In the fishery, it would have been a Bell, a Rogers and a Telus and then it would be three entities to deal with; much easier on their part.
Ms. Sonnenberg: When you talked about consolidation, I think this is something important for the committee to understand. The consolidation that is happening along our shorelines is absolutely dramatic and frightening.
The thresholds to come into Canada and buy in, if you are a state-owned enterprise, I think it is $400 million. If you are not, if you are just a private entity but you are foreign, it is $1.2 billion.
Now, in the fishery, you can go and buy a processing plant here, one there and one there, and pretty soon, you have a core hold on our coastline. This is happening now. It has happened. It is continuing to happen. The thresholds are ridiculous for the situation. The Competition Bureau Canada needs to be involved. They need to take a look at this, and the limits have to change because we’re going to have nothing left. I don’t want to come here and be gloom and doom, but there really isn’t much left to talk about.
We have seen actual countries come in with companies that they have and buy into the fishery, take our product from our public resource and move it to their country to process. This happens in British Columbia all the time. We see an outpouring of our product. We’re literally missing the boat, if I can use that expression.
There are a couple of things that have to happen, and the attention has to happen yesterday.
The other thing I draw your attention to in terms of the controlling agreements is the testimony at the House Committee by a gentleman named Jimmy Lee Foss. He lays out in very clear language what happened. I’m going to paraphrase, but he is on the record. He is a young harvester, he can’t get capital and he is going bankrupt. Suddenly, he is all fixed up with a $3.5-million enterprise.
I’m going to put phrases out there: predatory lending and loan‑sharking. Back in the PIIFCAF days — and perhaps some of you are old enough to remember that; I am. The “Hopkins bank” — we talked about it greatly, and I can remember DFO saying that it’s loan-sharking, and I was fighting them saying, “No, that’s the system we have.”
We have moved so far away from that. It is more than alarming. We don’t have that kind of — there are a few of those companies that are smaller and family operated. But that’s not what’s happening now; we are talking big players, big money, deep pockets and 99-year terms, at rates that are bordering on actual loan-sharking. We have to open our eyes to this. We have our eyes opened. This federation formed because, back in 2007, when Senator Cuzner was in the other place and this was happening, that’s when we really needed to arrest it, and it didn’t happen. So now we have a situation that I would call more than crisis.
We see in British Columbia — we use it as an example; we have membership there. There are diminishing of returns for the independents, the large corporations and things happening out there — we used to look out there and be frightened, but we don’t have time now to pay as much attention to our B.C. members because it is happening in our own backyards.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. It is the most New Brunswickers I have ever seen as witnesses at a Senate committee meeting. I love it. Thank you for being here.
I’m going to focus more on the positive side for the first little part. I know my colleague Senator Surette referenced the economic impact study that we got a glimpse of last evening. I know you said that you were going to table it or leave it here.
However, to get some of the highlights on the record, I’m just wondering if you could speak to some of the high-level results. It was quite encouraging and surprising to see such a positive impact that the seafood industry has in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. Could you speak to some of those results?
Ms. Sonnenberg: I will turn it over to Ms. Inniss, but I will say as an opener that, since the federation started and before that, we have always told everybody that we meet the value in our communities that the fishery provides. What we did not do was follow it up with an outside voice to come in and start to lay it out. This is only the beginning for us. This is a foundational product that we will build on.
Now, it is not us saying it. Dr. Ian Lee, separate from us, has started this process for us, and the results were exactly what we thought but we’re not saying it. That’s why it was done. You need to hear it from somebody different.
Ms. Inniss will hit the high points. She has got the study in front of her.
Ms. Inniss: Yes, I just have the brief of the study.
Ms. Sonnenberg mentioned something. As I said earlier, we have been working very diligently for decades on owner‑operator issues, and when we meet governments — provincial governments, especially — I remember being in a room with the Government of Nova Scotia, talking about the importance of coastal communities, the inshore commercial fishery and the owner-operator policy. They said, “Prove it. Where are your numbers?” We didn’t have them. We just knew. We didn’t have hard numbers.
So what’s really good about this is that we do now. The socio‑economic piece of this is what was missing, and we believe that it is critically important to have that now.
That was one of my personal experiences prior to having this information. I’m going to read this; it is just a brief. I will get this study to the clerk of the committee to distribute. Does that work for everybody? Thank you, chair.
Vital economic engine with a major prosperity ripple effect. The lobster industry is vital to Maritime economy, generating critical exports and supporting jobs across the region. Research shows that lobster from the Maritime region yielded an inshore landed value over 1 billion in 2023, making lobster a cornerstone species group positively driving the economy. The lobster fishery also yields impressive economic multipliers in Atlantic Canada. In Nova Scotia alone, every 1 million in fishery output create 2.8 direct jobs.
That’s significant in coastal communities. Add to the direct jobs, upstream suppliers like boat builders and fuel, and positive impact amplifies significantly. According to Dr. Lee:
. . . challenges for the fishery, while vital to Atlantic Canadian economy, decreasing exports and fishing inflationary costs pose significant challenges to the fishery. There have been declines in landed weight in recent years, as well as a declining trend in lobster imports from the top three globe destinations for Canadian lobster over the last three years. Margins are also under pressure because of rising inflationary costs for key inputs like fuel, maintenance and materials. Modest growth projections, despite rough waters, projections indicate that the Canadian lobster market will be resilient and achieve modest growth rates over the next four years despite these challenges. According to recent forecasting, the estimated market-size growth rate for the Canadian lobster could range from between 2.65% and 3.05% from 2025-29.
So that’s a nutshell of the study. It just talks about lobster, but there are other species involved. Lobster in all of our communities, I would say, is the backbone of our fishery.
For those of you who don’t know, he is the associate professor at Carleton University in the Sprott School of Business.
It is important to have that information. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you.
Senator Boudreau: I have another question on another topic. I can’t let Mr. Allen be here and not ask a question. Mr. Allen has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? I think that’s the first time I have referred to him as Mr. Allen.
Being an active fisher, being on the wharves and talking with your colleagues, I know the fisheries sector, like every sector, the participants are getting older. I think one of the first things that mentioned was the barriers to entry. Other than the financial one, which we have talked about a little bit, what would be some of the other barriers to entry for either the children of the current fishers who want to get into the business or any youth, for that matter, who wants to take on this sector? What are some of the other barriers that exist?
Mr. Allen: Senator Boudreau, I appreciate your question, and I found it as odd hearing “Mr. Allen” as you did saying it. I appreciate that.
The irony is that, in my community, which is your community — and full disclosure, Senator Boudreau, once upon a time, was my MLA — we do see the generational transfer. If the fishery is healthy and a new entrant believes there is a viable future, we see it.
To your point about how we get there, it is back to that cultural thing. Sadly, for a number of years — and we saw this within the processing sector, too — there was this push to don’t do it; don’t go work in a plant. It is the same as we encourage or discourage the kids to get into the industry. For once, the kids listened; for once, they actually listened. It is more on the processing side.
On the harvesting side, we are seeing it more. Again, access to capital, develop programs, training programs — another big challenge for the industry, too, is that we have gone from a model of you just putting your boots on, taking your lunch can and going fishing. Now, we’re seriously enterprises and businesses with some serious rules and regulations — Transport Canada, vessel standards, training standards.
The other thing would be to develop the toolbox to give new entrants the confidence in themselves and their ability to be able to make that transition, because it is quite a transition.
It is a very romantic career when you are in the back of the boat. It is easy to think, “I can do this.” And I will tell you, it is a tough transition. Unfortunately, I’m one of those kids that didn’t listen. When the old man said, “Don’t do this.” It was his fault. He started me way too young, and it was too late for me. But it is quite a transition.
How do we develop that tool set, that toolbox? How do we present it as it actually is? There are some opportunities there. I think there is some work to be done. But I’m like you. There is a lot of positive. We tend to focus on the negative a lot, but there is a lot of positive. It is quite a livelihood. It is something very different, and I think there is a lot of good there. Hopefully, we can get there.
We have a lot of new entrants who are independent, they make their own choices. Even when you look at the safety issue, there was an incident in Southwest Nova. I can’t remember the name of the vessel, but I remember it being referenced. The vessel saying they are long lining, and the rumour on the wharf was the only reason they were out there in that weather is because they didn’t own that and were told to be out there. They are fishing for 10 cents on the dollar. They put themselves in a position where somebody who had the full dollar for the dollar wouldn’t have made that decision.
The safety aspect is another factor; also, the sustainability. It is less of a controlling agreement now. The way these lending agreements are structured now — like with Jimmy Lee Foss in Newfoundland, something happens, the switch is flipped and you are out and you are in. I have got a number of years — God willing — left in front of me. It is in my interest to ensure that the fisheries are good 20 years from now, as it is today, whereas if you don’t know whether you are going to be actually running that vessel next year, who cares? I’m going to get the money today and if it collapses, I’m just going to move on.
Ms. Inniss: Something came to mind when you asked that question when Mr. Allen was speaking. We talked about the owner-operator policy and about owner-operated businesses. When I first started in the fishery, it was the occupation of last resort. It is not the occupation of last resort now.
I have been working in the fisheries for quite some time, but not long enough that it has gone from absolutely the occupation of last resort to a very viable business. It is very difficult to get into. That’s why we’re here talking to you today, because it is very difficult to get into.
Something I want to raise that we often think about is when you own something, you take pride in it, generally. When you work for somebody, it is a different psychology altogether, a different mindset. We have seen this in our communities. People who own something, they take responsibility for the environment. Like Mr. Allen said, there is a lot of training and so on that you have to do. So you take responsibility for your business. The word is responsibility.
There are repercussions and ripples to having a whole fishery owned by a corporation or owned by somebody that just has employees. It is different. That’s another way that it affects our communities. We have seen it. Even the psychology around somebody owning their own business as opposed to somebody being an employee, there is pride, care for the environment, responsibility in that ownership. I don’t think we should lose sight of that. Thank you, chair.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Once again, welcome to the committee.
Mr. Allen, it was interesting to hear you talk about creativity in the fisheries sector for young people. It must be very appealing to operate your own fishing boat. Convincing children and young people is still very difficult these days.
I would like to talk more about the obstacles you identified. You mentioned the cultural aspect and trouble obtaining funding. Ms. Sonnenberg talked about agricultural funding support like the Farm Credit Canada model. In the offshore fisheries sector, processors typically offer loans to fishers. What protection should be in place to ensure that those loans don’t compromise fishers’ independence?
[English]
Mr. Allen: Thank you for your question. Again, they become financing agreements and now lending agreements. When Ms. Sonnenberg talked about predatory lending, I think there really needs to be some scrutiny on these agreements and how they are worded, how they are structured and how quick the rug can be pulled out from underneath the harvester for whatever reason. Maybe the harvester underperformed, because it is all about performance. If you are not performing at the best, it is like a coach for a hockey team. Five losses — doesn’t matter if you had 100 wins before that. Five losses in a row, out you go. That’s really something that we have to look at.
What has changed in the processing sector, ironically, once upon a time — to your point, Senator Cuzner — the processors were owner-operators. When they were owner-operator processors dealing with owner-operator harvesters, with a lot of these banks there was no written agreement. You could go in — and honestly, I have lived this experience. I built a new vessel and walked into Westmorland Fisheries in Cap-Pelé that was directly owned by Russel Jacob directly and said, “I need this much to start a boat.” And it was a significant amount at the time. At a bank it would have taken me three months and 15 stacks of paperwork to get the money. He picked up the phone and he called the lady over where they cut the cheques, “Can you write Carl Allen a cheque for this much?” We’re chatting about our kids being similar ages, and two minutes later, she walked in, he signed it and passed it over and no agreement. I borrowed money from him before. But I was responsible in that the loan was always paid back.
Again, there is an onus on the lender as well. We cannot forget that. Part of what killed the provincial loan boards was the borrowers forgot about their responsibility as borrowers. I respected that. That was a zero per cent interest loan.
Some of these financing agreements, are we back in the 1980s? Is the interest rate at the Bank of Canada 12 per cent? My father had the same experience with Chase’s Lobsters out of Pugwash for a number of years. He said, “Yes, Mr. Earl Chase loaned me X number of dollars to start my boat. What is the interest rate?” It was zero per cent. That’s a good banker. Don’t lose him.
We need to put some structures in place. That’s their mission. Their mission is to encourage owner-operators. Again, I’m making the borrowers understand they have a responsibility as well. It is a two-way street. McDonald’s doesn’t give you a franchise and not expect a return or for you to not uphold that agreement. There is some responsibility. If you want to run a multi-million-dollar operation, there is some responsibility on you as well.
The Acting Chair: Did you want to add anything to that?
Ms. Sonnenberg: The only thing that I was going to add is 12 per cent would be a pretty low rate these days with the controlling agreement. I think we’re creeping into the 20s. We have been told as high as 24 per cent to 29 per cent. That makes no sense from a legal standpoint.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I have another question for Ms. Sonnenberg.
Like you, a number of witnesses told us that fewer young people have the means to buy fishing businesses because they get outbid by big corporations. You recommended the Farm Credit Canada model, which helps new entrants to the agricultural sector get loans to start a business. What recommendations do you have for getting that kind of program started in the fisheries sector?
[English]
Ms. Sonnenberg: Thank you for the question. We need to do a little bit of legwork on this. We know a little bit about Farm Credit Canada, but from what we’re told, there are a lot of similarities, but there needs to be a fund structured that young — and sometimes what I consider to be young isn’t young anymore — we’ll say new entrants who want to get into the wheelhouse — there has to be a process that meets that need.
Part of the structure, Senator Boudreau, that you’re talking about is that this toolbox needs to start — we have kids in our fishery in southern New Brunswick. There are a lot of young people, but they’ve been financed by their parents. It’s intergenerational, but the strain is getting to be so hard for the parents to help facilitate it. I think the loan situation for a “Fish Credit Canada,” or whatever we want to call it, is that we put some structure to it. We have to look at what kinds of monies are involved, and we’re going to have a commitment from the Government of Canada that they’re willing to put some money in a pot, recognizing that if we are to save our public resource, which is owned by the people of Canada — because that’s what this ultimately leads us to: We are harvesting a public resource in this country that belongs to the people of Canada. If we do not start to help these people who are in it for the long haul, their communities and families, we are going to have nothing left. We will be shipping our product across the border to be processed in Greenland, Washington State and so on.
There are a number of things we can do, but the first thing is that we have to get a commitment from the government. The money is important. Again, it’s “follow the money.” If there’s no money there, we will not have an opportunity to facilitate that, and we’re right back to the banks. When you’re a young person, are you going to be able to go into a bank, put your hand out by yourself and say, “I need $2.5 million to make this happen”? The answer to that is a clear “no.”
I think the toolbox — you start in high school — this is where I think there’s a breakdown to Senator Boudreau’s question. We have some young people and they know; it’s all they talk about: “I want to fish. I want to be a fisherman.” We still say that in the industry. The women aren’t too offended by it. It has to start there; it can’t start down the line, 10 years out. It starts there with some courses. We’ve seen a couple of provinces do it, and it’s been successful. You start to integrate them into what they know — maybe some financial or safety courses that they’re going to have. Radio courses, training on the boat — that can be integrated in, and then they move out to the community college where they have to do their fishing masters and so on.
All of those things are part of getting to what you’re talking about: There has to be a buildup to get to where you’re ready to borrow the money.
It’s an apprenticeship program in the fishery. It’s an unofficial one, but that’s what’s happening, in fact. We need to put some structure around it. Thank you.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to the witnesses. I’ve learned a lot, and I’m really grateful for Senator Surette bringing this forward.
I have a different experience having formerly been a lawyer advising Mi’kmaq groups and organizations, and later becoming a Chief and then a Regional Chief. I’m privileged to be here in this position and to listen in.
I truly respect your advocacy and your vision. For me, I don’t see a definitive line between Indigenous and local communities who are in it for their communities. I’m curious about that landscape. If you can paint that landscape where there are overriding commercial interests that funnel money away from communities, where you don’t have that multiplying factor, as you mentioned, of reinvestment in community — as you said, it is a public resource. It’s something we need to cherish, protect and have for future generations to come, where you have people who feel there is a viable opportunity here without getting into “loan-shark agreements.” I can only imagine how predatory those are.
I remember talking to a minister at DFO one time along the lines of Marshall negotiations. By the way, Donald Marshall, Junior, was charged on my reserve lands. One of the things he said was that we need to run a fishery like a corporation. I told him that communities aren’t corporations.
So I certainly relate to what you mentioned, Ms. Inniss, that you need to have an ownership interest in something in order to have that responsibility, rather than just somebody who gets a cheque at the end of every day. I can only imagine — this is a big preamble to a question that I will get to.
I try to look at the similarities between the Indigenous perspective and what might lend some insight and hope for some of these restraints about getting into the industry — and the prohibitive costs. One of the things that has been available for me as a Chief looking at a major highway development project — Senator Cuzner, you’re familiar with that. I’d love to go to the “bank of Cuzner.” It was the First Nations Finance Authority that really provided an opportunity for me as Chief. They had access to bond markets, so they had a good credit rating, and the only collateral we had to put upfront was own‑source revenues — our revenues in gaming and fishing. One time, we had tobacco revenues, but that’s gone by the wayside now. But it allowed us to get a better rate than we would get from any bank. When I hear figures going as high as 20 per cent, that’s ridiculous.
I guess my question is — if you could lend insight — Ms. Inniss, I think you mention that the second language out in the B.C. area is Vietnamese in terms of safety training. Can you paint a landscape out there internationally where the corporate interests have a major foothold — outside external forces — and it was detrimental to local fishing communities? I’m wondering if you can share an example of that.
Ms. Inniss: If you have one, you can go ahead, because I’m a little confused about the focus of the question, to be honest.
You’re asking what it looks like internationally?
Senator Prosper: If you can give me an example. What I’m hearing is that you want to protect an owner-operator industry that is very beneficial to a way of life, coastal communities and the reinvestment in communities where a dollar can go much further. What I’m hoping to get from any of you is an example where that isn’t the case.
Those large corporations have a major foothold in things — Ms. Sonnenberg, you painted something. Once they buy in, these big commercial interests, and you have a major stake in the industry.
Are there examples internationally — or you can even go to B.C., from what you mentioned earlier — where those major interests have a major foothold and it takes away from the owner-operator?
Ms. Inniss: Fishing plants closing down and people not landing their catch in certain communities.
Mr. Allen: I’ll give you a really extreme one. Everybody here has heard about Somalian pirates? You know what they are at the heart? They are all small-boat fishermen, local market economies. Because the country was in such chaos, they didn’t have a Coast Guard or a navy that could protect. You had foreign trawlers, mostly Chinese, that came into Somalian waters, took that fish, chased the men to shore and they had no other option but to turn to piracy. That’s an extreme example.
Another example, the Chinese government paid Madagascar $10 billion for exclusive access to their fishing waters for 10 years. At the time, it was a colleague and friend of mine, Duncan Cameron. He said the entire capitalized value of the B.C. fishery was $3.5 billion at the time, and once you buy in, you had access. That was in perpetuity, other than you pay the annual licensing fee. That’s a bit of an extreme.
The slow creep becomes a tipping point. I’m a Red Seal carpenter. I graduated in the late 1990s when the results of the Confederation Bridge and there wasn’t a fishery and you had to have something else. Do you know how many harvesters are welders, carpenters, electricians? They had to have a trade.
At the time there was a skill-testing question. The question was, if a leaf falls on the lake on day one, day two it’s two leaves, it doubles every day. If it takes 14 days to cover half the lake, how many days does it take to cover the second half? A lot of people said 14 days. No, it’s one day. It’s the exponential growth. This is what is happening in the sector. We see it now.
The Somalian thing is extreme. I had somebody tell me once if you go to the history of that, some of the Canadian harvesting companies that had offshore trawlers that destroyed the groundfish under the Grand Banks, some of these trawlers were sold to certain companies that went to that coast, destroyed that fishery, took that livelihood from those fishermen. Because the country was in chaos and didn’t have the social net provided to turn to. At the end of the day, I don’t want a social net. I want to be a viable enterprise.
It’s a bit of an extreme example, but it gives you a snapshot of how crazy it can be. We are fortunate in the country that we do have a bit of structure and regulations. We are allowed to be here today to advocate on behalf of our members. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Prosper: Yes. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Did you have a follow-up, Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: I do, and thank you for the opportunity. Ms. Inniss, you mentioned Indigenous commercial loopholes, along those lines. I was curious about, are we talking about a livelihood fishery in that regard? What are we talking about in terms of tightening that up or addressing that issue?
Ms. Inniss: I’m sure you are aware, there are three fisheries. There is the fish for food, social and ceremonial fishery, or FSC, the communal commercial fishery and a moderate livelihood fishery that are all regulated separately by the Canadian government and by DFO. Those comments are on the communal commercial fishery, not the FSC fishery and not the moderate livelihood fishery.
There’s a lot of confusion out there with Indigenous fisheries with these separations. They all have their challenges. The First Nations communities have their challenges deciding under which umbrella they will harvest their fish and so on.
The loopholes in the commercial communal come right back to the owner-operator. The legal, communal commercial fishery needs to be operated as the same thing we’re advocating for. The person who owns it fishes it. Do you know what I mean? If the band owns the commercial-communal licence, band members should have that opportunity and should be those individuals who are on those vessels prosecuting that fishery. This is one of the reasons I believe that they were put in place. Band members should have the same as Mr. Allen. He owns his gear and he’s got to be on that boat. He can’t lease it out. We think that the rules should be parallel.
We also believe that it would be beneficial for First Nations communities to expand the empowerment within the community and let the people fish. That’s one of the reasons it was put in place.
There has been, as I’m sure you’re aware, a large amount of money put in by the Canadian government for mentoring and training and so on for your communities to be able to prosecute the fishery that they now have access to. We believe it is those people who should be on the boat. It’s down to boots on boats, so it’s drawing parallels.
Senator Prosper: Thank you for sharing that. It was always a bit of a challenge for me when I was Chief when fishing season came around. You said they’re a bit wriggly. That’s a good word. I always wanted to put in place a system that had that level of responsibility and accountability where somebody’s effort at the end of the day translated into a benefit.
I look at repairs. You just have to look at the sheet and determine how can we cut down these costs, preventative and maintenance things? I can certainly relate to that. Thanks for sharing that.
Ms. Sonnenberg: I got the impression that you were very involved back at the beginning of the Marshall decision. I had the good fortune to work with some of the Indigenous communities. The expectation was high in terms of the pursuit of that moderate livelihood. That is, the courts provide this avenue. I think that’s the travesty of the story for the Indigenous communities. I can remember somebody who was working on the mentoring program saying that there are always bad actors and they’ll find bad actors. Where I live, that’s what’s happened.
It’s been a difficult transition to find yourself as a community having all these assets, and then suddenly have to use them and generate money. Putting a sub-op on that industry — which is what we call it in the industry — on that vessel for that community, we quickly moved into a condition where the sub‑ops were locals in the community where I live — I live on Grand Manan, full disclosure — that were not from the community. It was difficult for some of the inland groups to come to grips with the Bay of Fundy. It was very ill thought out. They were handed a sorry bag of goods, in my opinion, based on what they were facing.
Now the problem is we’re quite a number of years out, and the communities could have benefited in a really significant way, money-wise. The beneficial interest, which is a term that we use about what we derive out of the fishery — what is a beneficial interest to Mr. Allen? What is the interest out from him to our communities? That has not been realized for many of the Indigenous communities. When we say “boots on the boat,” getting back to that so that can be realized for those communities is paramount in terms of what’s happening in our global communities.
The federation fully understands the rights and the breakdown, as Ms. Inniss described, about the different fisheries, but it’s hard to sit on the sideline and see people abused through a system that was created that did not play out as intended. I think that’s where we’d really like to see a shift in that landscape so those beneficial interests — it’s a benefit to us that they flow to the Indigenous communities, and they continue to be in our communities and contribute to them, too, while they’re there.
Senator Prosper: The money is not going out to foreign interests.
Ms. Sonnenberg: Exactly. We have more local interests — but big corporations now that are accessing Indigenous licences. A new place that has popped up is in Newfoundland. We see some of the access that’s being handed over to some of the bands there, and it’s being totally prosecuted by non-Indigenous harvesters, and the beneficial interest is not staying with them.
I just wanted to add to it, because, for us, it’s really hard to sit on the sidelines and watch this play out when the monies could do so much more in communities that really need it.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We’re running a little short of time; we have 10 minutes to go. I have one more question on round one and three possible questions for the second round.
I will plead with you to abbreviate your answers so we can get everything in, if possible. Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. As I’ve been listening to you — and this actually builds on Senator Prosper’s question, as well as some of the questions of my colleagues. I think you’ve answered a lot of it, so you can be brief.
I do wish B.C. were here, because I would like to hear their story in response to the questions that have been asked. It seems to me — and I’m not in the fisheries — it’s a very different reality. I know some of it and, yes, it is different. Thank you for raising that.
First, all of you talked about the need for change and the need to support fishermen, their families and their independent businesses. You’ve all spoken about various pieces of that this morning, and thank you for that. It’s really feeling like it’s a Canadian tradition or a Canadian way of being that has been long established. And, today, Canada is in a time of encouraging economic investment and economic development. We are hearing it in the papers all the time — big projects and all of these kinds of things. My question is a bit about that.
In this time and having listened to you this morning, there is absolutely that kind of context, potential for many corporations or external players to enter into that context. What needs to happen to expand the support that you, as individual operators, need? I think you’ve said some of that this morning. When you think in that context, you have a role to play. What would that role look like? What needs to be in place to enable you to be in that place? If you have some comments?
Ms. Sonnenberg, I heard you just talk about Indigenous People. If you want to comment on that, as well, that would be great, as part of that “let’s take our place in this much larger context that we find ourselves in as a country.”
Ms. Inniss: Thank you. I can keep this very brief. It is one word: enforcement. It is the enforcement of the existing tools.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you.
Ms. Sonnenberg: I realize this study is about Atlantic Canada, but I will say that when the Fisheries Act is opened — well, it is open — for review, British Columbia must be included and specified. In the current wording, it doesn’t exclude them, but that’s what has happened: Owner-operator is not a focus point in British Columbia. That has been a detriment to the independence out there, because they’re dwindling away. I would suggest if everybody recommends language, it does include — and very explicitly puts — British Columbia in there and highlights them.
As far as what Ms. Inniss has said, that’s where it has to start — with enforcement to start to rectify this. What do we do? We continue the journey that we’re on as organizations, advocating constantly, reminding the government that this is what the Fisheries Act is about. This is what we’re supposed to be doing: protecting our public resource that Canada owns and should be taking better care of.
The Acting Chair: Mr. Allen, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Allen: The point about B.C., the cruel irony about B.C. is that when the owner-operator policies were first brought in by Romeo LeBlanc in the 1970s, the reason it ended up being an Atlantic policy was because there were merchants trying to control access. B.C. didn’t fall under it, because they were all owner-operators and didn’t see the need for it. Because they didn’t fall under it, it started to erode, and now we’re in a time where there is a complete inverse. Harvesters would love to get back to a model where they are fishing for themselves.
Senator Greenwood: Just to clarify, when you say “enforcement,” that would include enforcement in its broadest sense. That would include supporting young people who want to be fishermen and to be able to access funding, because there was a lot of that. How do we continue that succession planning in this whole piece? I assume you mean that; is that correct?
Ms. Inniss: Yes. There is a Fisheries Act in place that we’ve been working at making it more relevant and a set of regulations in place. I spoke earlier about the transfer of licences. That is just one example, but when you’re transferring a licence, it’s incumbent upon the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to make sure that that licence is not being transferred to a corporation.
That’s one example of the kind of enforcement I’m talking about.
Senator Greenwood: Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We have three minutes remaining. Just to summarize, I’m going to get each of the three of you to ask your questions. Witnesses, please respond to us in writing through the clerk. That would be very helpful. You each have a minute.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I have a quick question. Ms. Sonnenberg, you mentioned constraints related to products leaving the country to be processed elsewhere. Would export quotas be a solution? If not, what would be some good ways to limit that?
[English]
Senator Surette: My question was somewhat of a follow-up to the last question by Senator Greenwood.
I’m assuming you’re following this closely in the House of Commons with the Fisheries Act and the renewal. I’m curious as to what your recommendations are to update the Fisheries Act. I see here a submission from the Fisheries Council of Canada saying they recommend that no further legislative changes to the Fisheries Act be made at this time, arguing that the tools are there. Too bad we don’t have more time. I’d be interested in your response to the idea that the tools are there. This goes somewhat to what you were referencing, Ms. Inniss, which is the enforcement part and more has to be done on the ground. That was my question in a general sense, and I was curious to see what your answers would be.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: People have been talking about how the owner-operator approach benefits our communities. We’ve also heard that, sometimes, the proof of residency required when transferring a licence from one fisher to another may not be adequately regulated or strict enough.
What ends up happening is that the licence remains in the community, but the economic benefit of those fisheries often flows to other communities.
The local community loses the economic benefit. I would like you to comment on how to strengthen proof of residency to ensure that benefits remain in the community.
[English]
The Acting Chair: We look forward to your written responses to those three very important questions.
I’d like to thank the witnesses and senators for a very rigorous and informative debate, all under a very good chair, I believe.
(The committee adjourned.)