THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 5, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 8:30 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; and, in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Bev Busson (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning. My name is Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia and deputy chair of this committee. I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting this morning. Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to the interpretation, please signal it to me or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the matter. Before we begin, I would like the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Dhillon: Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
The Deputy Chair: 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 hear from Ian MacPherson, Executive Director of the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association, or PEIFA. On behalf of the committee, Mr. MacPherson, I want to welcome you here today. Thank you for coming. I understand that you will be providing a few opening remarks. Following the remarks, members of the committee will have questions for you. You have the floor.
Ian MacPherson, Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association: Thanks, Madam Chair. Before I begin, I would like to pass on regrets from our president, Captain Bobby Jenkins, who had a dental problem a few days ago that was getting worse. He had to grab the first appointment he could to remedy that situation. Captain Jenkins was planning to attend virtually.
The Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for the opportunity to express our views on the independence of commercial inshore fisheries. Other than protection of the resource, I can think of no other priority that is higher for our association.
Independent core fishers are the lifeblood of our coastal communities. As stated in a recent economic study by Dr. Ian Lee of Carleton University, the lobster sector alone produces impressive economic multipliers to the Maritime economy at 2.8 jobs per additional million dollars of output. However, our independence is being challenged as the fishery increases in value, making it more and more difficult for the next generation to buy into the industry they love.
In addition to the need for increased enforcement of existing regulations surrounding owner-operator legislation, we need to have new and what may be difficult discussions about what an independent owner-operator means in the future.
We must strive for greater operational efficiency in the sector, which means the modification and elimination of some outdated regulations and policies. We need better options for a retiring harvester so they can sell their operation to a family member versus being forced to sell out of the family and sometimes out of the local community.
Areas for consideration include partnerships, where we need to increase the number of traps and efficiency. Currently, the maximum is 50% in some fisheries. For sub operators, in terms of the number of days, we need a formula that is based on fishing days in the different areas. With regard to the five-year medical exemption, 52 fishing days out of 365 days should not constitute a year of medical exemption. Currently, there is a five-year maximum on this.
Licence and boat transfers can take many weeks or months. Transitional licences are something we’re just starting to discuss as an industry. They would allow family members to transition control to another family member over a 10-year period without relinquishing total licence control until fully transferred. This can keep a licence in a family versus a full sellout, but it must support and maintain the owner-operator policy.
Other things to consider include modification of tax policy for intergenerational transfers, modification of the tax structure if a transitional licence or something like it is adopted and an increase in capital gains to $5 million.
Another area of concern is the concentration of ownership currently taking place in the processing sector. The industry guidelines for what triggers a review by the Competition Bureau Canada need to be revised. Large companies are buying up small operations, and, because they are single transactions, they do not trigger competition reviews.
The Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association supports healthy and balanced competition in the marketplace that gives all parts of the supply chain an equitable and fair return; however, we do need the appropriate checks and balances in place. We feel that numerous areas are ripe for review to make our fishery more in sync with the demands of the unpredictable environment we live in.
In addition, we must support our new entrants with programs that mirror the programs available to new farmers. As producers of world-class seafood, our next generations deserve nothing less.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for that. We will now turn to questions.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much, Mr. MacPherson. During your 2023 testimony to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in the House of Commons for their report on foreign ownership and corporate concentration of fishing licences and quotas, you brought forward a number of recommendations you saw as being important in maintaining food sovereignty and security. One of these was related to the trigger threshold for the Competition Bureau for seafood company acquisitions, both domestic and foreign. What, if anything, do you see as having moved forward in this area, and what more needs to happen?
Mr. MacPherson: I’m in Ottawa this week attending meetings. We did have someone from the Competition Bureau give a presentation. I don’t feel it’s to the degree that we need. It gets into a very interesting discussion about making the complaint. In certain cases, individuals would be concerned about repercussions, so we will delve into that more in terms of the process. It was a high-level overview.
This is our food source, and there are countries around the world that have dwindling food sources. It’s as simple as that. Everyone in the room knows that Canadians don’t eat seafood to the level of many other countries. There is significant interest in Canadian resources on all our coasts.
Senator Ravalia: Do you see any potential solutions for ensuring that we maintain integrity over this fishery? Have you had an opportunity to talk to officials about this?
Mr. MacPherson: One of the things we’re continuing to advocate for is we would like to see legislation around our seafood, like what has been extended to critical minerals — that it’s basically a national asset that needs to be protected. We’ll continue to discuss this with our politicians, and one of the things we will try to do is bring some frameworks forward to senators and MPs to seriously consider this. Obviously, we would love to see some of this in legislation moving forward.
Senator Ravalia: I was also curious to know about your dialogue with Indigenous fishers and their opportunity to have greater participation in this fishery.
Mr. MacPherson: We speak on occasion. Actually, we had a very good dialogue with Chief Gould from the Abegweit First Nation. I’m just speaking on Prince Edward Island. We haven’t got together with the new Chief in Lennox Island yet. There are joint committees we sit on and things like that. I think in Prince Edward Island there is definitely a spirit of cooperation on many fronts — I won’t say on all fronts — in terms of working side by side and protecting our fishery and things like that. Some of the issues, I would say, are more administrative. I guess some uncertainty about the enforcement of some regulations has been a source of issues in the past.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator C. Deacon: I would like to have clarity on the medical exemption. I apologize. I’m not aware of that issue. Can you just provide me with a little rounding out of what that is about?
Mr. MacPherson: Absolutely, senator. It’s an interesting one because there is a five-year maximum. Obviously, exemptions are granted with medical background to that. There are scenarios, though, in various communities where some people take advantage of that.
Senator C. Deacon: I just want to know what the exemption is.
Mr. MacPherson: The crux of owner-operator policy is that the owner-operator is to be on the boat.
Senator C. Deacon: So when they have some sort of a condition that doesn’t allow them to fish, there is an allowance of up to five years.
Mr. MacPherson: Correct. That’s a very important point, and I’m glad you asked the follow-up question. And I’m not saying there are not legitimate situations out there, but as an industry, I think we want it tighter so that if people are abusing it, they are not allowed to abuse it. The reality is we have people for whom certainly it’s legitimate that they have those exemptions in place.
Senator C. Deacon: In terms of the issue of foreign ownership, is that allowed right now? Is there any sort of domestic requirement?
Mr. MacPherson: Probably some colleagues in Newfoundland and Labrador can speak to that a little better than I. Not majority ownership, but there is definitely foreign ownership.
Senator C. Deacon: So financing and owner-operator.
Mr. MacPherson: Correct.
Senator C. Deacon: I just wanted to understand that.
With the Competition Bureau, I’m just going to ask a couple short of questions if that’s okay. With the Competition Bureau, I can see that a number of small transactions add up to control, ultimately, of a lot of fleets. The concern is that if it’s an individual issue put forward, that individual may be standing up to the community and becoming a target because they are complaining to the Competition Bureau. There is the ability now for individuals to launch a complaint. Is there any way for the fishermen’s association to be doing that? I have to say, even though I’m quite familiar with a lot of changes in the Competition Act, I’m not aware of whether or not an association can do that on behalf of its members.
Mr. MacPherson: We did ask that question the other day. I guess, depending on how the investigation develops, if it is to go to future steps and a full-blown investigation, my understanding is individual witnesses would then be called.
Senator C. Deacon: Okay, so you couldn’t testify on behalf of a group of fishers, for example. They would have to be testifying as complainants themselves.
Mr. MacPherson: We are going to ask that question. I didn’t get that impression the other day, but I could stand corrected.
Senator C. Deacon: That is sort of where my question would go: the Competition Bureau. I don’t know that we have time, but it would be good to hear from them on that at some point.
Mr. MacPherson: For example, we represent close to 1,300 independent owner-operators. That’s why we’re an association — to represent those interests.
Senator C. Deacon: The tax policy change you mentioned — just so I have clarity on your initial comments — is increasing the lifetime capital gains tax exemption, yes?
Mr. MacPherson: I think it’s intertwined with a couple of issues. Licences and operations are just increasing, just like housing and other things, and I don’t know that some of our policies have kept up with that. But we don’t want a scenario where if a father is selling to his son and daughter, it costs them more than selling to an outside individual.
Senator C. Deacon: It has been addressed. That was addressed in the Forty-third Parliament, I think, with Bill C-208. We got intergenerational transfers being allowed for fishers, farmers and small-business owners, so that issue is not an issue anymore. That was a very big fight on the part of some of us to get that done. I want to understand the tax policy issues that you were speaking about.
Mr. MacPherson: Yes. One of the attendees of our conference the other day — I don’t know the timing on his transfer or sale, but it was intergenerational. It did not go well. Now, it may be going back before the legislation, but, by his estimation, it cost him and his family about $150,000 more than if they had sold the licence outside. Now that could be rectified, and thank you for pointing that out.
Senator C. Deacon: That may have occurred before the legislation came into force, which I think was July 2023, but, anyway, thank you. I just wanted to get that clarity before I go to the second round.
Mr. MacPherson: This is why it’s good to list things so we get clarity.
The Deputy Chair: I am told by our hugely capable staff that someone from the Competition Bureau is already on the list for this study. These ladies are always way ahead of us. Just so you know. I think that’s important. Thank you.
Senator Surette: Thank you for being here today. The committee has heard from some other associations and fishers. We hear a lot at the ground level as well as from individuals on owner-operator policy. Could you list the most challenging issues or worries that you have relating to owner-operators? Because we have heard of controlling agreements, the Aboriginal fishery, enforcement, the five-year medical exemption, succession, and that’s just a few of those. Are there some that are of higher priority than others to you?
Mr. MacPherson: That’s a very comprehensive and accurate list, I think. Part of what we put in the presentation today is streamlining and bureaucratic red tape. The example I love to give is if someone wants to lend their boat to another qualified captain, there is a whole process that has to go through Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, to do that. If I said to a farmer in Canada that they needed to do that to lend their neighbour their tractor, I think that would get a pretty robust response that it’s not going to happen. Those are the kinds of things, but it’s frustration, it’s bureaucracy.
The partnerships would be you have one boat, two captains; they’re not fishing the complement of two full licences, but maybe 75%, for example. That’s an efficiency that can be achieved. So it’s not a single bullet. There is not just one thing that gets tweaked and everything is great, but, as an industry, I think we’re prepared to take on those challenges and make solid recommendations to improve things.
Senator Surette: Particular to P.E.I., is there anything different in P.E.I. than there would be in Atlantic Canada, i.e., the provinces responsible for processing, for example? Is that a different issue than some of the other provinces? With the Aboriginal fishery, do you have different challenges or pretty much the same as right across Atlantic Canada?
Mr. MacPherson: I think we have all advocated like our other provinces have. Yes, the province regulates the plants, and one of the things we would like to see are stiffer penalties such that if somebody is buying illegal lobster, irrespective of the source, there are very serious and substantial penalties in place. Right now, it varies from area to area. Especially in Atlantic Canada, if we lose our lobster, we’re extremely vulnerable from an economic standpoint, so we want to plug those holes for sure.
Senator Surette: In your opinion, it’s a fairly big issue on P.E.I. then? In Nova Scotia, I think they have recently increased the fines on the processing side.
Mr. MacPherson: Yes, and for some time, we have had a letter in to our province asking that they match the Nova Scotia penalties. What we don’t want is for fines to become a cost of doing business and people moving to a jurisdiction where they can continue to operate.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Mr. MacPherson, for being here today.
As I try to understand some of the dynamics of this, maybe I can go to the last issue first and just get clarification from my colleague here. So the modification for intergenerational transfers — has that been dealt with, Senator Deacon? Is that what you were —
Senator C. Deacon: Yes, that issue is sorted.
Senator Dhillon: Okay.
Senator C. Deacon: It was a significant problem; intergenerational transfers were highly penalized. That has now been addressed. Chrystia Freeland fought us hard on that one, but we succeeded.
Senator Dhillon: Okay. I certainly don’t want to give DFO any ideas about tractor transfers or anything like that, so we’ll leave that bit aside for now. I suspect if we open up other doors, the reach is incredible.
When you say “forced to sell outside the family or province,” can you speak to that? What do you mean by that?
Mr. MacPherson: Certainly. There are cases where people who have been in the industry for a number of years — that is kind of their retirement plan in terms of transferring their licence. In that case, the retiring person may need X amount of dollars; they may not need the full amount. But because it has been difficult to transfer within families or to look at other options there, there comes a point — maybe it’s health-related or whatever — that if a son or daughter is not able to come in and pay market value, then that’s usually the only other option for people wanting to retire out of the industry.
We’re not trying to prevent that from happening, but we are hearing from different parts of the country that it is a problem in terms of keeping licences in the local communities.
Senator Cuzner: Coming off a little bit of what Senator Surette was pursuing, you talked in your remarks about creating efficiencies. You have been around awhile. I recall back in 2011 maybe, under the then-Minister of Fisheries, the late Keith Ashfield, there was a move afoot to really centralize the quota and the resource, the allocation of the quota to some of the big corporations. Certainly, it would be easier to talk about efficiency with DFO if there were only the Clearwater, the Quinlan and the Ocean Choice types of companies that held all the quota — that would be an easy way to administer. There was pushback at the time.
That being the extreme end of efficiencies, where do you see the efficiencies now? How can we create greater efficiencies?
Mr. MacPherson: One of the things we’re all guilty of is that it’s easy to talk about change, but implementing change is always more difficult. It has to be a collective effort. It has to be government as well as industry driving things and setting our priorities. I think we’ll be doing a better job of that moving forward, working together with other organizations in Canada. We’re becoming clearer about what our collective priorities are. We could have a list of 25, but we need to focus on 5.
Senator Cuzner: There are natural efficiencies. It’s not uncommon in the crab sector, where three people have licences and say, “We’ll go fish your licence first, PJ’s next, and the three of us will work together on that.” There are those natural efficiencies.
But you had mentioned the increase in the number of traps. You mentioned that in your comments.
Mr. MacPherson: No — in partnership. They don’t have to be permanent; they can be temporary. Two captains aren’t finishing as many traps, but they are getting efficiencies by using one boat because, relatively, the cost isn’t doubled.
Senator Cuzner: Exactly, yes.
Mr. MacPherson: Those are the kinds of things that are caught up in bureaucracy that would make sense in a lot of other industries.
One thing I did want to mention is that in our written submission I will provide a copy of Dr. Lee’s report. I think it’s one of the first ones that has been done in many, many years, showing the value of independent owner-operators to their local communities. That’s something that we haven’t had a lot of information on. We’re going to continue to build on that. We’re a lot bigger player in the economy, but we don’t do a very good job of telling people that. In Prince Edward Island, the fishery is either second or third in the provincial economy. Proportionately, if we’re not the highest, we’re near the top in terms of our fishery to GDP — it’s very high, too. So it’s a big deal, relative to our provincial economy.
Senator Cuzner: It’s an impressive study.
Mr. MacPherson: Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: Just to shift gears a little bit, you mentioned red tape and, a lot of times, getting bogged down in red tape. Sometimes it’s because of the regulations; sometimes it’s because the departments may not have the manpower in which to process and work these things through.
Do you see a lack of resources at the DFO district level and area level to even monitor the sale and purchase of — are they able to put the necessary attention on those transfers?
Mr. MacPherson: To answer your question, it’s not like before. There were experienced, highly skilled people at the local level who knew all the local nuances and were able to fast-track a lot of that. That’s been downloaded. There have been things like the issuing of trap tags, which DFO used to do a great job of and outsourced that whole thing. We have real concerns around that. Yes, there are reputable groups. We distribute tags, but it puts the potential for abuse out there, whereas the government had a really tight handle on it.
I suspect there will be more things downloaded. We are seeing more science downloaded on associations, and we’re a fairly big one in the scheme of things. But that’s a real concern, too.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Mr. MacPherson, for coming here and helping us understand this issue from your extensive experience.
I want to follow up on a question from Senator Ravalia with respect to the Indigenous fishery and relationships that have evolved over time. I understand there are probably some issues there that need to be resolved or worked on. I’m quite curious about that relationship between your association and the two particular bands you mentioned — a newer Chief there in Lennox Island, Tabatha Bernard, and you mentioned Chief Gould — from your remarks with respect to the processing under the provincial jurisdiction, having maybe some firmer restrictions with respect to, I think, what you referred to as illegal lobster.
I’m just curious about that relationship — how is it? How could it be improved? And I’m just curious about your definition of illegal lobster. Thank you.
Mr. MacPherson: Lots of questions there. First and foremost, I want to say that a number of groups have been advocating for five or six years now to be part of discussions between the federal government and Indigenous bands when it comes to the resource. We understand nation to nation, but my source of frustration — and I can stand corrected on this — is I believe there’s no legal obligation to not include observers or other participants, but it’s more of a policy position by the government. That creates a lot of issues. When you have a vacuum, when you’re excluded from discussions where you make your livelihood, then I think it’s human nature that a lot of times we just assume the worst is going to happen, right?
We had a very ongoing situation for three years in Lennox Island in that the Chief had requested 1,000 traps for fishing for a moderate livelihood. It took DFO three years to obtain 900 traps, so there’s still a gap there, and obviously concerns around the resource; it’s in a bay. We were caught in the middle of that, and those aren’t good situations to have.
I think there needs to be more explanation around what fishing for a moderate livelihood is — whether that’s a legal definition — because I think different Chiefs have different views of what the scope is. One Chief may say it’s this or that. I think there are anywhere up to 32 different agreements with the bands. I get it; a Chief is going to negotiate for their individual band, but it doesn’t seem to be consistent.
In some cases, it appears that a lot more lobster is coming in under fishing for a moderate livelihood, the FSC fishery. There again DFO uses different formulas to determine what an acceptable amount for the band is. Collectively, as harvesters, we need to work together to protect that resource.
With Chief Gould, he will not take on extra capacity unless his band members can fish that licence. We call that “boots on the boat.” It applies to owner-operators, too. If you own the boat, you should be in it, unless you’ve got a special medical exemption. It works well when First Nations do that too. There are great studies out there that have proven, just like in our fishery, that things come directly back to the community.
And to address what Senator Cuzner asked a few minutes ago, that’s the strength that owner-operators bring: The money stays in the community. We can’t all be living in the city. So the fewer options there are, or if the owner-operator disappears, then we lose that money out of the communities. The schools, volunteerism and all kinds of things suffer.
Senator Prosper: I appreciate you sharing your perspectives and experience.
I realize that at times it’s difficult to find common ground. You mentioned the bilateral relationship with DFO and First Nations and creating a vacuum, and if people aren’t aware, then you can assume the worst. Because you have extensive experience and a huge knowledge base to draw from throughout the continuum of history and how things are, are there mechanisms and things that you found were quite beneficial for establishing that relationship, aside from DFO, between Indigenous communities and fishers and your association — because I think that’s the critical element here — that were quite positive, that provided a decent foundation for further dialogue?
Mr. MacPherson: Yes. It has been a few years now, but we had a joint meeting. We invited one DFO person to be an observer, but there was no one else from the government, no press, and it was a very productive meeting. Both Chiefs came, and I think the great thing that I observed was that after probably 20 minutes of some backchat, it was fishers talking about fishing.
Senator Prosper: Nice.
Mr. MacPherson: And then you know you’ve got real dialogue. We haven’t set up any sort of plan to meet every six months or whatever. Sometimes when things go a little sideways, maybe that’s the dialogue.
I can give you one real example because it has almost been replicated recently. After Marshall, one of the biggest concerns for harvesters when it was announced that the federal government would be buying up licences for First Nations was the rapid escalation of licences. Our president, Bobby Jenkins — a relative of his was just about to purchase a licence, and overnight it went up to $100,000. Four or five years ago, when DFO said it wanted to provide more access for First Nations, that was the number one cause.
Our Chiefs expressed the same problem. It’s escalation where young people can’t get into the industry. What the Chief said was, “Well, I had X amount of dollars, and now I can only buy fewer licences because the price has shot up.” And the non‑Indigenous harvesters were saying, “Well, we’re not the Government of Canada; we have a threshold,” and it’s a lose-lose. That was the number one thing we asked to do, and what came back from government was, “Well, would you consider having a joint science project together?” It didn’t go anywhere. How could we not have been clearer that we’re trying to collectively avoid licences getting out of control?
And when it gets into those higher thresholds, it can create an ideal situation for controlling agreements. Where does that money come from? I heard the other day a snow crab licence is anywhere from $18 million to $20 million. Who affords that?
Senator Prosper: Ouch. Thank you, Mr. MacPherson. Appreciate it.
Senator C. Deacon: I want to thank my great friend and, sadly, former seatmate Senator Prosper. That was an important conversation, and you always lead such respectful conversations. Thank you very much, PJ. I think that uncovered a really important point about the need for fisher-to-fisher dialogue and the need for DFO to actually listen to the recommendations. That has been a perennial issue.
I want to focus on innovation because I was up in North Lake last summer, and I couldn’t believe the number of new boats. The amount of money, million-dollar new lobster boats, the amount being spent on really impressive boats, but it didn’t seem to be really moving productivity ahead. Perhaps they needed to be replaced or whatever else. I have one friend fishing still with a 30-year-old boat that’s just great. He has no desire to change it and increase his debt load.
So I’m wondering about innovation and the opportunities to innovate. I’m upset about the way DFO limits process innovations, like the ability to lend a boat to a qualified captain. Certainly, you’d want to have reports and understand how that’s being used and by whom and whatever else, as you would with a registered captain on that boat, but there are many process innovations we have to talk about for sure. I’m wondering about the innovations in terms of the fishing operations that can reduce the cost for fishers. The debt cost as a portion of their revenue has to be through the roof. They have to find other ways to create cost efficiencies and increase their revenue.
Mr. MacPherson: Absolutely. Just as a quick comment on the new boats, I think it shows the commitment of not always younger but generally younger people who are getting into the industry. They have that confidence and are making significant investments to stay in this industry. It has died down a bit, but people don’t want to go out West. They want to live in their communities, raise their kids there and fish there, and make their lives fishing.
Senator C. Deacon: Absolutely.
Mr. MacPherson: Although people have other things they do too.
I can name a program that worked really well for the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association under the Atlantic Fisheries Fund, or AFF, and we’re hearing rumblings that it will be renewed. We sure hope it will be because it was great.
What came from the field was maintaining the vitality of lobster after it’s caught. We were approved for some funding under AFF. It didn’t cover the entire cost, but it resulted in canopies being put on boats, coolers, circulation systems, things like that, and there’s a report there that you might be interested in, senator, about the vitality — quality is kind of a subjective term — a healthier lobster was coming. The sun and rain are two of the most harmful things to a lobster after it’s caught, and we’ve been able to substantiate that. I think our first leg was $1.2 million or something, and then we went back and got another $800,000, and we went for a third round, but all the money was gone. That was an incentive to the captains to buy that equipment. It didn’t cover the whole thing, and it delivered appreciable results to the plants and kept the value of our product up there.
My understanding is a number of fishing organizations — Senator Surette, I think, in Nova Scotia and other places — did a variation of that program, so there are opportunities there, and it doesn’t have to be 100% funding.
The last thing I was going to say about the boats, there is a classic example of money staying in a local community: having a boat built. We have six boat builders on Prince Edward Island, and they still have orders a couple years out. That’s significant. We want that type of demand to continue.
Senator C. Deacon: Is access to funding an issue at any point for those coming in? The seller can take back a mortgage or a debt on their fleet, and that can certainly help provide them with an income and help the new owner finance it. Are there challenges that you’re seeing? I can’t believe the price increases on the island. It’s just unbelievable.
Mr. MacPherson: Absolutely, it’s a challenge, and this is why one of the lines there — and we’ll drill this down a little more — is we truly feel food production is food production, and there are a multitude of programs for the agricultural sector and young farmers. There are a few provincial programs, and I’m not knocking them, but when a young farmer can get $1 million locked in at 3% for 20 years, that is a lot of stability and opportunity that our younger people aren’t yet afforded.
It’s a common-sense thing; it’s all food production. We’re world-class players. We’re as dependent on export as agriculture is. We produce way more lobster than generally we consume in Canada; these are investments.
Senator C. Deacon: One of the things I worry about is the dramatic increase in lobster population and landings over the last number of years. I just hear what I hear. The lobster tends to be moving north as waters warm. What is being done in terms of tracking population changes and predicting population changes over time? There’s no question that a change is occurring, but we found in other situations DFO is not really doing a very good job of managing their fish stock records in a way that gives confidence. We certainly saw that in our sealing report. I’m just wondering what observations you have in the gulf.
Mr. MacPherson: That’s an interesting question, because we have just started some lobster tagging to trace. Cape Breton has had a program now for a number of years. The remarks you make are bang on because Massachusetts hardly has a lobster industry anymore. They’ve all left; it’s too warm, and Maine has been dropping for a number of years. We can’t just turn a blind eye to that.
Yes, it’s falling on associations. I have a staff of nine. I have four people dedicated year-round to science, and that’s science that we’re doing that’s been downloaded on us.
Senator C. Deacon: It’s important you mentioned that. Explain what they’re doing that we would probably be expecting DFO would be doing.
Mr. MacPherson: Our science people love doing the science, being out on the water and observing things and doing population studies. And it’s not just lobster. It’s rock crab, all different things we take part in, but now we’re dealing with the procurement hub because we have detailed contracts that we’re now responsible for.
Not too many years ago, DFO would say, “Hey, we want to do this project. We need four boats. We’ll contract them,” and do all that. That’s all falling on our shoulders now as an association, so it’s a lot, and it pulls people in a lot of different ways.
When you have something new, like if some of our membership says, “This is a gap; can we do this lobster tagging study?” — and we did; we got out and tagged 1,800 lobsters last fall in one particular area, and we’re excited about that project and the results, but there’s a lot to it, and that also involves equipment.
Senator C. Deacon: Could you explain that study a bit? I’m assuming that when a fisher gets one of those lobsters in their traps, they put them back in the water, do they?
Mr. MacPherson: Yes, our scientists would — we get a special permit for this — go out, catch the lobster and tag them. It’s called a streamer tag. It’s a very light, small one, and then, as they’re caught next spring, we’re asking our members to report that information.
Senator C. Deacon: They put them back in the water where they found them?
Mr. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator C. Deacon: And report to the association.
Mr. MacPherson: Early data shows that where lobster typically used to migrate in maybe an 8-kilometre area, we’re finding it’s more like 18 kilometres. That’s a lot of movement, which begs the question why. Is there too much competition for food in the local area, and they keep moving? Things like that.
Senator Surette: I have so many questions, but I’ll ask a few quick snappers. Based on the last comment of lobster landings and so on, is mortality an issue for you in P.E.I.? In Nova Scotia, even at the university where I was president, we worked a lot with industry to decrease mortality. There, you don’t have to catch more lobster; you can sell the lobster that is living. So, I’m wondering if mortality is an issue in your area as well.
Mr. MacPherson: We have shorter seasons. We have a spring, which is March, April, May and June, and a fall fishery that starts in August for a few months.
In terms of mortality, the program I mentioned earlier had a really positive impact on what we call our fall fishery because the lobster is being kept cool now. You get some pretty hot days in August and September. We might not fish so much in the spring.
Generally, it’s not an issue in the spring fishery, because the lobsters have been hibernating all winter, and the water is still very cold. As you know, in Nova Scotia, there are some additional seasons.
Senator Surette: I know many who benefited from the Atlantic Fisheries Fund. Did I understand that the program is ending and they’re not sure if it’s going to be renewed?
Mr. MacPherson: Yes, and it’s extremely disappointing, because it was said to be a budget item, I think, but it didn’t show up in the budget, and there’s no number beside it. The government did extend it, I believe — maybe even twice — and the last time it was extended, it was really just to wrap up projects; no additional funds were allocated.
One of the things about it — and we’ll work with the department on this — is it was generally tailored so that individual harvesters or a group of harvesters could go get a pot of money; it didn’t have to be through a university, a big corporation or whatever. My understanding is that they’re trying to tighten up some of those parameters so it doesn’t get eaten up on big projects that really weren’t the intent, because there is a lot of other funding for those types of things. Some really good ideas came out of it.
Senator Surette: Some great ideas.
Mr. MacPherson: We called it the “lobster vitality project.” To let you know, the way that worked is that there was a cap on cost sharing, but there were 10 items, say, that an individual captain could select to install on their boats. Maybe they wanted to spend it all on getting a canopy, or tubes or a livewell — that kind of thing.
Then you’ve got impactful programs that are custom-tailored, whether it’s a 30-year-old boat or somebody adds it to a brand-new boat.
Senator Surette: Getting back closer to the subject we’re talking about — owner-operator —
Mr. MacPherson: I have all day.
Senator Surette: I’m looking forward to your brief. We’ve seen the lease report, and you don’t have to explain to some of us how important the owner-operator and the independent fishery are in some of our communities. I’m from Pubnico, so I know that well from home.
In your brief, will you address where you think there have to be changes to the Fisheries Act and where things can be done by regulations? Do you go into that many details? I’m assuming you’re following the review of the Fisheries Act, and you would likely recommend changes to the Fisheries Act, but some of the things could be done in regulations. Do you identify those?
Mr. MacPherson: We will, for sure. We’re understanding a lot more than we might have in the past that we need a great degree of detail.
One of the complaints from industry has been that, in a lot of cases, we think the regulations are fine, but they’re not being enforced, or they’re not being enforced enough. One of the things that have been frustrating to our group — and this goes back to Gail Shea; unfortunately, she passed away not long ago. That had a seven-year timetable to get out of controlling agreements. Here we are, almost double that time, and I understand that people — “Oh, Senator Cuzner is in a controlling agreement? Well, here is what you need to do. Come back to us.” Are we just making it easy for controlling agreements to start up again or for existing ones to stay in place? Now, you just tick the boxes. That is a lot of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters’ Federation — our sole purpose is the protection of the owner-operator.
Senator Surette: I have one last question. Getting back to succession, that seems to be a fairly big issue. If you look at the age of the fishers — what we’ve heard — there could be a big transition there.
You’ve mentioned that you’re looking for a transitional period of 10 years, and you mentioned wanting to be compared to farmers, the farm loan board and so on. Are you advocating for a fish loan board or access to it?
Mr. MacPherson: Yes.
Senator Surette: I am assuming the answer is “yes.” If you didn’t have a fish loan board, is it still doable for young people to go to the bank and get the money over a 10-year period — easier than it would be for a shorter period?
Mr. MacPherson: There are a few different things there. Ten is kind of an arbitrary number, but paying for a fishing boat maybe isn’t the same as land. It could be on the cost.
But one of the things we’re looking for is whether there is some way to set up financing such that there’s an incentive for a young person to pay it off sooner rather than go the full term. We had a great presentation yesterday from Farm Credit Canada. We understand they’re not out there to specifically go head to head with the big banks or credit unions, but they’re there to fill the gaps. That’s a scenario we have here, too. The business cases are legitimate business cases. That’s it.
Senator Surette: How things have evolved. We discussed this a while back with one of our other witnesses — home as well — there was “the bank of Walter Surette” in my home. But the impact on the community was large. Back in the day, the interest was — we were buying lobsters, of course, but it was of interest to keep boats in the community, so to finance some of the boats so you could buy the lobster made sense, but I guess things have evolved, and it’s more difficult now. Then you’re getting into controlling agreements, which is a big challenge in this day and age.
Mr. MacPherson: Not too many years ago — I forget when the last review was, and this was when you talked about regulations and policy — it was very restrictive. I think you had to be an approved financial — I forget the exact designation, but, basically, it left financing to the big banks, and that was it, no other options. It’s our concern that it has been opened up too much, and that’s now allowing too many people to get financing in the back door there to bridge those gaps.
I was just going to summarize that there are so many similarities about the seasonal nature of our fisheries, the high investment to get in and the export dependency. Why can’t we just take a few of those programs — in case you’re wondering, there are 58 agricultural programs, and we’re fighting to have the one program that was really good for the fishery be reinstated. Anyway, I know you understand that.
The Deputy Chair: It’s helpful to be allowed to finish answering a question. Thank you for doing that.
Senator C. Deacon: It occurred to me that if you have an accountant who says that the intergenerational transfer right that fishers have is not being applied, I would love them to write to our committee. That’s something that a number of us fought very hard for. Wayne Easter actually led that fight as Chair of the House Finance Committee. I have no idea why it would still be a problem. If it is, I would love it to be something that somebody sends a note in about. Please follow up.
Mr. MacPherson: Absolutely, senator. That hole has been plugged — that’s great. These are things where we don’t usually get into the weeds to that degree. That’s private business among families or buyers and sellers, but, at the end of the day, that is something that has been raised before.
The Deputy Chair: It’s pertinent to our study, so thank you for asking the question, and thank you for answering it.
Senator Dhillon: Mr. MacPherson, my background is law enforcement, so when I hear about financial pressures, challenges around loans, having difficulty in raising capital, all of those speak to vulnerabilities that then invite possibilities and potential for illicit income or capital. Have you seen any evidence of illicit capital or money laundering entering licensed financing or controlling agreements in P.E.I.?
Mr. MacPherson: You hear of things. I guess P.E.I. was quite isolated from cash sales, but we’re starting to hear there is more of that, which is a concern on a couple of fronts. Then lobsters aren’t accounted for anywhere, right? More are coming out of the water then.
As for the controlling agreements, the people who put those in place are very savvy. I think there are some pretty glaring examples out there that industry has pointed out, and I understand that forensic audit is expensive and time-consuming, but when you’re into things that are so complex that nobody can really figure out where the beneficial interest of that licence is going, shouldn’t someone maybe be asking some other questions? In some jurisdictions, somebody who is 19 or 20 years old buying a $2-million fleet — I’m not saying people aren’t capable of that. Families and things like that are helping, but some of the numbers don’t line up, and the assets don’t line up, so where is the money coming from?
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for that. I know it can become a difficult conversation, and in spaces where we’re looking to represent and be the voice for many, to speak about some areas that may bring or shed a light that is not so complimentary can be difficult.
I would invite you, as you prepare your brief, to share any kind of summary you can provide to us where you can speak to those particular elements that can be signals to us and to this committee to dive a little deeper and be a bit more investigative around that issue. That would be helpful. This kind of thing can start to fester. If left alone and not dealt with, it can become so far gone that it’s very difficult to come back from. Certainly, there are areas of concern over in the Pacific fisheries, but I was curious if that was something that you were seeing on your end.
Mr. MacPherson: On enforcement, we’re talking about a whole range of things, but it’s all interconnected and something that PEIFA does that I’m quite proud of. It’s from a motion from our board of directors. We will actually be asked, if there is an infringement — generally, a more serious one — by conservation and protection officers whether we are willing to provide a victim impact statement. It’s not a person, but it’s an industry, and we do that without hesitation. Is that filing a statement against one of our own members? Absolutely, but that’s how passionate we are and how serious we take it.
We have suggested in the courts that the fines be more severe, that lost fishing days, particularly at the beginning of the season, be a detriment. We have to be serious about illegal activity by anyone. We are talking about sacrificing billions of dollars of a fishery if we don’t.
Senator Cuzner: On a point of clarification to a response to one of Senator Deacon’s questions, it’s not about owner-operator, but with your experience in all other aspects of the fishery, specifically with science, my experience is that for a long time there was a lack of trust in DFO science. No, there was a lack of trust if quotas were reduced. If quotas were increased, the science was good. That is sort of how it worked.
You nailed it in your exchange with Senator Prosper. You really hit on something. When you have an opportunity to speak fisherman to fisherman, that’s where the rubber hits the road. Coming out of your discussions there, did you want to put a group together, both First Nations and traditional fishers, to look at science, and was it denied by DFO? Or did it just not go anywhere? They just sort of walked past it?
Mr. MacPherson: We didn’t ask for that. We asked to jointly talk about how we could prevent — because the government was saying we’re going to make funds available to First Nations to purchase more access. Our first concern out of the gate was how we could set up some sort of framework so the price of licences doesn’t double overnight. What DFO came back with was, “How about some joint science initiatives, no budget?”
This is exactly how it happened, senator. One of the first calls, I think, had over 70 groups on it, Indigenous and non-Indigenous. The second group had maybe 35, and then there were 10 after that because people who have existing projects will just carry on with those. To counter with that, I just thought it was so out of tune with how we could have started a dialogue on something that is important to all communities.
Senator Cuzner: An opportunity to seize the momentum was a missed opportunity.
Mr. MacPherson: When that came up, things were pretty fractured. I won’t speak for other communities, but generally, it’s based on the outreach of fishing organizations or First Nations to local fishing organizations.
One thing I really bristle at is that DFO — no disrespect, Senator Prosper — will acknowledge traditional Indigenous knowledge, but there is no term for fishers who have fished for four or five generations on the water. It’s all knowledge, whether it should all be called traditional or not. Irrespective of that, the input that the harvesters have is not taken seriously enough.
We see differences in mackerel. We see striped bass. I could go on for two hours about striped bass. There are people everywhere, in all your areas, telling you it’s a major problem and that it’s eating lobster larvae, and we’re still kind of going around on that.
For example, that tagging project I mentioned was a $70,000 project. We did have some of our local associations kick in, but that’s a lot of money for organizations to come up with to do a project. But that’s the kind of stuff we do because DFO is not doing that kind of stuff for us.
Senator Cuzner: Does the association trust the science when you’re engaged in it?
Mr. MacPherson: I’m not a scientist, but I think where some of the disconnect comes from is that we’re not adapting quickly enough to changing climatic conditions. The science has to adjust.
One of the big things is that when you’re doing your testing, maybe looking at herring or something, and the school went through two weeks earlier now because it’s warmer, you will show that you have a depleted resource when maybe it’s bounced back quite a bit. But guess what? You needed to be out taking your samples two weeks earlier.
That’s the kind of thing and the knowledge that the harvesters can bring to the table. This is what is really happening out on the water, and this is what we need to adapt to.
Senator Cuzner: Right.
Mr. MacPherson: There are a lot of great people in DFO.
Senator Cuzner: Absolutely.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time, Mr. MacPherson. We have come to the end of our list of questions. Certainly, with your expertise, the discussion today has been helpful toward creating a meaningful study on the topic of the Atlantic fisheries. Thank you for being here and being so helpful.
Mr. MacPherson: My pleasure. Anytime.
The Deputy Chair: We will take a two-minute break to prepare the room if senators can indulge me in a short in camera meeting, please.
(The committee continued in camera.)