THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 26, 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.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning, everybody. My name is Fabian Manning. I am a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have the pleasure of serving as chair of this committee.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to me or to the clerk. We will work to resolve your issue.
Before we begin, I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Dhillon: Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
Senator M. Deacon: Good morning. Marty Deacon, Ontario.
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.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Victor Boudreau, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
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 the following individual: Dwan Street, President of the Fish, Food, and Allied Workers Union, Newfoundland and Labrador.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank Dwan for joining us here today virtually.
I understand that Ms. Street will be providing some opening remarks, and following those remarks, I’m sure we will have some questions from our senators.
Ms. Street, you have the floor.
Dwan Street, President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW-Unifor): Mr. Chair and senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear. My name is Dwan Street, President of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, Unifor, representing over 14,000 workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, including more than 10,000 inshore owner-operators and crew and over 3,000 seafood processing workers.
For those unfamiliar with our province, the inshore owner-operator fishery is the economic backbone of our coastal communities, generating over $1 billion annually and anchoring employment, food security and the tourism industry. Even in 2026, our inshore fishery remains the foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador’s social and cultural fabric from St. John’s all the way to L’Anse au Loup.
Without strong federal protection and meaningful enforcement of owner-operator and fleet separation policies, that backbone continues to be weakened by corporate consolidation, foreign control and federal loopholes that are eroding harvester independence. These piecemeal erosions are slowly, but surely, taking ownership and control from the people of our province and preventing young people from accessing the industry in the years to come.
Owner-operator and fleet separation were put in place so that people who own and fish the licences also control the wealth that they generate, rather than serving as fronts for corporate interests.
When companies effectively own the licences, they gain leverage to vertically integrate, concentrate power and extract more profit, while coastal communities see less of the value created on the water.
Policies like the Policy for Preserving the Independence of the Inshore Fleet in Canada’s Atlantic Fisheries, or PIIFCAF, were introduced to end controlling agreements and keep beneficial ownership with working harvesters and their communities, and these principles are now reflected in federal regulations. The Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation, of which FFAW is a founding member, exists precisely to defend these protections, ensure fair access grounded in sound science and secure a path into the fishery for young harvesters.
The Federal Court has confirmed that the minister has full authority to establish and enforce owner-operator, fleet separation and PIIFCAF and that social, cultural and economic objectives for coastal communities are legitimate considerations in licensing decisions. Yet no charges have been laid against those who ignore these rules. The issue is not legal power; it is political will and enforcement capacity.
Untold numbers of enterprises are still held under controlling agreements, beneficial ownership schemes and corporate funding arrangements that use owner-operators or Indigenous access as fronts to secure effective corporate control of Canadian resources. Federal licensing policy that allows the transfer of inshore licences to Indigenous commercial communal licences gives these corporations a back door to access those resources. It is an erosion of the owner-operator that leads to inflated licence prices and the exclusion of young fish harvesters from being able to access the industry.
DFO’s own engagement documents acknowledge stakeholder concerns about loopholes and call for a follow-the-money approach to enforcement, but harvesters have yet to see that translated into consistent, visible action on the ground. At the same time, corporate concentration in processing has increased dramatically, including foreign, state-owned companies like Royal Greenland and large domestic processors that exert disproportionate control over prices, landings and even federal policy.
If we do not address this, we risk a slow-motion transfer of access from independent owner-operators to corporate balance sheets, even while the licences still appear, on paper, to be held by individuals. When owner-operator arrangements work as intended, benefits stay in coastal regions. Harvesters hire local crew, buy supplies in town, land catches in local plants and reinvest in their communities. When it fails, wealth drains out through corporate-controlled arrangements and communities lose both economic activity and decision-making power.
For young people, owner-operator is the only realistic route to a viable future in the fishery. When licence prices are inflated by corporate financing and shadow ownership, new entrants cannot compete.
We support the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation’s call to anchor owner-operator and fleet separation directly in the Fisheries Act. The act should clearly state that commercial fishing rights are to be held by individuals who are actively fishing and rooted in their communities, including in Indigenous commercial communal access, so that corporate entities cannot use these avenues to sidestep the policy.
Canada’s wild fishery should also be recognized as a strategic national asset essential to food security, sovereignty and cultural identity, not treated solely through a short-term commercial lens. It’s also imperative that we embed harvester knowledge within DFO Science. Independent harvesters are the eyes and ears on the water, yet scientific assessments often proceed with limited on-the-ground input, leading to management measures that do not reflect real conditions.
We recommend a legal requirement for integrating harvester knowledge into assessments and advisory processes, including formal co-management subcommittees on major fisheries and a duty for DFO to document how harvester information is used — or why it is not.
Following DFO’s recent decision to discontinue, without warning or consultation, the nearly 30-year Cod Sentinel Survey, these collaborative approaches to science and management are needed more than ever lest we repeat the mistakes of the past.
Senators, I want to thank you for your time today. In closing, I will say that owner-operator is not just a policy preference; it is the legal foundation that prevents corporate capture of Canada’s inshore fisheries and keeps benefits flowing to coastal communities rather than to a handful of CEOs.
On behalf of all members in the FFAW, I ask you to do all in your power to hold Parliament to account in ensuring these protections are achieved. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Street.
Senator Boudreau: Good morning. Thank you very much for joining us.
You talked about the current situation, which everybody understands around owner-operator. The challenges that you have highlighted we’ve heard about a few times now. I’m curious: If you were in charge tomorrow morning, what would be the first three loopholes you would look to change in the owner-operator program to ensure that it stays true to what it was intended for?
Ms. Street: Thank you. As I mentioned in my remarks, one of the biggest — I always use Brian Guptill, President of the Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association, as an example. He always says, “Follow the money.” It is a very simple concept. Just look at the bank records. If your income is not reflecting the value of that licence, then it’s going somewhere. When we see something like that, we need enforcement.
I’ve been very impressed speaking with Peter Lambertucci, who is in C&P, short for Conservation and Protection, now, and he seems to have all the right ideas. However, we really need to see someone charged. We have said it a million times. Until we see a large 3L crab licence revoked in Newfoundland and Labrador, no one will take any of this seriously. We haven’t seen that. We were really hopeful when owner-operator and fleet separation were brought into regulation that we would see some action, but we see continued erosion.
I really think we need to, again, follow the money. We need to see some charges, and we need to see some of these big licences revoked. Anybody could go to any wharf in Newfoundland and Labrador and point out what we call the company boats. Everybody knows them. The processors have got so brazen because they know that there will not be any enforcement, and owner-operator is just seen as words on paper that are not worth the paper they’re written on.
Senator Boudreau: I understand the point you raise, and I agree with you on the whole idea of following the money, but if we are in this situation, it is because there are certain aspects of the law or the regulation that people have been able to take advantage of to get around the purpose of the act.
Is there anything specifically that you’re aware of, any section or otherwise, that we could address to try to prevent this from happening further?
Ms. Street: Not specifically, off the top of my head, but I would recommend really sitting down with the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation. The entire federation was built on protecting owner-operator and the independence of the fleet. We’ve been working on this for decades now.
We have seen a willingness from DFO to come into the room, but, again, we feel it is just ticking a box and calling it consultation. We really need DFO to sit down with us and have a meaningful discussion on what could be done here. A controlling agreement is a controlling agreement, no matter if you call it a financial arrangement or a procurement arrangement — all these fancy words. All we saw were expensive lawyers sitting down, rewording agreements and making them fit under the current regulations. There need to be some hard discussions, and DFO really needs to take this seriously.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you.
Senator Surette: Good morning.
My question goes back to the owner-operator and fleet separation that have been around since the 1970s. You made a few recommendations today, including changing the Fisheries Act itself, which is under statutory review at present. However, you are also saying that it is the will of DFO and enforcement capacity that are at issue here. Are you pretty confident that if you change part of the act, that would solidify the independent fishers?
Ms. Street: Yes. Obviously, changes are needed, but, as you’ve said, there needs to be political willingness as well. To date, we really haven’t seen that.
As I’ve said, I have spoken to Peter Lambertucci, and he does seem to have some really good ideas and want to help here. We will see how that plays out with C&P and enforcement, but we have handed envelopes of evidence to DFO here in Newfoundland and Labrador. There have been raids on the homes of some folks who we know are in controlling agreements, and there has been no action.
It has been disappointing. You get your hopes up. I remember back in, I believe, 2014, when we heard folks would have a time frame to get out of these agreements, and if not, there would be consequences. Everybody had hope back then, and it just didn’t happen.
We always hear the right messaging and are told that change is coming, but, again, like with anything, actions always speak louder than words.
Senator Surette: How prevalent are controlling agreements in Newfoundland and Labrador? I am from southwestern Nova Scotia, and I am well aware of controlling agreements. I could name a number of people who have controlling agreements, yet it is the same there. They have not been charged.
Again, there, it has been around since the 1970s, and you are saying there is continued erosion. You would think that, by now, they would be completely eroded if it were wide open, so there is still some protection, is there not?
Ms. Street: Yes, and, largely, I would like to think it is because of the advocacy of our union and the federation. That has helped keep some of this down. I’m sure I can name some of the folks in Nova Scotia, too, in controlling agreements because they are here, and we see them buying up enterprises here.
We work very closely with the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board downstairs, and we will get calls, saying, “Hey, do you know this name?” because a person will be trying to get certified as a Level II harvester in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they won’t really sound like they have a Newfoundland accent. We know the names, and they are coming here to try to buy up in our fleet.
If you look at the larger 3L crab fleets, it has been going on for decades. We have heard numbers — though you will never be able to confirm them — of up to 50% of that fleet being corporately owned, and that’s a massive concern.
I represented the south coast as a staff representative for years, and even with something as small as our sea cucumber fishery, once those permits became licences, independent harvesters were trying to buy them up. Royal Greenland were calling around and offering $450,000 for that licence. Those guys just couldn’t compete, so a large number of their licences wound up in their hands.
Everybody sees what’s going on. Again, we can identify all the company boats. I think there is only so long that we can tamp it down before it just gets really out of hand.
Senator Surette: As a quick note, I spoke to some fishers from home yesterday, and they were leaving for Newfoundland.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Ms. Street, for your evidence here this morning. I have two questions. The first one is on the issue of controlling agreements. You mentioned envelopes of evidence. It would be useful for this committee to get some measure of data or information that you can provide around the issue that you spoke of — whether that’s anecdotal or actual data — on how widespread that problem is.
Do you have that type of data available to you?
Ms. Street: We certainly do.
Senator Dhillon: Would you be able to provide that to us?
Ms. Street: Sure.
Senator Dhillon: That would be useful.
To Senator Surette’s commentary and questions around this being ongoing, if there is a year-over-year comparison that shows the changes that have taken place over the years, that would be helpful as well.
This stems from my naivete, and I apologize for my ignorance: Why do you think it is that Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, is not pursuing charges?
Ms. Street: It is a good question. We look at some of these corporations, and we know the political influence that they have. We think it is a political issue rather than a legal issue, unfortunately.
It is disappointing, but we’re hopeful that with some changes in leadership in DFO, we will start seeing action and start having those conversations. We’ve had folks come into our meetings in Ottawa, our annual general meetings with the federation, and there are some new folks there right now who realize the seriousness of this. Again, it all comes down to political will.
Senator Dhillon: I don’t want to leave everything to Senator Deacon. Let me pull on that string a little bit.
When you say it is a political issue, can you elaborate on that?
Ms. Street: In this industry, you tend to be a bit of a cynic sometimes. Obviously, when we go to Ottawa, we see the lobby for these large corporations in the city. Organizations like ours — like the independent harvesters — sometimes you just can’t compete. We don’t have those boots on the ground. We don’t have that voice. We are here in Newfoundland and Labrador, always trying to put out fires.
We are hoping, actually, to increase our presence in Ottawa with the federation and hire a new executive director who will be in the city and able to advocate to ensure that the owner-operator issue is front and centre with DFO.
Senator Dhillon: It shouldn’t have to be that way, but I understand what you are saying.
We have also been examining the issue of money laundering in fisheries. My final question is this: Is that an issue that you are experiencing there as well?
Ms. Street: We are not hearing those concerns. Obviously, we collaborate with our colleagues in the Maritimes on a number of files, like the Lobster Council of Canada and the federation, and we hear what is going on in the Maritimes. It is very concerning, and we worry that it is not too far from our doorstep.
Senator Dhillon: When you say “your colleagues,” who in the Maritimes are you speaking to about that?
Ms. Street: Generally, we collaborate with the Maritime Fishermen’s Union, or MFU, a fair bit; the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association, or PEIFA; the Fundy North Fishermen’s Association; and a number of organizations across all the provinces, including Quebec.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Ms. Street. I appreciate that.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, Ms. Street, for being present today. I want to go back to a point you raised with respect to your relationship with DFO vis-à-vis the science of biomass in your fishing zones. You have expressed concern that the science may not be as accurate as what the fishers on the water are telling you.
Have there been any sort of negotiations with DFO to improve the science in these regions to track the biomass and to, perhaps, open up areas that historically have been closed?
Ms. Street: We are in constant discussion with DFO, but I will say that it is very, very frustrating. I will use a couple of examples.
We don’t have a commercial mackerel fishery anymore, and what harvesters are seeing on the water when it comes to mackerel is that it is teeming in the waters, and it is actually affecting other species. We had capelin harvesters last year who weren’t able to prosecute that fishery fully because there was too much mackerel; it was keeping it down.
We see the United States increasing their quota, and it is the same stock. We have argued with them that mackerel spawn on the northeast coast, and we are told, “No, they don’t.” Yet mackerel show up on the northeast coast about this big, and DFO fights us all the way.
Right now, in our snow crab fishery, snow crab is our bread and butter here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have areas under the current Precautionary Approach Framework that are looking at absolute devastation this year. I will thank the minister’s office for sitting down with those harvesters to try to find a solution, but we sit with DFO Science. We show them why their framework is not working and the errors in it, and we just get told that they will look at it down the road. “Down the road” is not going to help those harvesters who are going to be completely out of business.
I’ll give you the example of Division 3K on the northeast coast. This year, under the Precautionary Approach Framework, there was a 78% cut. That is what was recommended under the framework. That’s absolute devastation.
And for Division 3L, which is the most lucrative area, it was recommended that they could even take up to a 91% increase. Harvesters are saying no. It doesn’t gel.
Even under those numbers, DFO projected that in a couple of years, all stocks are going to be in decline. The precautionary approach, on paper, is supposed to avoid these peaks and valleys and smooth out the fluctuations in quotas so folks can plan their businesses and it can be sustainable. But what we’re seeing in the recommendations is so up and down that it is completely nonsensical.
Senator Ravalia: Ms. Street, to what extent do you collaborate with Indigenous fishers and use Indigenous knowledge in calculating this biomass?
Ms. Street: Indigenous groups are at the table as well. Obviously, all stakeholders put in their recommendations. We have Indigenous members in Labrador, Qalipu and Conne River as well.
However, collaboration hasn’t really been great, especially with the Miawpukek First Nation, or MFN. Chief Jenny Brake with the Qalipu has been wonderful, and we collaborated on the seal file together, but we do find lines of communication with some Indigenous groups to be very difficult.
Senator Ravalia: Are you able to give us an update on the seal issue? It is something we have studied here. It is something I hear a lot about from fishers off my community of Twillingate.
What are the current numbers, and what are the current concerns?
Ms. Street: Well, we had some concerns about how the Atlantic Seal Advisory Committee, or ASAC, has proceeded the past couple of years.
Obviously, the seal issue is always a difficult one, right, and our members find it very frustrating — again, with DFO — to talk about some of those numbers when you see seals strolling up the street and on beaches where you have never seen them before. Just down around Harbour Breton and Brunette Island, it is absolutely teeming with seals.
Regarding DFO, it is frustrating because we know, with a lot of the issues, the overall tack that is not taken regarding seals is political, marketing and international. DFO does not really change any of their science. Look at Sable Island; I always use that as an example. When they said at ASAC that the seals are gone and it must be environmental, we replied that, no, they ate themselves out of house and home. They are over here now, and they never were before.
So, it is another instance of DFO Science being very frustrating. DFO is so dug in with their ways of doing things and is very resistant to change.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
The Chair: Following up on a discussion about science, I’m sure we will have some interesting follow-up from Senator C. Deacon from Nova Scotia.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, chair. I think that is a dare.
Ms. Street, thank you very much for your directness and the passion you have for the community you represent very well.
Paragraph 2.5(a) of the Fisheries Act refers to “the application of a precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach” to the management of the fishery. We have heard about this precautionary approach quite a bit. We have heard about it as a reason to not allow any innovations to be implemented. We have heard about it as a reason to not have any significant movement on the problem of the abundance of seals. We are hearing about it now as it relates to the owner-operator “challenges” — that is the most polite word I can use.
It is not defined anywhere in the act. As far as I can tell, the precautionary approach means the “we are not going to do anything” approach but not providing the evidence to justify that in action.
Have you seen anybody defining what a precautionary approach is anywhere and how they are actually interpreting that phrase in their actions — or lack thereof?
Ms. Street: No, I have not. We have just recently discovered in the situation we are in with snow crab that it is not consistent. I will give the most blatant example with the snow crab precautionary approach that we are running into with 3K. The language they’re using is that they have just removed 3K snow crab from the cautious zone to the critical zone based upon a projection of status quo removals. Under the precautionary approach and the percentage you are allowed to take, status quo removals in 2026 were not even possible. So, you are basing the status of that zone on something that cannot even happen. That doesn’t happen in any other precautionary approach.
So, if we follow the percentages that are there for what is actually possible under the recommendations, 3K would be in the cautious zone still, but DFO Science will argue that, no, this framework is different. Why is it different? They say, “It just is.” They cannot give us the answers.
It has been since about 2018 that the precautionary approach for snow crab has been in place. PAs are supposed to be reviewed every two to three years, and there has not been a review on the snow crab PA yet. It is only now that we are on the downward spiral on snow crab [Technical difficulties] and they’ve committed to reviewing it.
Senator C. Deacon: We lost you there for a second in the transmission. If you could go back a sentence, I would be grateful.
Ms. Street: It is only now that the stock is on the downward spiral that we are actually seeing the issues and that a review is necessary.
But it is supposed to be reviewed every two to three years, and it has been eight years now with no review.
Senator C. Deacon: I find what you are saying — I’m generally troubled. This is what my colleagues would say about my view of how DFO operates as an organization.
It appears that there isn’t any evidence provided to justify — so let’s say they have a different definition of the precautionary approach in one area than they do in another. It sounds like polar opposite definitions in many cases, but they do not provide any evidence to back up those differences in position and definition. Has that been your experience?
Ms. Street: Absolutely.
Senator C. Deacon: I don’t know what else to say, chair. Thank you.
The Chair: It is amazing.
Senator M. Deacon: I want to thank you for being here today. We all appreciate it.
I want to come back to something you said in your introductory comments. I’m just looking for a few living examples. You talked about integrating harvester knowledge in decision making. I believe, and I would infer, that this is something that may happen but not intentionally, not purposefully and not enough. I’m wondering if you can give me an example where perhaps research may have won the day or some recommendation may have been based on an imbalanced input. Where has that been unsuccessful for you? Can you give an example or two?
Ms. Street: I keep going back to 3K on the northeast coast, but it’s probably one of the most frustrating areas, especially when we see harvesters really working to ensure the resource is sustainable.
I have spoken a lot about 3K offshore, but I will use some of the inshore crab harvesters. Over the past four or five years, the DFO recommendations have been that you can take large increases in your snow crab quota. Those committees have actually chosen to be quite conservative. In areas where it was recommended that they could take up to 42%, they have taken 10%, 15% or sometimes 20%.
Now, under the precautionary approach, the entire area, including the inshore areas, is lumped together. So, when we see declines in offshore areas, their stock is considered down, as well. It doesn’t matter that they have been so conservative for all these years. All of a sudden, they are facing the same massive cost. They have tried to sit with DFO Science and say that this is what they did. It was recommended they take bigger increases, and they didn’t. So, why, all of a sudden, do they have to take massive cuts when they have tried to balance this out and maintain the resource for years to come? And DFO Science doesn’t take it into account. They will say, “Under the precautionary approach, this is what it shows.”
We have argued predation — we know in 3K right now, northern cod has had a significant impact on snow crab and catchability. We actually took it upon ourselves to put cameras on crab huts last year to show DFO that when we put the pot down, there was no bait jar. The cod are coming and eating the bait, so why are crab going to go into the pot? They didn’t even factor that into the model.
It is an entire-ecosystem approach, but DFO just sees what is on paper. With this precautionary approach, they look at catchability, egg clutches on females and — I forget what the other one is, but there are three indices. We tell them that, no, there is so much more at play here, and harvesters know that. No harvester wants to go out and absolutely decimate a resource that is their livelihood, so they are trying. DFO is just cutting their legs out from under them.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that example. Your testimony is so important today, putting it all on the table. We really want to understand what we’re not hearing and what isn’t being said. We need to understand this.
I’m going to flip things a little bit. As I’m learning here, I want to understand more about this owner-operator concept. I think we have all known for a million years what it means. However, in testimony in February, Gordon MacDonald, President of the Richmond County Inshore Fishermen’s Association, talked about this. He talked about the expansion of the definition and that the intention, when it gets expanded, is that it will make something better — looking from a single living entity to an eligible fishing family, which would help facilitate intergenerational transfers a little bit and, I’m sure, other efficiencies in situations where more than one child is involved in a fishing enterprise.
I imagine that conversation is happening in the unions and on the ground. I’m wondering what your thoughts are. Do you or your members see concerns about that? Is it heavily endorsed? Is it even talked about?
Ms. Street: We always talk about generational transfer, especially for a small-boat fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, which was traditionally a kinship industry. My background is in social science — I studied that quite a bit — and there is still a lot of that here.
We want to make it easier for young harvesters to take over those enterprises and even to get access when it is not a fishing family because sometimes the father is still fishing, the son or daughter wants to get access, but it is access to capital that is so difficult. We try to streamline our processes with the certification board to make things easier for young people trying to get into the industry. At the union, we actually just formed the Young Harvesters Committee with representatives from all areas across the island and in Labrador. They sit down twice a month and actually talk about the barriers and how we can try to break some of them down and make it easier. The number one thing that we hear about is access to capital and the inflated price of licences. How we put that genie back in the bottle right now, we’re not quite sure, but we are hearing some really good ideas from those young folks, and we are hopeful that we can start working with government on some of that policy.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Senator Prosper: Thank you, Ms. Street, for being with us. It has been rather informative for me.
I want to revisit some of your earlier testimony more specifically dealing with the Indigenous fishery. I definitely see the value of owner-operator with respect to the livelihood of communities and not siphoning off money into some corporate sort of company when it is the backbone of communities. I’m conscious of your approach and your perspective on the Indigenous corporate communal access to the fishery, but also the food, social and ceremonial aspects of the Indigenous fishery.
I’m curious about three things. You mentioned that some of these discussions, although positive in certain respects, are quite difficult, for the most part, with some of the relevant players. I’m curious: Who are the relevant players when we are considering the Indigenous fishery? What are the trends? I believe you referenced that corporations use the Indigenous fishery as a sort of back door to gain access.
Are there any positive things with respect to the Indigenous fishery that you think would lend themselves as a good example of these two systems working together for the benefit of those involved in communities within the fishery? I know there are a number of elements to that mystery, but I appreciate anything you can provide.
Ms. Street: I think Indigenous knowledge in fisheries is invaluable. As stakeholders, they have so much to bring to the table.
However, we do have concerns about corporate control in the Indigenous community as well. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we hear rumours of certain companies using Indigenous fisheries to get access. It has been a bit of a struggle because we obviously want to work together. We don’t want those tensions. I will say that, obviously, a lot of the tensions in the Maritimes between commercial, communal and moderate livelihood we don’t have here in Newfoundland and Labrador because Marshall doesn’t apply here. I really am glad we don’t have those tensions with Indigenous communities.
We have many members who are Indigenous. We all try to work together, but it is difficult when our members see enterprises being bought up and turned into commercial communal. We struggle because, just last year, we had a lot of issues with harvesters from Nova Scotia who came over here and fished those licences when we think it’s an opportunity for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Again, we want to have those discussions. We’ve reached out to some of the Indigenous groups, but we haven’t got responses. I think communication is going to be key. We really need those open lines of communication so we can work together.
Senator Prosper: If you don’t mind, who are some of those players with respect to the Nova Scotia contacts in terms of fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Ms. Street: I don’t have names of those who were there last year, but the staff at the time did tell me it was a significant issue in the whelk fishery. Of course, whelk here in Newfoundland and Labrador is competitive. Our folks are generally fishing snow crab and lobster in April and May, and whelk will open in May. It is a fishery they will prosecute down the road.
We had Nova Scotians coming over here at the beginning of the season and fishing the quota, bringing in up to 40% undersize and completely decimating the resource. We did talk to C&P on the south coast and finally brought their attention to it. There were a number of charges laid last year, which we were very happy about because it was starting to get out of hand. We hope that will, at least somewhat, put a lid back on it.
Senator Prosper: I would imagine it is refreshing to see charges being laid, certainly from the perspective of your organization and the fishers. It is quite the opposite, I guess, from what I’m hearing with respect to other aspects of the fishery and corporate interests, where there have been no charges from what I heard in your testimony.
Do you have any idea as to why there is a disparity between prosecuting Indigenous fishers and not prosecuting non‑Indigenous fishers and corporate interests?
Ms. Street: I have no idea.
Senator Cuzner: I thought that back in 2019, there was an expression of political will when then-minister Dominic LeBlanc brought forward Bill C-68 with the update in the act, where they put owner-operator and fleet separation in the regulations. It was well received in the fishing community, but what I’m hearing here is that it really hasn’t made much of a difference. Is that what you’re sharing with us?
Ms. Street: Absolutely.
Senator Cuzner: You have seen no particular change since then?
Ms. Street: No. At the federation, we worked very closely with former Minister LeBlanc at the time to do that. We were so happy to hear him say he wanted to preserve his father’s legacy. What we’ve always heard with PIIFCAF was it was a policy so it really had no teeth. By putting it in regulation, we were all very excited that we were finally going to have a framework and there was going to be enforcement. But, again, it doesn’t seem as if it has any teeth.
I don’t know if it comes down to language or political will, but in doing so, promises were made to us that weren’t delivered on.
Senator Cuzner: You have both formal and informal boots on the ground, with the DFO guys on the ground in Newfoundland. Are they sharing any insights with you? Are they saying that they are handcuffed by this or that this doesn’t allow them to move forward? Are they sharing any kinds of insights like that as to why they don’t seem to be making any moves in the area?
Ms. Street: No. Generally, they don’t have those discussions with us. They will reach out and ask — they will tell us they are investigating a file, or they will tell us they have this many targeted investigations or that many random investigations, and then they let us know the results. We don’t hear names or the circumstances, and I understand many times it’s a privacy thing as well.
It’s frustrating sometimes because we hear about the folks under investigation and we think, “Finally.” But then we hear they’ve been cleared. It completely boggles our minds. I dealt with a case on the south coast. I looked at the documentation. He came to me because he was under investigation, and I tried to help him, but at the same time, we know the situation here — and he was cleared.
If seven or eight licences are paid for with the same Visa card, it is probably a pretty good indication that something is not right. I know the DFO has rules to follow and a job to do too, and some of these guys can get sneaky trying to get around these regulations, but there has to be a way to dig a little deeper.
Senator Cuzner: This is off topic, but I would hate not to ask this of somebody in your position. You made reference to the cod stealing the bait in the crab trap. That would mean that there are a few cod still hanging around. Are you seeing some positive signs in the cod fishery?
Ms. Street: Absolutely. We will be leaving fish in the water this year, but that’s not a catchability problem. It is a processing capacity problem. When it comes to cod, the condition of the fish has been fantastic. Folks made a really good living on northern cod this year. We are still really concerned when it comes to 3Ps and Gulf cod. Those are still in dire straits, but with northern cod, there are definitely some great signs.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Street, when I talk to young people in Newfoundland and Labrador in my own area who want to become involved in the fishery industry — as we touched on earlier — access to financing always seems like the major impediment. In the 1980s and early 1990s, you could renew your licence for $30. That licence today could be worth $2 million.
We dealt with some witnesses here who made futile attempts with the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, looking for financing. In cases where some were successful, the interest rates were insurmountable in relation to building and operating the business. From the perspective of financing, I know that is where you end up with many of the processors stepping up to the plate because, number one, they have the financial backing, which secures the catch in their corner of the world too. I wonder if you want to touch base on that. You mentioned earlier that, with the young group you have now, access to financing is one of the major issues you are discussing.
Ms. Street: Sure. It always seems to be a major issue. You hear what the prices of some of these licences are going for. You would never live long enough to pay it off. Some of the interest rates are through the roof. Our province tried to help. They created the Harvester Enterprise Loan Program, or HELP, a couple of years ago. But I can count on one hand the number of people who were able to qualify. The criteria were ridiculous. We had a young harvester go right to the last step of this program, and he was looking for $400,000, but because he only had $300,000 of life insurance, they disqualified them. It is always a struggle when we see programs like that being drafted, and we think they are going to be beneficial, but they are so restrictive.
We have had these discussions with the federation for decades, obviously. We look at something like Farm Credit Canada and try to see if there could be a program developed like that for the fishing industry. We have had discussions with the minister, and she does seem receptive to that. I spoke with her in Boston a few weeks ago, and one of the first things that she brought up was helping young harvesters get access to capital.
We have struck a subgroup with the federation. We have the Young Harvesters Committee here. Those will be some very important discussions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Surette: My question was going in the same direction: access to capital. But before I get to that, just to get a feel from your organization, how many different types of fisheries as far as licence holders go are you representing? You mentioned snow crab, which seems to be the largest. My question is this: Is it the same in every fishery? Are controlling agreements a problem in every fishery or only particular to some fisheries?
Ms. Street: Generally, the enterprises that we represent are multi-species enterprises. If the enterprise is owned, the suite of licences that come with it will be corporately owned. It seems to be snow crab and now lobster as well. The lobster industry here has ballooned over the last short while. We are hearing about these buyers coming in. Our lobster industry is not offshore. These are not big boats. The value of the product right now, especially on the south and west coasts, is pretty significant. We are starting to hear of these companies starting to buy into lobster.
Cod is going to be another one as the resource rebounds. You never have a healthy shellfish industry and a healthy groundfish industry at the same time. As that shifts, we are going to have to watch what is going on there as well with cod. A lot of these big corporately owned boats fish turbot, cod and crab. Shrimp is another one, even though the shrimp industry is not as important here as it once was. But we are down to about two shrimp processing plants here, and generally, it is Royal Greenland that owns that resource. So it applies across species even though it is snow crab that we talk about most.
Senator Surette: Going back to access to capital, that seems to be the crux of the matter here. To make things worse — and I’m assuming it’s the same thing in Newfoundland and Labrador — there is an older workforce in the fishery, so soon there will be a big turnover. If something isn’t done, it is likely that there will be more corporate agreements because if young people cannot get access to capital, that will cause great difficulty in the fishery.
Then there are different options, including family entity and so on. It seems like every time you open the door to something, there is abuse. Even opinions on family entity are far from unanimous within the fishery and among fishers — around whether that would be the way to go — because there would be abuse there as well. So I don’t know. A multi-pronged approach has to be taken here, and corporate agreements are just the result of all this because there is a lack of access to capital.
Ms. Street: Therein lies the biggest issue. You can always trace it back to money.
Senator Surette: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you again, Ms. Street. I keep going back to the inconsistent decision making. We have a highly diverse fishery in any given region, let alone on our different coasts, just in terms of the ocean ecology and the relative strength of various stocks. Things need to be managed differently, given what area of Newfoundland you are working in, let alone across the Atlantic provinces and in B.C. But the decision-making framework seems to be random. I look farther down these considerations that the minister had in section 2.5. You look at all of the different issues, application of this precautionary approach, which is a “we will do what we want or we will not do anything” approach, and an ecosystem approach, which you think considers the health of the ecosystem in that given area.
Paragraph 2.5(b) is “the sustainability of fisheries” — it doesn’t seem to be a consideration because of the balance that is needed within a given area, and we’ve seen it with seals and the inaction and excuses we have heard around seals. Scientific information, Indigenous knowledge, community knowledge and all of these social, economic and cultural factors in the management of the fisheries are being ignored at this point, or the frameworks are being randomly applied. So when you say it is political will, this is all within the control of the minister. I think that is key. I have finished my preamble, chair.
I just want to focus on how this is being managed within DFO in Newfoundland. The reporting structure goes up to — I would expect — one individual in Newfoundland who reports back to Ottawa, so there would be a number of people involved in that decision making. Have you had any conversations that explain how those individuals in your region and in your province are justifying the differences in decisions or are they just simply ignoring the question?
Ms. Street: I will say we do have really good lines of communication with senior resource management here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We meet biweekly, just to give them a heads-up on any issues that we see coming at them; they do the same with us. The regional director general, or RDG, is William McGillivray, and I speak to William on a regular basis as well.
The frustrating part for us is DFO Science. We’re finding they have a very top-down approach. My dad is a fish harvester. Around 30 years ago, he knew the names of everybody at DFO and could give them a call. He could walk into White Hills and actually sit down and talk to somebody and have a conversation. There seemed to be mutual respect there.
We don’t feel that anymore. You need to make an appointment. You need a note from God for a fish harvester to get into White Hills now. They probably couldn’t tell you the names of half of the DFO officials, and it is very frustrating.
We tried to simply get some extra seats at assessments and advisories, and it was like pulling teeth. We were successful this year, thankfully; we didn’t think we were going to be. Some staff had to go in and push very hard to get harvesters to the table.
I sat at the snow crab advisory a little while ago. I had a little bit of a blow-up because, as harvesters were talking, one of the lead scientists was rolling her eyes. And had I seen her eyes roll one more time — I told her that was the most disrespectful display I had seen from DFO Science in a long time. There seems to be a complete breakdown in respect.
I don’t know how we rebuild that, but it is a very top-down attitude of, “We know science. We know the model. Thank you for your input, but you just don’t understand.” That seemed to be the consistent message. It’s frustrating for me to sit there knowing what these harvesters bring to the table with their decades of experience and knowledge. They know the ocean more than any scientist I have ever met in my entire life. For them to sit there and have some young scientist tell them, “You just don’t understand” is so frustrating. It is important; the minister needs to know that this is what is happening and there is a complete breakdown. We just don’t see the respect that we worked so hard for decades to get.
Senator C. Deacon: I really appreciate you helping me to understand, Ms. Street. I’m from Nova Scotia. When I think about the scientists in DFO, I think about the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. Where are the scientific decisions and accountability resting with this group in Newfoundland? Can you help me understand where that follows up the chain? Pardon my ignorance.
Ms. Street: No worries at all. They are in the White Hills. We’ve had some battles with DFO Science since, I think, around 2016-17 when a scientist told everybody, “Regarding snow crab, you will be out of business in a few years.” Then, all of a sudden, quotas hit record highs. We held protests to tell him, “You are wrong.” There was absolutely no accountability.
We bring up that time. Those are the years you don’t talk about with DFO Science because they know what happened. Harvesters find it very hard to trust DFO scientific advice now when they’ve seen that it can be wrong. They ask the questions and are told, “You have to trust us.”
All the decision making, scientifically, is in the White Hills, but as you said, ultimately the decision is with the minister. She did meet with harvesters about areas where we are probably looking at significant cuts this year. We are expecting the crab management plan to come down any day — hopefully today. I’m hoping that she understood and that she took seriously what she heard because harvesters really need to be taken seriously. And the minister has that ultimate decision-making power. She is not boxed in by the precautionary framework the way that she says she is. I guess it will be waiting and seeing if they will deviate from the science department down at DFO.
Senator C. Deacon: Back to that wonderful precautionary framework, they are not consistent. This group at the White Hills facility is not consistent in their application of the precautionary framework within the different fishing zones in Newfoundland. That’s what it sounds like.
Ms. Street: Well, across species, they are so different. Again, the predictive measure is in snow crab, and you don’t see that in shrimp. We are sitting down now; they’re telling us we need a precautionary approach in lobster, and our lobster fishery is being managed so well. Harvesters know that what we have in place right now is working, and they’re very concerned about what that will mean for lobster. They see what is going on with snow crab right now. Will this throw a wrench into how the areas are managed? Lobster is not a TAC, or total allowable catch, fishery; it is a competitive fishery operating within a very limited time. It is so different. Will they impose a similar framework as with snow crab or shrimp? We don’t know what that will look like.
When we sit down with DFO Science, it seems they are struggling to see what it looks like because, again, each species and the management are so different. It is inconsistent application. It is inconsistent in how each framework is created and what that looks like. It seems they are just trying to tick the box in the Fisheries Act that says a precautionary approach has to be in place.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Ms. Street. I wonder if we can ask DFO for an organizational chart for each of the regions. The lack of accountability just blows my mind. Thank you very much.
Senator Surette: I have a question to do with science, if possible. Would it not be possible for your organization, as I know some others are doing, to partner with universities, for example, to do your own research? Then you could mesh that in with what DFO is lacking or, at least, combat what DFO is telling you.
Ms. Street: We actually have our own science department here at FFAW. It was born largely out of the gaps and the cuts at DFO Science. We do a post-season snow crab survey with DFO, and it is the biggest input into the model. But we’ve also been doing the Cod Sentinel Survey for the past 30 years. It is such an important piece of science because DFO surveys on cod are largely in the offshore areas. We don’t have any indices for the inshore.
DFO just cut that program. It’s done. They keep saying it is because the moratorium is lifted on northern cod and we don’t need that data. But DFO doesn’t really do any work in the inshore. Also, there are more cod species in Newfoundland and Labrador than northern cod, like 3Ps cod. Southern Gulf cod is under a moratorium, and you’ve just stripped that 30-year data set from science. That’s harvester knowledge. I don’t think it could be any clearer that they feel harvester knowledge is not important and not needed if they can just take a 30-year time series and completely axe the program.
We had harvesters so upset about that program that they cried on the call when we told them that Sentinel was no more.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. It has certainly been a very interesting conversation. I thank Ms. Street for taking the time to join us. If you think of anything afterward and you say, “I wish I had said that,” feel free to send it along to us in writing as we continue our work on this particular file.
Certainly, there are some very concerning issues that you raised here with our senators. I think back to the conversations held in Newfoundland and Labrador pre-cod moratorium, and people said they should have listened to the fishermen back then, prior to 1992. We’re heading down the same road, by the sound of things, in some of the fisheries that we’re dealing with in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I understand that you’re waiting for the management plan to be announced, and you’re working on trying to establish a fair price for harvesters in the snow crab fishery this year, so I will close by saying best of luck with that one. It’s always a challenging time, this time of year, for the union and the harvesters. I wish you all the best.
Thank you, senators, for your questions, and I thank Ms. Street for joining us this morning.
(The committee adjourned.)