THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 16, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 8:31 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the independence of commercial inshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and the policies and legislative tools used by the Government of Canada to preserve it, such as the Owner-Operator Policy.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good morning.
My name is Fabian Manning. I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s a pleasure to chair this committee. I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from the microphone at all times. Do not touch the microphone. It will be turned on and off by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. You may either keep it in your ear or place it on the designated sticker. We thank you for your cooperation.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to myself or to the clerk, and 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: Good morning. Thank you for being here. Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia. I’m glad you’re here.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia. I’m filling in for Senator Ravalia.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Good morning. Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
Senator Busson: Welcome. I’m Bev Busson, from British Columbia.
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 be hearing from the following individuals: Ron Cormier, retired lobster fisherman and Past President of the Maritime Fishermen’s Union; Amy Howe, General Manager, Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association; and Amanda Johnson, Executive Director of the Fundy North Fishermen’s Association.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you all for taking the time to be here with us today. I understand that you all have some opening remarks. Following the remarks, I’m sure that members of our committee will have some questions for you.
Ron Cormier, Retired Lobster Fisherman and Past President Maritime Fishermen’s Union, as an individual: Good morning, senators. My name is Ron Cormier. I’m a retired lobster fisherman. I fished for about 29 years and retired from that industry about 17 years ago. I was also the chair of the Atlantic Fisheries Licence Appeal Board, and I participated as a board member of the provincial processing licence appeal board.
Once again, I would like to begin by thanking you for giving me an opportunity to share my thoughts, preoccupations and experience on owner-operator policy.
I just want to start by mentioning the late Honourable Roméo LeBlanc, who was Minister of Fisheries from 1974 to 1984. He was the one who established the owner-operator policy. This policy was created to preserve the independence of the inshore fishing fleet on the eastern seaboard.
This policy mandates that commercial fishing licence holders must operate and own their vessels. This prevents a large commercial processing corporation — shareholders in this case — from monopolizing the fishing industry. If we dilute or weaken this owner-operator policy, it will have a direct impact on the economic stability in the eastern fishing communities.
Now, we’ve seen this. We’ve experienced this already.
I just want to give you a couple of examples of my experience, and keep in mind I’m going back 25 years. I have been retired for quite some time. I have gone through this. I tried to rewind my memory, and I did some research to make sure that what I’m about to share with you is basically what happened.
Back in 1996, on the western coast — and, again, this is an example — the “Mifflin Plan” was born. Fred Mifflin was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans way back then. Now, the plan was put together in 1996 because the salmon stocks were declining, and so were the prices. Under the plan, it broke the coastline in regions to spread out commercial fisheries and reduce competition. This was the main objective of that plan. It also limited the number of licences per region. At the same time, the Mifflin Plan offered a buyback program for all fishermen who wanted to retire. In this buyback, there was approximately $80 million that was put aside, and out of the fishermen that they thought they could retire — it was about 1,200 — they managed to retire about half of that, 700-ish.
Now, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, wasn’t the only one offering cash for those licences. Another thing that happened when they put that plan together was that they gave the industry, the fishermen, the right to stack licences. When they stacked those licences, it made them more viable, but to purchase those licences with quotas attached to them, you needed capital. Where do you get capital? From stakeholders, processing sectors. All of a sudden, you had a situation where the stakeholders, the processing sector, again, not to repeat myself, had licences with quotas attached to them.
Now, the processing sector, the shareholders — and I will repeat the shareholders on a few occasions here — were purchasing licences or entering into trust agreements with fishermen, giving the processing sector a monopoly to control the fishermen and their quotas. Today, we have a corporation owning fish licences, okay? That’s out West.
I just wanted to throw this in from my memory. Way back then, there was a little joke running around that this individual who had gone through the buyout, still had his boat, still had the gear and wanted to re-enter, and this individual had to make a few calls in Ontario to this dentist who owned his quota to repurchase it at a very minimal cost. That was just one individual. There were many others, no doubt.
So the owner-operator policy was not intact out West, apparently, way back when. Apparently, it’s not today. I’m not connected with what’s going on today. I’m going back two years, but this is one example.
Switching to the eastern coast, again, I worked for 29 years and have seen a lot of stuff. It has evolved. Times have changed. Prices are going up. I remember, back when I was president, the Federal Court decided that Donald Marshall had the right to fish for a moderate livelihood. I won’t get into too much detail, but, today, that decision has come to the point where the bands can purchase and accumulate owner-operator licences and convert them into communal licences and then lease them out to certain individuals. It is completely contrary to the owner-operator policy; it dilutes it.
Those individuals who lease those licences are not all saints. There are a lot of shenanigans going on. I won’t go into detail, but the owner-operator is fractured when that happens.
Down home, when I was there, there were trust agreements. Individuals who wanted to exit the fishery couldn’t sell their licences because the prices were just way above normal. The only recourse was to sign a trust agreement with the processor. In return, the processor had control of that, reassuring fish or lobster or whatever in his hands so he could be more viable and make content the shareholders. But all of a sudden that fisherman was at the mercy of that processor. He needed to sell there. His hands were tied, so to speak.
When that happens, it leaves the community a little in the back. Just as a quick example, if a processor from elsewhere decides to buy licences in New Brunswick, certain fishermen are at his mercy. The fisherman’s moderate livelihood just went from there to there, meaning that the processors and their shareholders will not buy their trucks in Caraquet. The kitchens for the women are not bought in Caraquet. They’re going to buy that at home, leaving that money there. It’s not spread into the communities.
I hope you understand what I’m saying. It’s touchy, but it’s happening.
To me, it’s imperative that we keep the owner-operator policy together, especially on the eastern seacoast in New Brunswick and the Maritimes. It’s imperative because if we don’t, it would be taking the identity, the lifestyle and the entire culture of the inshore fishermen that we have today. The owner-operator policy —
The Chair: Mr. Cormier, I hate to interrupt, but if you could conclude your remarks so we can get to the others and to senators’ questions.
Mr. Cormier: I apologize.
The Chair: No, I know the history.
Mr. Cormier: I’m just finishing anyway.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Cormier: In closing, like I was saying, the owner-operator policy can’t be compromised or diluted. The inshore fishermen — to my knowledge and in my opinion, and I think in the industry’s opinion — are the real shareholders of this industry. It benefits the economics of our local communities on the eastern seaboard.
I want to be on the record saying that I support the Maritime Fishermen’s Union on this position. I also support the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters on this position. Thank you very much for your time. I’ll take questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cormier.
Amy Howe, General Manager, Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I come to you from Grand Manan Island, an island community in the Bay of Fundy where the salt air is not just part of the landscape; it is our economy, our livelihood and our future.
For communities like ours, the fishery is not simply one industry among many. It is the foundation upon which everything else stands. In 2023 alone, the Grand Manan fishery landed 5.85 million pounds of seafood with a wharf value of nearly $78 million.
When those landings ripple through processing, transportation and wholesaling, the ocean surrounding our island generates over $81 million in GDP. It directly supports more than 600 jobs in a community of only 2,600 and produces over $33 million in employment income to the province of New Brunswick. For a small island community, that is not just economic activity. It is the difference between survival and decline.
At the heart of this success is a simple principle: owner-operator policy. This policy ensures that the people who hold the fishing licences are the people on the deck hauling the gear. It ensures the wealth generated by Canada’s public fishery stays in our coastal communities rather than flowing to corporate shareholders from far away.
Why do “boots on the boat” matter? Because independent fishermen are not just workers. They are the stewards, entrepreneurs and community builders. When fishermen own their licences and live in the communities where they fish, they are invested in the long-term sustainability of the resource. They are thinking about the fishery not just for next season but for their children and their grandchildren.
The economic impact of that local ownership is profound. Fishing and seafood activities account for 45% of all economic output on Grand Manan, a share 15 times higher than the provincial average. Nearly 44% of all businesses on the island are directly tied to the fishing sector, placing Grand Manan among the most fishery-dependent communities in the country. Roughly one in three private-sector workers rely on fishing and related activities for their employment.
This economic activity generates over $25 million in household spending, supporting our grocery store, our hardware store and our school, along with local services across our island and the surrounding regions. Without independent fishermen, that economic engine simply disappears.
For many Canadians, losing a job means looking for work in another sector or another town. For island communities like mine on Grand Manan, that option does not exist. We are geographically isolated, with a closed local economy built entirely around the fishery. Fishermen cannot simply transition to another industry without leaving the island altogether. Doing so means uprooting families, selling homes, removing children from the school and abandoning generations of heritage that have been tied to the sea.
When independent fishing licences disappear from a community, the economic consequences are not gradual; they are immediate and irreversible. Homes sit empty. Schools lose students. Local businesses close their doors. This is already happening. What begins as a policy shift in Ottawa is quickly becoming a population crisis on the East Coast.
In 2019, Parliament took a historic step by enshrining the owner-operator and fleet separation policies into the Fisheries Act. But legislation alone is not enough. Across Atlantic Canada, we continue to see the spread of trust agreements and controlling arrangements that allow corporations or investors to control fishing licences behind the scenes while a nominal licence holder sits on the vessel.
These arrangements undermine the spirit of the law and risk turning independent fishermen into something closer to wage labourers on licences that they will never get to own.
That is not the future Parliament envisioned. We believe three things are needed. First is meaningful verification; DFO must look beyond paperwork to determine who truly benefits financially from a licence. Second is real enforcement; violations should carry meaningful consequences, such as a licence freeze where appropriate. Third is transparency; clear mechanisms are needed to track beneficial ownership of fisheries access.
Canada’s fisheries are a public resource. Canadians deserve to know who truly holds that access.
Honourable senators, the choice before us is clear: We can allow the fishery to consolidate into fewer hands, gradually transforming coastal fishermen into employees of distant corporations, much like the times of old sharecroppers, or we can defend the model that has sustained Atlantic Canada for generations — independent owner-operators rooted in their communities.
For Grand Manan, the stakes could not be higher. The fishery contributes tens of millions of dollars to the economy, supports hundreds of jobs and funds a significant share of municipal and provincial services through tax revenues.
Beyond the numbers, it sustains a community. If owner-operator erodes, island communities like ours risk becoming hollow shells — places where people once lived and worked. We do not want our islands to become museum towns. We want them to remain what they have always been: working waterfront communities that power the Atlantic economy and steward Canada’s oceans, while providing food security.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Howe.
Ms. Johnson, please.
Amanda Johnson, Executive Director, Fundy North Fishermen’s Association: Good morning. My name is Amanda Johnson, and I am the Executive Director of the Fundy North Fishermen’s Association, representing Lobster Fishing Area, or LFA, 36 in the world-renowned Bay of Fundy in southwest New Brunswick.
LFA 36 spans roughly 250 kilometres from Alma to the U.S. border and includes Deer Island and Campobello Island, a unique fishing island only accessible through the United States. It is made up of 20 fishing ports, each rooted in a coastal community, where the fishery is not just an industry but the foundation of local life. On behalf of the Fundy North membership, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
The Atlantic owner-operator policy exists to protect independent harvesters and the economic stability of our coastal communities. It has not failed because it is flawed; it has failed because it is not being enforced. Without enforcement, policy becomes meaningless.
What we are seeing on the ground is the steady erosion of independence through controlling agreements, corporate influence, royalty charters and the leasing of access. These arrangements have quietly hollowed out the fleet over time. On paper, licences may still appear to be held by independent harvesters, but, in reality, control is increasingly shifting away from those who fish. What remains is the appearance of an independent fishery while real control is being lost. If this continues, we are not preserving independence — we are transitioning toward corporate ownership.
At the same time, the cost of entry has become prohibitive. It now takes millions of dollars to enter this industry, with no federal financing tools available to support new entrants or young harvesters. In agriculture, Farm Credit Canada, or FCC, provides a range of financing tools that support generational renewal and long-term viability. Fisheries need similar options, whether through a dedicated program or integration with FCC.
The absence of financial support creates a very predictable outcome: Young harvesters are forced into controlling agreements with buyers and processors simply to get started. They are being priced out of independence. I see this happening in the very communities that I represent here today.
The market itself is in chaos. Harvesters are going to work and landing product without knowing what they will be paid — no price and no certainty. In some cases, the price is not set until days or even weeks into a season, after product has already moved through the supply chain. What other sector in this country goes to work without knowing their wage?
There is a growing imbalance of power between harvesters, buyers, processors and larger market actors. Individual harvesters have little to no negotiating power, especially when access to capital, licences and even the ability to fish are tied to those very same entities through supply and controlling agreements. Concerns around price fixing, consolidation and potential collusion continue to be raised by industry, yet they are consistently dismissed.
What you will hear today is nothing new. Despite repeated studies, reports and recommendations, very little has changed. There is a growing disconnect between decision making and reality on the water. Fisheries management is centralized and bureaucratic, with decisions made in Ottawa, while those on the water are constrained by process and delay.
In 2023, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans issued a report entitled Foreign Ownership and Corporate Concentration of Fishing Licenses and Quota. The findings were clear, and the recommendations were practical and actionable. Yet, three years later, we are still here today, calling for the same actions.
The committee called for the full enforcement of owner-operator through licence conditions, including requiring true beneficial ownership and boots on the deck. They recommended that licences found to be in violation be suspended until brought back into compliance. The current timeline for compliance remains one year.
They called for stronger competition oversight, including lowering the threshold that triggers a Competition Bureau review so that consolidation can be addressed before it becomes entrenched. They reinforced that Canada’s fisheries are a public resource and that the benefits of that resource should, first and foremost, support Canadians and the coastal communities that depend on it.
They recommended the creation of an independent fisheries financing agency, similar to Farm Credit Canada, to provide the capital and support needed for new entrants and existing harvesters to remain independent.
All of these recommendations were acknowledged by the Minister of Fisheries at the time. Yet, here we are, still discussing the same problems.
The question is not what needs to be done. The question is why it hasn’t been done already.
Canada’s independent fishermen and -women are united in their concern that the system is failing them. Affordability, displacement, marginalization and corporatization are pushing them out. The owner-operator policy drives a viable fishery and sustains coastal communities whose futures depend on it. In many of these communities, the fishery is the primary economic driver. My members are not abstract stakeholders. They are real people whose livelihoods depend on whether this fishery remains independent and viable.
We often speak about fisheries policy in terms of management and regulation, but, at its core, this is about people. It is about whether the benefits of a public resource remain in the hands of those who depend on it and continue to flow through Canadian coastal communities.
As we have seen on the Pacific coast, once independence is lost, it is incredibly difficult to regain. When Canada’s independent fishery collapses, it will not be because no one spoke up; it will be because those in the positions of power failed to act.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Johnson, and thank all of you for your opening remarks.
I want to advise that we have a hard stop at 10 a.m. I don’t like cutting people off, but I need to make sure that we all get the opportunity to ask questions, so you need to reduce the preambles as much as you can and get to your questions.
Senator Busson: I am very interested in some comments that you all made, but specifically Ms. Howe and Ms. Johnson talked about the enforcement of the owner-operator policy as it stands and has been reinforced — as you point out — recently, as it has been put into the Fisheries Act.
In your opinion, does Fisheries and Oceans Canada have the capacity to effect the oversight and enforcement of these rules as they exist? You both alluded to the lack of transparency as well, and I would ask you to make some comments around that.
We’ve heard that on the West Coast there’s not just a lack of transparency, but it’s impossible to trace these licence holders once they get into their business and into the registry.
Would you both be able to comment? I will also welcome any comments from Mr. Cormier if that’s appropriate.
Ms. Howe: Thank you very much for the question.
In my opinion, they do have the tools necessary to enforce the policy as it sits today. I believe that forensic auditing will be a huge piece in being able to trace back where beneficial ownership of these licences is going. Our president at the association always says, “Follow the money; the money talks.” If you follow the flow of the money to where it will go, you will find where the beneficial ownership really is.
I understand that there are hang-ups, as Ms. Johnson referenced. The 12-month window to make a licence compliant is definitely something which the department hangs their hat on as a means to — or the loophole that they refer to. I think there’s some risk aversion to taking someone to task on what they believe is a strong case, and I think that this is why we are not seeing strong, consequential enforcement of the existing policy.
The tools are there, and we should not be sitting here, yet again, having the same conversation from 2019 to 2026. I think it’s time to act and to hold somebody accountable. Transparency is key, and following the money is the one tool that they could utilize.
Ms. Johnson: Thank you. Yes, I agree with that, and I think the department does have the capacity. They do have the tools, and they have also acknowledged that it will have to be a multi-agency approach in uncovering some of the control, for lack of a better word, but all of the agencies required sit here in Ottawa.
The tools are there. I think Fisheries and Oceans, the Canada Revenue Agency and the RCMP — it will take a group effort because some of these agreements are very sophisticated. They have been written by lawyers. They are not written by fishermen.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
Mr. Cormier, do you have a comment?
Mr. Cormier: I fully agree with what my colleagues are saying. Follow the money. You will find what is really happening at the end. The resource and everything else are in place. It’s just a matter of getting it done.
From 2019 until now, I mean, it has been awhile. And it is sophisticated, yes. Lawyers are writing the trust agreements, and it’s not that easy. But I think we’re smart enough today that if we do what we need to do — in this case, follow the money — you will get to the end of it, and you can penalize or suspend or whatever rules that you want to put together to get this in place. It has been too long. It has been just too long.
Senator Busson: I’m from the West Coast, and we are also doing a comparative study on the West Coast as well. Certainly, we’ve heard what the results are on the West Coast of ignoring this issue over a number of years. Could you comment on what degree of urgency you think this should take?
Mr. Cormier: It has a certain degree of urgency. I don’t know where the fish stocks are at today. That has a big role, moving forward. What’s done is done. I don’t know if you can reverse that. There is too much involved. There are too many years that have gone by, but I still think in my heart that it merits the discussion around owner-operator moving forward.
A lot of the conversations that I can remember having with the industry, with the guys back then, were that not everyone was in agreement with this Mifflin Plan. A lot of them were skeptical. A lot of them were left out of the discussion, so bringing it back, seeing if there’s something that can be done, tweaking it, adjusting it, whatever — I think it still merits, today, having an owner-operator and fleet separation policy discussion today.
Senator Busson: Ms. Howe, with regard to the East Coast, do you see an urgency there?
Ms. Howe: One hundred per cent. Just in reference from my own community, which is the lobster fishing area adjacent to Fundy North, between our two districts, the amount of erosion of owner-operator from literally last year, I would say, to where we are today is critical. Given the cost associated with running these businesses, with the cost of bait, fuel, crew share, just daily operational expenses, fishermen who once were in a fairly secure financial situation are now being forced to enter into some form of control. Where they’ve been in the fishery potentially 20 years, they are lapsing in funds to bridge the gap for lower stock or for potential climate change impacts to the fishery.
They are relying on a natural resource that isn’t always going to be the same, so the urgency is huge. We have seen it since just the start of our season in November. We have fishermen in our offices, at our desks, begging for some form of a bridge gap loan to help them so they can get away from the said buyer-processor in order to get themselves in a better financial position.
But it’s urgent. We are watching licences and vessels, as we sit here today, being foreclosed on and the risk of loans being recalled, and people have no option left but to go to a processor-buyer to just hope that by spring or summer they will be in a better financial position. It is urgent.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
Senator Surette: Thank you for being here this morning and for your presentation. It’s always interesting and discouraging in certain aspects as well.
We understand fairly well the issues and the challenges that are being faced. I will turn my attention to what can be done. My question is in two parts. The first part is the enforcement that was mentioned, and the comment was made that those in power failed to act. Are there any suggestions as to how we could make them act? Hopefully, this discussion and the report that we’ll put out will help, perhaps, but is there something else that should be done or could be done to facilitate that?
As an example, on the Pacific coast, we heard that they would like to set up an independent commission to see how they can move forward, because what DFO is doing now with the modernization doesn’t seem to be working. Are there any other ideas as to how we could get the needle moved at DFO?
Ms. Johnson: You’re asking us how to hold Fisheries and Oceans accountable? It comes down to political will, honestly, and that’s our biggest hurdle right now, is trying to move this forward.
If we start with being able to actually implement some other type of financing program for harvesters, you will see at least the new entrants fund themselves legally versus entering into control.
Right now, for me, I would confidently say that 30% of my fleet is in some form of a controlling agreement with a buyer. As it stands right now, new entrants coming in or young harvesters who are trying to bridge the gap, the only option for them, really, is to get access through their buyer. Is that what they want to be doing necessarily? No.
If we can put something in place — it has come down to that we, as industry stakeholders, are putting forth our own recommendations for harvester stability programs that could potentially just join in with Farm Credit Canada and be offered for fisheries, but it still has to be supported by this government.
Mr. Cormier: I remember back in 1984, when I started, there was a loan board. It did exist and it was used. That was a way for us to get into the fisheries.
I also remember that if you wanted to fish at a certain wharf, you had to have an affidavit from the rest of the fishermen accepting you at that wharf. So the culture of really owning and providing was there.
You’re absolutely right, Ms. Johnson. I think some kind of financial institution could be put in place to accommodate the new ownerships. Who has a down payment on $1.2 million, $1.3 million, $1.4 million or $1.5 million? That’s hard. It’s just hard. You’re at the mercy of the processing sector, like you just said. That would be an important tool to look into. That would keep the economic stability within our communities, for sure, or it would help. It would definitely help.
Now, when it comes to enforcing the owner-operator policy, like I said a while ago, we have to roll up our sleeves and get this thing done. One goes with the other, I do believe. It did exist way back then.
Senator Surette: I don’t know if you want to respond, but enforcement is one issue, and it doesn’t seem like they are doing their job, so something has to be done there. The other part of this is legislation — something can be done with legislation or policy or regulation. You mentioned Minister LeBlanc, back in the years 1974-84, enshrined it in policy, the owner-operator. Since 2021, it has been enshrined in regulation. Have you seen a difference? Now there’s a request to maybe put it in the Fisheries Act. Will it make a difference?
Ms. Johnson: Not if it is not enforced.
Ms. Howe: The will needs to be there. I do not want to be so doom and gloom. I would rather not be here today, although in your great company, it’s an honour.
The will needs to be there, and the understanding needs to be there, and it needs to be — yes, having it in the Fisheries Act will be critical. I think that it’s the accountability piece, as Ms. Johnson referenced — holding the department accountable for the things they are not doing — is key.
You make an example of one strong case, which I can imagine, after hearing from all of us today and since November, you have heard many examples of what I would consider strong cases. Making an example out of one will potentially have the impact to stop a lot of it, because once that risk — but to us, on Grand Manan and in southwest New Brunswick, it’s a joke. We are a joke. Our associations are a joke for supporting the owner-operator policy because they do not believe that anything will happen. Holding them accountable and having another funding option, in agreement with both of you on that, having someone have an opportunity to go elsewhere for funding is a strong foundation and above board will take away a lot of that.
Senator Dhillon: I want to first take notice that Ms. Howe’s comment about not wanting to be here was not directed at Senator Deacon. We are making progress. I’m on your side.
Thank you for being here. We make light to lighten the situation, but it is a dire situation. We are, on the Pacific coast, living with some of what you are predicting for the Atlantic coast.
I have two questions. Ms. Howe, you spoke about the change that’s coming and that you are already experiencing. With the experience that you have and what you see, what’s the runway? What is the time that we have to make some changes before we see irreparable damage and a point of no return, which is somewhat the language that we are hearing on the Pacific coast?
Ms. Howe: Thank you for the question. I believe strongly that the urgency has never been higher, to be honest with you. For Ms. Johnson and me, specifically, I can speak to the fact that with the landings and the costs associated with running an enterprise right now, it could not be any higher and harder, which, at this point in time, in my 10-year experience, which is nowhere as long as many others, I have not seen it to be this point. I have not seen individuals come to the office where we work from, on a daily basis, saying, “I’m not sure how I will continue on.” And it’s people you would never expect.
Your runway is very short. Our runway is short. We, on Grand Manan, have a lot of places, an aging demographic. Our licence holders are at an age where retirement is coming, and we have one school with many children in there who are generationally entrenched into the fishery, and for them to be able to stay on the island and fish like their fathers and grandfathers before them, not having a mechanism to get in there — we’re at a critical place. Because with these licences, retirement is happening, and there will be no one behind them to be able to afford to buy into the fishery and maintain our community.
It’s probably likely for yours as well, Amanda.
Ms. Johnson: Yes, it is exactly the same. We both have had members in our office over the past few months since our fall fishery opened, saying they are at risk of being foreclosed on. They have missed boat payments. They can’t make their bait payments. They can’t pay their crew. They have signed their licence as collateral when purchasing a new vessel, so now they are also at risk of losing their entire livelihoods, and they don’t have anything else to do.
I have lived on Campobello Island since October, and outside of tourist season, it is a fishing island to its core. There are approximately 900 year-round residents, and everything on that island right now is closed, aside from one small convenience store. The island is built around the fishery. That’s it.
If you were to take that away, we’re not just going to be left with unemployed crews and captains; we will have absolute ghost towns in our coastal communities because they will fail to exist without fixing this problem.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. As we look at both the Atlantic and Pacific fisheries, one of the conversations we have been having about a model for how to fix the Pacific side is the Policy for Preserving the Independence of the Inshore Fleet, or PIIFCAF. We are hearing it’s not really perfect. It has issues and challenges.
Based on your experiences in what you’ve seen of PIIFCAF and the model there, has it helped provide some transparency and also reduce illicit activity, money laundering and the entry of organized crime and gangs into that industry?
Mr. Cormier: Could you repeat that? I didn’t quite get the question, and I had a hard time hearing you.
Senator Dhillon: I’m wondering if the system that’s in place in the Atlantic fisheries with respect to the transparency that you see — or maybe there is no transparency, and I’ve got it wrong — has worked to prevent illicit activity, money laundering and organized crime from entering that industry?
Ms. Howe: No.
Mr. Cormier: Yeah. Good answer.
Senator Dhillon: Fantastic.
Senator C. Deacon: We all get along well in this committee. We have been studying this issue, but I can tell you that we are deeply troubled by what we are learning and where the Atlantic fishery, which has been protected, is heading. We can see exactly what will happen on the West Coast and the destruction that results of the livelihoods of communities and the resources being owned somewhere by somebody.
I look at beneficial ownership. We have a registry with teeth. It is only for Canadian business corporations. It’s not for provincially regulated corporations or individuals, but it could be for any business. It could be modified to be for any business that is federally regulated, and that federal regulation doesn’t occur through another act.
In this situation, there is the ability quite easily to have teeth. That’s really what we’re looking for: Where can the will of the government provide the minister, and arguably a junior minister in cabinet — too often over the last 20 years, we’ve seen a minister there for a year and a half, two years. That 10-year stretch with Roméo LeBlanc is a dream that seems impossible today.
We need to get those tools. I’m looking at tools outside of DFO that then force DFO. We have seen in a lot of studies that we have done in this committee that DFO is not accountable, period, as an organization. It’s despicable. I’m looking for things outside of DFO, outside of the Fisheries Act. Yes, in the Fisheries Act, too, but outside of DFO, for those hammers.
Any ideas specifically in that regard? That’s, personally, what I’m looking for.
Ms. Howe: Thank you for your question, Senator Deacon. I believe that the Competition Bureau has some mechanisms that could be used.
Senator C. Deacon: Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Howe: Ms. Johnson referenced price fixing and collusion. I’m sure you’ve heard it all. The threshold that triggers an investigation into whether it’s outside investment into the country does need to be analyzed.
Companies are buying up processing plants, buying facilities and boatyards, for example, to integrate into the fishery and have a monopoly. I think when you combine all those numbers together, you’re still not going to reach that threshold, and that is critical to a lot of the processing and buying entities in our communities. That would definitely need to be looked at. That would be one example of something outside of the department.
Senator C. Deacon: I have a good relationship with the bureau, many of us do, and we very much want to have them as a witness, but we wanted them to hear these stories before they came.
Ms. Johnson: I would agree with Ms. Howe’s comments regarding competition law. In a lot of these cases, people in the general public don’t understand that this is mafia-like behaviour in some of these areas in our coastal communities, and it goes far beyond just our small communities in southwest New Brunswick.
New Brunswick as a whole and what’s happening in southwest Nova Scotia and Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island — it’s all interconnected, so the competition law piece will be critical, and having this one case looked at and then actually pursued straight through to the end and having it prosecuted. Another issue that we are facing as well is PPSC leading a case through prosecution.
Senator C. Deacon: I think there is a misunderstanding of this industry in Ottawa, the multi-billion-dollar industry that is the fishery and the lax administration of their responsibility at DFO. I don’t think anyone appreciates how serious this is and how it’s encouraging criminal activity.
Thank you. Any other federal branches?
Mr. Cormier: Ms. Howe and Ms. Johnson are being very well rehearsed in the fishery today. I’ve been out of it for quite some time, but we’re in good hands. Good job, ladies.
Ms. Johnson: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Deacon’s statement of misunderstanding of the industry in Ottawa, I may use that line a few times.
Senator Boudreau: First of all, as the only New Brunswick senator at the table, I’m pleased to see an all-New Brunswick panel today. This is kind of cool. Thank you all for being here.
[Translation]
In particular, I would say to my long-time friend Ron Cormier that it’s good to see him and I appreciate his participation.
[English]
We’re hearing a lot of the same stories, to follow up on a comment that my colleague Senator Deacon just made. I just did a quick check as we were talking. We have had seven ministers in the last 11 years, five since 2019. That’s one of the big problems why. It is start and stop all the time — start, stop, start, stop. We are hitting the reset button way too often in that department. That’s probably why some of these things aren’t moving forward.
I also think this is a perfect department for decentralization. DFO should be on the two coasts; it shouldn’t be here on the Rideau Canal. That’s another argument.
We have talked a little bit about the new entrants. Obviously, the financial challenges and the need for financial support is something that has been flagged. A point that had been made by an earlier witness that just kind of stuck with me — I thought it was interesting and I’d be curious to get your opinions on it — was the idea that instead of a licence being issued to an individual person, it be issued to the family and set up in the way of like a family trust or whatever, to make it so that the transition from generation to generation would be easier.
I find that’s interesting, especially when we’re talking about the need to attract new entrants. Is that anything that either one of you would have an opinion on and be willing to share?
Mr. Cormier: It merits discussion — it really does — because the fishery has changed tremendously. We need the owner-operator policy reinforced to reflect the objectives of today. That’s where we’re at because of various reasons that you underlined. We’re under siege. If you had a mechanism in which you could have something in that manner put together to reflect the ones coming in behind and getting into the fishery, that might be something. Once again, times have changed. We’re way beyond what we used to see and do and absorb.
Today, it has changed and I think it should merit some discussion to see what it would look like, how it would work, the benefits of it and, at the very end, strengthening the owner-operator policy. Yes, it should merit some discussion. Ladies?
Ms. Howe: We’re talking about a grassroots industry. We have all referenced that in our opening remarks, that the fishing industry is grassroots. It has been the way it has been. Yes, it has evolved into more complex boats and gear and ways to fish, but at the grassroots of it all, intergenerational transfers are big.
In my understanding, I have witnessed a few intergenerational transfers in LFA 38 alone, and some of those transfers seem to be hung up more under review and scrutiny than some of the faster-tracked, streamlined, what I would call, trust agreement transfers. It’s an interesting approach because it’s a father transferring to a son or grandson, which to us all appears to be what the nature of it is: The fishery stays within the family and into the next generation.
It is interesting to witness. Those individuals are hung up, and that’s unfortunate because they are not going and having the lawyers come. They don’t have the understanding of the transfer process. The department does not have readily available licensing offices, as you’re well aware. We live on an island, and the closest local office is an hour-and-a-half ferry ride away, where people are working sometimes two to three days a week, potentially, in person. They are hung up. They don’t have the sophisticated lawyer who can fast-track a licence transfer and push it through.
That is a bit troubling for us. I agree with your comments, Mr. Cormier, that it merits looking into.
Ms. Johnson: I agree. It merits being further discussed, but it also has to be looked at under the lens of what the loopholes would be, as well, because you can come into a situation where you have a father approaching retirement, but the next person in line of succession in their family might be 14 years old. They are obviously not ready at that time — or likely anytime in the near future — to take on a multi-million-dollar enterprise. The question becomes what happens to that licence in the interim. In most cases, a family is going to want that licence to be fished. In the instance that there might not be someone in the interim to fish that licence, are you creating a loophole for that licence to be leased out?
It definitely merits discussion, and there is a lot of interest in exploring that and what it might look like, but also looking at the unintended consequences that might come out of it as well.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you. I think it was you, Ms. Howe, who mentioned when you talked about the three recommendations, you had meaningful verification, real enforcement and transparency. Can you expand on meaningful verification? Do you have any ideas as to what could be done more to hit on that particular point of yours?
Ms. Howe: Yes. In our association office, we do assist quite frequently with licence transfers, just because of the remote nature of our island. Right out of the gate, the meaningful piece of verification can start right at the licence transfer.
In the Maritimes region, for example, our licence transfer form does have an applicant’s line signature where the applicant licence holder signs off on the fact that they are not entering into a set of controlling agreements, that they will hire their own crew and make their fishing decisions. To that line of verification, it’s a transfer form, but it’s not notarized. There is no real accountability held on that form.
Our questions from the department at the start of the transfer — there is no need to rush them through in a lot of cases. If you’re looking at getting into the fishery, you want to start that process sooner, obviously, than later. You can’t expect a transfer to occur in a month. Right out of the gate, asking some harder questions, looking at the agreements, looking at the individual: Where is the financing coming from? There are options for handshake agreements. How do you verify a handshake agreement? I could say something to Amanda today and say, “Well, that was just a handshake agreement.”
I will reference an example where we have harvesters who are signing on to forms they do not understand; that is just the reality. To be truthful, I have been in the industry for 10 years. When I look at the transfer form and some of the questions myself, I’m thinking this should be looked at by an accountant or a lawyer. They are not understanding, and there is no one there to assist them with doing this. Meaningful verification is a licensing officer can tell a lot. I can tell a lot by talking to these individuals. I think that at the start is where it needs to happen, the administrative start of the transfer.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to all our witnesses. It’s certainly a learning experience for me.
I want to touch on a couple of things. I certainly see the value of owner-operator. It’s very obvious the benefits that flow to the community and looking at some of your statistics here on how integral it is.
I want to learn a bit from you, Mr. Cormier. Your testimony earlier, and I’m quite curious about how, with the Marshall decision and your description of — I believe it is eroding away a bit from the owner-operator when you transfer a licence into that communal commercial nature.
Can you expand upon that a bit? More specifically, are there things that you think, with respect to having a discussion with some of those First Nations communitites, could help preserve owner-operators? Do you know of any examples where that relationship exists?
I have another question, but I’ll give you an opportunity to respond first, Mr. Cormier.
Mr. Cormier: I remember when the Marshall decision was put together. We went through panic mode. We went through so many emotions, not knowing how this was all going to evolve and work, so we came out with mentoring programs and training programs. Licences were bought and transferred to the Aboriginal communities, and we were good with that. It’s fine.
It was what was happening beyond the seasons, not really understanding the treaty — what it meant and what it was about. We had to re-educate ourselves, and we did. At the end, we had a better understanding of what the Marshall decision was and gave; therefore, at the beginning, we were being a little more comfortable with it.
I have many Aboriginal friends respected both ways. I have had many chats. I remember, in one instance, we had an individual from Quebec come down, an anthropologist. We spent two days in meetings. Aboriginal Chiefs were there, and our representatives were there to talk about our ways, our culture and vice versa. I’m going to tell you, Senator Prosper, I got out of that meeting with a better appreciation for the Aboriginal communities than ever.
But, like everything else in life, there is always a little loophole and some shenanigans going on. We’re no better — I’ll admit it; I’ll say it right here — sometimes. We eventually took advantage. It happens in life.
Continuing dialogue and education — I’m a big fan of education. Don’t jump on the bandwagon until you have educated yourself. It’s easy. It’s shooting from the hip most of the time. But I think continuing those discussions — and it’s not the same in every little location. Things are happening in St. Mary’s Bay, and things are happening in other areas, et cetera. Those are heavy times. I remember having Mr. Herb Dhaliwal on the phone every second night, trying to diffuse this. I lost a lot of hair. Nonetheless, at the end, I think — that’s on a personal basis. As a whole, most have appreciated having that discussion.
Moving forward, I think it’s just a matter of continuing that dialogue and trying to filter out or snub out the negative things that are happening behind the scenes. Let’s all earn a moderate livelihood.
I wish the federal government and courts would have defined “moderate livelihood.” I certainly know after 29 years; I learned it. At the beginning, my moderate livelihood was there. My two girls went to university. My moderate livelihood went there. They got out of university, and they are working, so I’m creeping up. But that’s my way of describing “moderate livelihood.” I think we can all consent to that.
I hope I answered.
Senator Prosper: I certainly appreciate it. I can feel that, so thank you so much.
I want to get into — because it really struck me, Ms. Howe — the aging demographic and what that actually means for an island like Grand Manan, with a school. Ms. Johnson, you talk about Campobello Island. I was there — a beautiful place. I would love to go back.
Do you know the demographics? Can you provide any details or data on the aging demographics and the trends? Ms. Johnson, you mentioned 30% of fishers in your area are subject to a controlling agreement. It was mentioned that, to set the example, people are risk-averse. What would that mean in specific contexts? There are a few questions there, if you don’t mind.
Ms. Howe: As far as the aging demographic on Grand Manan, my members may not be pleased to hear this, but I would say we are probably creeping up on 40% of our current licence holders — we have 135 lobster licences on Grand Manan — I would say 40% of those captains are getting to the point. We have some who will just never retire. Our president is one. He has said he will not ever retire.
But out of that grouping, that’s a fair percentage of our licence holders who will be looking to get out of the fishery at some point in time. We’re talking anywhere from the age of 50. We don’t refer to them as “young entrants”; they are “new entrants.” Some of our new entrants are 40 to 45 years old, just because of the life situations that it’s taken for them to get into the fishery.
So, as far as that demographic — and I would say that we are creeping to being very close. Because of the connection between LFA 36 and LFA 38, it’s very similar — obviously, we’re neighbouring districts — so our numbers of controls would be equal to or probably greater than LFA 36, as far as that goes. Yes, it’s critical to an island. We have a lot of control that extends beyond the island. It’s all very sophisticated and intertwined, I would say.
Some of these captains who are coming up on the age of retirement themselves are finding there are liens and loans that need to be paid before one can even think about the idea. We hear there are close to six or seven licences currently that will be coming up for sale or transfer, and it does not appear that anyone will be in the wings waiting to enter in at this point.
Ms. Johnson: Ms. Howe mentioned how we refer to them as “new entrants,” and not “young entrants.” It’s important to highlight that when you actually go to the wharf, there are a lot of young guys working on these vessels; they are just never going to make it off the stern with the costs to get in and the access to capital that is needed.
That is why we’re seeing that the newer captains are more in their forties and fifties. They have worked on a vessel for their entire lives, and they are just now, at this stage, able to transfer into being a captain and being in the wheelhouse.
I don’t think it’s for lack of interest or necessarily, in fishing communities, that it’s dying off. There is a lot of interest there. This is the lifeblood for a lot of these people. They grow up in the fishery, and they want to remain in the fishery. You see young crews but not as many young captains.
In a lot of cases, where we have blatant leasing of licences, some of these buyers are — it’s almost predatory lending. They are seeking out these younger guys who are on the back of a boat and have the experience. They make a proposition to them that is very appealing, because it’s going to put them in the wheelhouse, but like Amy mentioned, they don’t necessarily understand what they are signing. It might be a number of years or a few seasons before they realize they might be in a controlling agreement.
There is a lot of education needed there, as we have mentioned, and options for financing to even enable some of these young guys to get back in. That’s going to keep the economic flow of benefits staying in the communities, as well, because with these licences that are being leased and managed — with the communal licences as well; we’re seeing that in our communities — they are not truly benefiting even the First Nations communities at this point. They are benefiting the buyer that is managing those licences on behalf of these First Nations communities.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Prosper.
Before we go to Senator Cuzner, I wanted to mention we have four senators and 19.5 minutes, so I’ll ask Senator Cuzner and our witnesses to keep their questions and answers as tight as possible.
Senator Cuzner: Ask but you may not receive.
The Chair: I have the gavel.
Senator Cuzner: I appreciate the fact that the history and the current situation coming together is very helpful. Former neighbour Don Warren, who has since passed, used to take a great deal of joy in telling us that when he bought his first lobster licence, he paid $25 for it. I don’t think you could get a fair-sized market lobster for $25 now.
Certainly, the economics in the industry have changed and evolved coming out of the Marshall decision, which I think is a great opportunity that has been embraced by First Nations communities. They have done well. We’re seeing First Nations fishers being great fishermen and developing their craft. I see it as a real positive.
But, in the accommodation, with the federal government buying access for First Nations communities, that changed the market completely. If you’re a senior fisherman and you’ve spent your life on the water, and now is your opportunity to get out, you’re going to look at the guy who’s writing the biggest cheque. That’s natural.
We see it on our wharves what you’re talking about with the young fishermen who now have an opportunity. It’s a natural thing for them to be drawn to those people who can write those cheques. Regarding your statement about there having to be some other form of access to capital for people who want to get into the fishery, I think our committee hears that loud and clear.
I want to go back to 2019, when Dominic LeBlanc was in the seat and came through with the updated Fisheries Act. He was responding to the stories that have been told year over year. He said, “Okay, we are going to enshrine owner-operator and fleet separation.” He did that within the new Fisheries Act. He gave the officers additional authority for on-water monitoring and dockside monitoring and inspections there. He gave them additional authority, but what you’re saying is that they are not exercising that authority. Is there no teeth in the legislation, or is it just that the departments aren’t enforcing the law? It was celebrated when it came forward in 2019.
Mr. Cormier: Absolutely right. I’m not sure why it’s not being done. Maybe it’s about resources. Maybe there are not enough resources for officers to do some dockside monitoring.
Here’s a little story. I was sitting in front of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans here in Ottawa. My friend from P.E.I. sat there and told the committee that, between fishermen, they had to pool money together to pay the officers overtime to go get the poachers. You know; that was way back then. But resources are important. If you can’t provide the resources for those officers to do their job, maybe that’s one thing right there. I don’t know.
Lobster is the only fishery that does not have 100% dockside monitoring. Other species are basically dockside monitoring. Your catch is recorded, so forth and so on. I’m not saying that has to come in the industry. That’s not what I’m saying. That is what is happening today. I don’t know what else I can say about that, Senator Cuzner, but that’s maybe one thing.
Ms. Howe: I’d also allude to the fact that, for us in New Brunswick, buyers are regulated by the Province of New Brunswick, so you have this disconnect from what buyers’ rules are and who is looking into the buyer. Conservation and Protection, or C&P, has limited access to what they can do within the buying facilities, the buyer’s books and the buyer’s whatnot. Within these interprovincial and federal regulations and rules, there is some grey area there as to whose responsibility is what.
I know there has been a new task force announced for the Province of New Brunswick to look into illegal and unreported lobster landings and catches. I’m not sure of the mechanism of what rules Conservation and Protection has to go into a buying facility, but I think a lot of it is, “It’s this person’s responsibility, so we can’t overstep bounds.” The forensic piece is critical as well. As I mentioned, having some forensic audits and having the tools to audit books would be huge. That may be where the hang-ups are — that they are not able to do that.
Ms. Johnson: I would agree with that. In the Province of New Brunswick, I believe it’s the seafood buyers act that provincially regulates the buyers and processors. There is actually no legislation that states what illegal seafood is. The entire seafood buyers act is entirely built around safe seafood handling practices with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA.
As it stands right now, how can you effectively enforce legality if it’s not even defined in legislation what is or is not allowed as far as the illegal piece of it? That’s where there is the gap between federal and provincial jurisdictions. That’s where the department here will push it off onto the province. The province really doesn’t even know where to go with it. I think they are working on defining and writing what that legislation might look like. It would be nice to be consulted in a part of that process, I will say.
Coming back to the enforcement of the owner-operator piece and looking at strengthening the regulations, I think that has changed with the number of ministers that there have been over the last few years. It seems to be an ongoing cycle. We meet with the ministers and create relationships with them and try to educate them about what is going on, but if you look at the actual bureaucrats in the department, there isn’t much turnover there. They remain the same. They are the ones that are writing policy and strengthening the regulations, and they are the ones that are briefing the minister.
There is, in my opinion, a bureaucratic agenda inside the department. If that is not able to be influenced and changed, we’re not going to get anywhere with accountability within the department as well.
The Chair: Is there a chance you may have been talking to Senator Deacon before you got here?
Senator Greenwood: As I said, I’m just filling in on this committee. I’m not as knowledgeable as the rest of the folks here, so my questions are very different but related.
I got to be here earlier in the week, and we heard from people from British Columbia about that reality in B.C. Then, I listened to you and your lived reality of the owner-operator system, if you will.
You don’t have to answer these now; I think you could send these in writing if you wanted because you may want to think about it. What advice would you give, say, British Columbia or anybody else that includes concrete actions to reclaim the owner-operator reality? Because earlier on one of you said once it’s gone, it’s really hard to get back. I think those are some of the challenges that folks are facing.
From your perspective and your experience, what advice would you give somebody? Where do you start? You have identified a lot of things in all of your answers to our questions, but thinking about that from an advice perspective, where would you say someone should start or think about? Like, “Here is a concrete thing you could do tomorrow.” I think people are really looking for that. It’s a horrible, complex problem with many dimensions.
For my second question — and again, you don’t have to respond to this right away — I heard the comments that this is a Canadian resource. It doesn’t belong here or there, but it belongs to Canada. It’s a resource of ours, so I think about ownership around that and who actually owns what.
Then I think about the maintenance and the stewardship of that natural resource, of that Canadian resource. How do we ensure that we don’t overfish, that we don’t take everything? In the DFO, are there elements that protect the resource? Sometimes we “overmine,” or we take all our trees; there is nothing left. I think about those dimensions as well. Sorry, that might be a little bit off point.
The Chair: No, those are great questions. My only concern is that the answers may be a lot more detailed than what we have time for today. Could you send an email to the clerk answering the questions from Senator Greenwood? We can then take that into consideration.
We’re really pushed for time, so I want to ensure the questions get to the table.
Senator Surette: My question is relatively short. We have heard the challenges and the threats to the owner-operator policy. There is a long list: corporate ownership, succession, medical leave, access to capital and so on. Rarely do we talk about the resource. I’m just curious to see what your thinking is around the resource. We have seen, even in the last year, a reduction in scallops, in haddock, in herring. The lobster seems to be fairly consistent, and it’s a good thing. If there is a drop in the resource in the lobster industry, how would this affect the owner-operator issue?
I remember, back in my teenage days, my father sold his licence for $3,000. I know exactly where that licence is now, and I know exactly what it’s worth. I’m just curious as to why we rarely talk about the resource and what effect that would have on the owner-operator policy.
Ms. Johnson: They are more interconnected than what anyone thinks at first glance. At least in the Maritimes, landings are declining. There was a big boom, and now they are declining, seeming to kind of level out to where they were previously. A lot of these newer entrants entered during the lobster boom, and the decrease in landings is pretty significant.
As everything else inflates — the cost of licences, fuel, bait — and landings reduce, efforts are actually increasing. The only way harvesters can try to bridge the gap to pay their bills is to catch more fish. If they also do not have any control over the price, they are at the mercy of buyers. The only way for them to make payments is to keep landing the fish.
I do want to say on the record, too, that there is no one who cares more about the resource and the marine environment than fish harvesters. They are dependent on the resource for their livelihoods. They need it to remain sustainable. As they are trying to get out of difficult financial situations, we’re not necessarily seeing efforts decrease as the stock is also decreasing, because there are no other options available for them there.
I bring it back to offering and having some type of stability program for funding so that you might see efforts start to decrease. Maybe individuals won’t haul twice a day trying to make more money to provide for their families and pay their crews and keep their enterprise running.
Senator C. Deacon: I would love to have you provide after the fact — I hate giving you homework — very specific questions you would like to see the Competition Bureau answer, with relevant facts that you would like to make sure are on the table for them to consider. I would appreciate if you could provide that to us through the clerk.
I just want to reiterate something Mr. Cormier said: Really impressive testimony and clarity, Ms. Howe and Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Cormier: One quick comment to the senator. The nature of the beast is you want to catch more. We’re all geared up that way. When you want to catch more, and you put a lot of effort into it, it’s got to be balanced with good regulations, minimum size increase and so forth. It could be in fish, but what is happening right now, and it’s very worrisome and out of control, is water temperatures are rising. I don’t know what it’s going to look like in 5, 10, 20 years. I do not know. It’s worrisome. Decreasing effort at some point and time, maybe having a financial institution to counterbalance that may be one way to protect the owner-operator and fleet separation.
That’s a very good question and merits discussion. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cormier, and thank you, Ms. Howe and Ms. Johnson. You’ve provided great testimony and certainly brought a lot of information to the table this morning. It will assist us greatly. With some questions you may not have had the proper amount of time to answer, feel free to send any information to the clerk.
If there is something after today’s meeting we didn’t get to discuss here that you think is pertinent to our study, feel free to send it in. With the experience that you all have and the people you represent, we certainly want to make sure we hear loud and clear from you.
I want to thank senators for your cooperation. I’m sorry I’ve been pushy this morning. It’s not my nature to be pushy, but we are on a strict time limit here.
(The committee adjourned.)