Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 1550
View Mel Arnold Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Burns, I'll start with you this time around. In the Pacific region, DFO created [Inaudible--Editor] class licences to support indigenous harvesters. What percentage of those licences are in long-term control agreements with investors, processors or foreign interests?
Adam Burns
View Adam Burns Profile
Adam Burns
2021-06-16 17:09
I don't have that number. I'm not sure that we could provide it. I could work with my colleagues in the Pacific region. I wouldn't even want to speculate if the answer would be greater than zero.
View Mel Arnold Profile
CPC (BC)
The reason I ask this is that we've been told that indigenous harvesters have to go through processors to access most of these licences.
Is this concerning to you?
Adam Burns
View Adam Burns Profile
Adam Burns
2021-06-16 17:10
Again, I don't have specific details around this particular issue.
View Mel Arnold Profile
CPC (BC)
Do you have any information on it? If you don't, it's troubling that we would know about it as committee members, but you, as senior DFO officials, have no knowledge of it.
That's concerning to me and I think concerning to this entire committee.
Adam Burns
View Adam Burns Profile
Adam Burns
2021-06-16 17:10
It would be a matter that is managed by our DFO regional colleagues in the Pacific region.
Adam Burns
View Adam Burns Profile
Adam Burns
2021-06-16 17:10
That's correct. I understood that the study today was related to the offshore, so that's what we came with prepared items on, but I'm happy to get you the necessary response to your question.
Claire Canet
View Claire Canet Profile
Claire Canet
2021-06-16 17:27
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Distinguished members of the committee, thank you for hearing the testimony today from the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie, which represents 148 lobster fishers.
The coastal communities of the Gaspé depend heavily on the commercial fisheries, including the lobster fishery, for their economic well-being. Lobster fishing represents employment for almost 600 people.
In Quebec, seafood processing plants, which depend on the catch in order to operate, employ 3,500 people. In 2019, commercial fishing in Quebec, which includes fishing by First Nations groups, represents a total value on the wharf of $378 million. Lobster harvesting in the Gaspé represents 24% of that total value.
No less than 80% of that catch in Quebec is exported, with 20% remaining in Canada. However, when we look at the corporate structures, such as Clearwater or Royal Greenland Québec, the percentage of the catch that is exported is clearly greater. For example, Royal Greenland, which owns the processing plant in Matane, makes offers on the wharf to guarantee itself as much of the catch as possible, as Mr. Cormier pointed out earlier. The company exports 95% of the catch to Europe or the United States, leaving only 5% of the seafood products harvested here to feed Quebecers and Canadians.
In 2019 and 2021, Royal Greenland used the techniques that Mr. Cormier mentioned. These are very alarming for the health and vitality of our Canadian processing plants, which provide the fishers with a number of buyers.
In its annual report for 2019, Clearwater emphasized that its main market was export. Indeed, more than 90% of its sales are made abroad. Its strategy is to continue to benefit from its wide range of species, its scope on the world market, and its customer base to generate profitable growth and broaden its sales through new markets and outlets. For example, we can point to its association with Premium Brands in increasing productivity and reducing costs. These are the input costs, of course, meaning the price paid for the catch. This generates higher margins because of the vertical integration of its global supply chain.
Royal Greenland and Clearwater are two examples of foreign companies becoming involved in processing and therefore in the fisheries themselves. This also applies to Canadian companies with a strategy of vertical integration focused overseas. This has a direct impact on Canada's food security, because the amount exported is clearly greater than normal exports by companies that are local and wholly Canadian.
Clearwater and Premium Brands are actually not holders of commercial inshore fishing licences. As we have heard from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the DFO, these companies cannot obtain inshore fishing licences. However, Clearwater is now 50% owned by a number of First Nations groups, who themselves own several dozen commercial inshore fishing licences. These are communal licences, so the protection afforded by the new owner-operator regulations does not apply since these licences are communal.
By a twisted logic, communal-commercial fishing licences, both current and future, that commercialize the catch owned by those First Nations groups, do not protect the licence holders. This runs counter to the spirit of the regulations and to the protection of our resource for the benefit of the fishers and of Canadians.
In a situation where access to the fishery by First Nations is increasing in order to allow them to achieve a moderate livelihood, we cannot but see an increase in the number of communal licences. This will result in more control over, and commercial sales of, vulnerable catches. This will be the result unless the DFO ensures that all fishing licences that allow the catch to be sold commercially enjoy the same protection.
To us, it seems fanciful to believe that these companies, such as Clearwater, which are part of a strategy of vertical integration and control over fishery markets, do not see an opportunity in unprotected access to an increasing number of commercial communal fishing licences and in the catches that result.
With the corporatization of the fisheries, without safeguards, we will clearly be seeing an erosion of the scope of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Regulations, which also provide protection to owner‑operators. In addition, an increasing number of commercial fishing licences will be exposed to takeover by a small number of companies.
The corporatization of fisheries through vertical integration and private investment serves only to pay dividends to a few shareholders— individuals, families or foreign governments, as in the case of Royal Greenland—rather than having the profits pass to coastal communities as the priority.
Without anyone noticing—
Colin Sproul
View Colin Sproul Profile
Colin Sproul
2021-06-16 17:34
Good evening, Chair and honourable committee members.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear tonight.
The Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance is a newly formed alliance of commercial fishery stakeholders calling on the Government of Canada to establish clear, lasting, responsible regulatory oversight for all fisheries: commercial, food, social and ceremonial.
Established in 2020, the UFCA represents thousands of independent, multi-species commercial fishermen and fishery associations from across the Maritimes. Our membership also includes small to medium-sized businesses that are directly or indirectly tied to the Atlantic Canadian commercial fishery. For thousands of Atlantic Canadians who work on boats, wharves, processing plants and throughout the supply chain, the commercial fishery is their livelihood. For rural communities and governments, the fisheries represent jobs, a tax base and economic impact that helps to provide vital services for all residents.
Unfortunately, regulatory uncertainty is causing anxiety and concern amongst fishers and other industry stakeholders over the long-term sustainability and prosperity of the industry. Clear rules, regulations, compliance and enforcement are needed.
We want to work with the Government of Canada and first nations to inform and understand viewpoints and ultimately establish regulatory certainty. Our members reject all forms of racism, intolerance and violence and believe that there is a path to move beyond the controversies and heated rhetoric of recent months to a positive outcome for all. The UFCA believes that indigenous and non-indigenous fishermen can work side by side, like they do today in the commercial fishery. We recognize and acknowledge the importance of co-operation with indigenous communities and that indigenous fishermen have a right to fish for commercial, food, social and ceremonial purposes.
Just as commercial fisheries operate today, there is room for diversity. There can be differences within allocation structures, administration and process; however, rules must ultimately and clearly form part of an integrated set of regulations that can serve fishery resources for generations to come and ensure a fair and respectful fishery for all.
Tonight I would like to discuss the imminent Clearwater Seafoods deal and its risks for coastal communities.
The current framework of the deal represents a tremendous missed opportunity for further integration of indigenous fishers into Atlantic fisheries and reconciliation in our communities. It picks winners and losers amongst first nations and further divides indigenous and non-indigenous fishing communities needlessly. There is a better way, and it starts with open dialogue and an end to secret deals at DFO. Communities adjacent to resources deserve a voice in decisions made in Ottawa, and when they are excluded from the conversation, they invariably lose.
We have serious concerns surrounding the proposed framework for the deal, including the lack of protection from the future potential for transfer of ownership of Canada's natural resources to a foreign entity, threats to the owner-operator policy, needless concentration of fishing efforts and others. Clearwater's monopolized lobster fishing area alone is larger than all lobster fishing areas of Nova Scotia combined. The current deal would exclude all fishers but one giant factory-style ship from this huge economic potential, including a majority of Nova Scotia's first nations and all moderate livelihood fishers.
What should be of equal importance to this committee is the fact the current deal would surely pit Mi'kmaq against Inuit in a battle for access to valuable northern shrimp and fish quotas. This fact could be a motivator for the deal and must be explored in more detail. It would be difficult not to view Clearwater's recent outreach to include indigenous partners as a response to the government's rightful decision to abide by the principles of adjacency to a resource in fisheries management and take a portion of the company's valuable quotas and deliver them to northern communities, both indigenous and non-indigenous.
It is beyond belief that the current government can ignore the potential for this fishery access to aid in the integration of moderate livelihood fishers. While it may be possible for the politicians involved on all sides of this deal to consider it a purely business transaction, it is surely not viewed that way in fishing communities across Atlantic Canada. The reality is that what's best for indigenous fishers, the people out on the water trying to make a living, is also the best for our members. What's best for a large corporation seldom is. It is high time for government to unite us along these lines instead of dividing us. All communities can benefit from these resources if their voices are allowed to be heard.
I'm anxious to give more details on a better way forward.
Honourable members, thank you. I invite your questions.
View Serge Cormier Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon to all the witnesses, including Mr. Mallet and Mr. Sproul, from the Atlantic provinces, and my neighbour across the bay, Ms. Canet.
Mr. Mallet, I want to go back to the Clearwater situation. We have had an explanation from departmental officials. I would like to know what you are afraid of in that transaction, so we can understand the problem. I think we got a fairly full picture from the officials. They seemed to be saying that everything is done according to the standards.
What are you afraid of?
I want to get a sense of the scope of this. I know you talked about first nations. You have concerns that they may be disadvantaged.
Could you give us a summary of the situation?
Martin Mallet
View Martin Mallet Profile
Martin Mallet
2021-06-16 17:46
I can answer briefly, and then I can turn it over to Ms. Canet.
The nature of the agreement is a little strange. No one is able to explain to us why the licences are to be transferred to a secondary entity owned by the first nations. We would like to have a clear and simple explanation.
Ms. Canet, you have the floor.
Claire Canet
View Claire Canet Profile
Claire Canet
2021-06-16 17:46
A number of aspects actually seem unusual to us. The transfer of licences to first nations is one example.
Another unusual aspect is the vertical consolidation of a number of the fisheries. As I explained in my testimony, many of the commercial communal licences are held by groups that are 50% shareholders in Clearwater. Clearly there is a conflict of interest in terms of where those catches go. Vertical integration will limit access to the catch for Canadians.
The other aspect is that we will end up in a buyer's monopoly, where the more access buyers have to the landings, the more power they will have. They will therefore decide on the landing prices for the fishers. This will put the fishers in a vulnerable position.
Colin Sproul
View Colin Sproul Profile
Colin Sproul
2021-06-16 17:48
I think there are a lot of questions around the ownership. One of the most important things we should examine is a comparison of the value versus the costs paid into this. We see by the $750 million-$250 million split in a fifty-fifty partnership....
In an inshore fishing business, we all recognize that the key asset in the fishery is access to the fishery. When you look at the ownership stake of Premium Seafoods owning the depreciating onshore assets, and the coalition of first nations owning the access to the fishery, we're left wondering if there's a level to the agreement that's not visible to the department. I think there's due diligence on the department's behalf to find that out.
View Dan Mazier Profile
CPC (MB)
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses today for coming out. This is really good testimony.
Mr. Sproul, at the previous committee meeting on this study, we heard from a vice-president at Clearwater, who stated that the topic of moderate livelihood fishing is entirely separate from the Clearwater transaction.
In your view, is there any potential impact of the Clearwater transaction on the issue of moderate livelihood fishing?
Results: 1 - 15 of 1550 | Page: 1 of 104

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data