“These agreements exploit legislative loopholes to avoid the owner-operator policy and the policy of separating fleets for the sole benefit of companies and to the detriment of inshore fishermen and their communities. These agreements disrupt all aspects of inshore fishing, from pricing to the involvement of young people in fishing. Canadian laws have established guidelines on fleet separation and prohibit control agreements. The fleet separation policy prohibits processors from owning inshore fishing vessels under 65 feet, particularly in fisheries where coastal vessels have certain quotas. The agreement, which began in 2003, gave companies control over the decision on the fishing license. In exchange, Quinlans provided a ship and crew, financed the boat and reaped the profits. Elson was the only fisherman in Atlantic Canada to formally refuse to leave his control agreement by May 2014. Non-compliance can be catastrophic. Operators should carefully structure all commercial agreements relating to inshore fishing licences to ensure that they do not conflict with PIIFCAF by establishing control agreements within the meaning of PIIFCAF. These agreements and arrangements can be complex and legal advice can be of great value. The risk of non-compliance can be catastrophic: loss (or not) of licenses. Fishing licenses and quotas can be valuable assets, but since they are not “property” for this purpose, DFO is generally not required to compensate fishermen for licenses they revoke or reinterpret.
The department said other license checks are underway, as they strengthen efforts to combat control agreements — the ancillary activities in which a fisherman hands over control and use of a license to a third party, normally a company. “It wouldn`t necessarily be a control agreement,” he said.
