Fisheries Committee on May 8th, 2023

[Christina Burridge]

I think we have to go back to what Mr. Waddell said. We need some information about the extent and nature of foreign ownership so that we can decide whether we have an issue here. If we have an issue, what's the problem we want to solve, and what are the mechanics for solving it?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

[Christina Burridge]

We don't know any of that at the moment.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

You don't know what it would look like. Is that what you said?

[Christina Burridge]

I don't think we know where the beneficial ownership of licences on this coast lies, and I think that is the first step in any process.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

What's the biggest impediment to knowing where the beneficial ownership lies?

[Christina Burridge]

First of all, DFO didn't have any data until it embarked on the survey. Secondly, I was very pleased to hear from Mr. Davis that it appears DFO is going to move towards a public licence and quota registry.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

I'll turn my questions now to Mr. Kariya.

Mr. Kariya, thank you for speaking. I listened to you speak at the Fisheries for Communities conference a couple of months ago in Victoria. I was very encouraged to hear what you said.

On reconciliation and the FRRA agreement you spoke about.... Could you elaborate a little on the actual title? I don't think I captured it quite correctly. Also, what is the purpose of that agreement?

[Paul Kariya]

The FRRA is a major reconciliation agreement negotiated by the eight first nations who are our members and the Government of Canada. It has three broad objectives.

The first one is to restore participation in the open commercial fishery rules of DFO and our member nations.

The second one is to restore an artisanal fleet and fishing for food that a nation would be able to sell if it chose to. That artifice, which has put a lot of people in jail for no reason through the years, will disappear, but the fish will have to be counted, securely processed and all of that. There's a big commercial fishery and a small fishery for food security in that, and there would be some incidental sale.

The third component of that agreement is co-management. There's been co-management and there have been co-management agreements, but this will be.... It will take some time, between DFO and us, to have a schedule of how it will be implemented. For all of the species for which we have—we heard the term earlier—an integrated fish management plan, an IFMP, they will be jointly developed with our nations and DFO. Right now it's the minister who signs off and approves. Going forward, it'll be both the first nations for our areas and the minister.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

Is that agreement open to the public? Are we able to see that agreement as FOPO members?

[Paul Kariya]

Yes, the main agreement is obviously a public document. I'll say upfront that there are schedules and annexes that have financial components that are business confidential.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

You spoke about a dive fishing licence. I'm guessing that might have been geoduck, from things that I've heard. It basically became unavailable to local operators because of a bid by foreign entities.

Are you aware of other cases in which we see licences or quota being bought up on the west coast by non-Canadians?

[Paul Kariya]

Yes. I'm careful in how I say it, because our nations are still trying to work in the marketplace, and it's a fairly small world out there. The actual example was sea cucumber, but there are other examples, and they include geoduck.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Are there efforts by processors to influence who owns licences and quotas on the west coast as well?

[Paul Kariya]

Yes, I believe so. I'm hesitant only because I haven't heard the actual case situations, but from past experience—and I mean “past” experience—I'd say yes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for six minutes or less.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the attendance of our witnesses today.

In 2019, we tabled that report, the sharing of risks and benefits, and certainly the fatalities that we've noted on the east and west coasts underscore the risks that harvesters face in return for benefits that just don't measure up, from every indication we've had.

My first question is for Ms. Burridge.

Is it fair to say that corporate ownership of processing is really...? The two dominant companies are Canfisco and Jim Pattison. Is that right?

[Christina Burridge]

Canfisco is part of the Jim Pattison Group of enterprises.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Of course, Canfisco is owned by Jim Pattison.

[Christina Burridge]

Yes.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I have some statistics here. Canfisco is recorded as owning 243 licences at $25.4 million in value. Pattison has 135 licenses at $22.9 million in value.

The next one on the list of top owners is Elma-K, which has 18 licences valued at $8.2 million.

Does that not suggest a problem of concentration of ownership, Ms. Burridge?

[Christina Burridge]

Mr. Hardie, I gave you the number of licences owned by Canfisco and Jim Pattison enterprises. I think that speaks for itself, that they are not the dominant force. If anything, they are probably trying to divest their interests in British Columbia.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'd like to see some evidence of that.

[Christina Burridge]

I think you will.