Fisheries Committee on May 8th, 2023

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Pretty.

Mr. Pretty, it was nearly impossible to source harvesters to testify at this study—either publicly or anonymously. What do they have to fear, especially from what's called in Newfoundland “independent harvesters”? What do they fear, Mr. Pretty?

[Greg Pretty]

First of all, for everybody's benefit, it's not everybody.

There are a number of harvesters who would not participate in that for fairly obvious reasons. There could be repercussions from the company if they spoke out against the process. I think that would be perhaps the primary issue here. The other issue is that while the companies spend a lot of time saying this is not an issue, it's simply a financial issue that we're supplying pots or gear to harvesters. Then lots of people know the difference, based on the cost of these licences, which, as somebody has already said, can be very significant.

There are a number of reasons—I just outlined a couple—as to why people wouldn't want to go public and signify that they're a part of that process. I understand that, by the way.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Again, Mr. Chair, this is for Mr. Pretty.

Is the current shutdown of the crab and shrimp fishery linked in any way to corporate control in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, in your opinion, Mr. Pretty?

[Greg Pretty]

Yes, I have an opinion. It is absolutely remarkable that we have a tie-up on the crab fishery. Just to put that in perspective, last year it was about an $850-million fishery. This year it stopped, and the other things that stopped with it were lobster.... By the way, lobster was settled through a formula, so there are no secrets or surprises. It's either up or down. The lobster fishery was stopped, actually, twice in the last two weeks. The shrimp fishery is stopped. Our processors have even refused to buy whelk and halibut.

I've been around long enough, Mr. Small, to know that my considered opinion is that it's corporate-related, and that it is cartel-like behaviour when the entire industry can close based on the crab fishery. They're trying to teach us a lesson here, and they do that every now and then, but eventually we'll be successful at getting these things up and going.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Pretty.

You basically said that processing companies are acting in unison. If one or more buyers broke with the group, have you heard talk of any penalties that would be assessed amongst the group, which you refer to as doing cartel-like activities. Have you heard anything about any penalties between these folks?

[Greg Pretty]

None, sir.

I will say, as a point of clarification, that the crab fishery in particular has approximately 10 or 12 companies, and it runs from very small family businesses that have been ongoing for 30 years, up to Royal Greenland, which has very deep pockets. That's the complexion of these processing companies, and there are no penalties.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Okay.

Again, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Pretty, do smaller fish-processing companies rely on larger companies to market their products? If so, would a federal marketing program help smaller processing companies open up a little competition and reduce these effects?

[Greg Pretty]

Not all companies rely on larger companies. Some of these smaller companies have long-established relationships in both Asia and the United States. Some of those relationships go back over 30 years.

I acknowledge that some companies use OCI and Royal Greenland for marketing purposes. There's no question about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

We'll close out now with Mr. Hanley.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much, and thank you to all witnesses for this morning.

Ms. Burridge, I'd like to start with you. You talked in your opening comments about how foreign ownership is not so much the issue, but reduced access is the main impediment. I wonder if you could briefly elaborate on what impediments to access there are.

[Christina Burridge]

Over the last three decades or so we've seen, across the board, a decline in harvest volume of more than a third for all species categories. That's for a range of reasons, from conservation to changing markets, and it's been particularly extreme in the north, with salmon and herring, where you've seen an 80% decline in both volume and value. Clearly, if you have fewer fish, you will have not as many fish harvesters, so what we're seeing, in many respects, is as a result of that decline in volume.

Initiatives like the northern shelf bioregion MPA network will only add to that, with massive loss of access in sustainable fisheries, and that will reduce investment. It will reduce the shoreside support services for indigenous communities and non-indigenous communities alike.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I'm trying to tease out some of the reasons you have, clearly, quite a different perspective from Mr. Kariya and the Coastal First Nations.

I'm wondering, when you talk about using evidence rather than anecdotal information—which is always a good idea, although sometimes anecdotal information can help to inform evidence—can you point out some anecdotal information you have heard that you would dispute, specifically?

[Christina Burridge]

Well, I want to see the results of the DFO beneficial ownership survey. I think we've strongly supported that, in part because we believe that foreign ownership, for instance, is not as prevalent as many have suggested, and that where it is, it's with long-standing investments.

I think, too, that we need ways that fisheries can work amongst themselves to come up with effective solutions, and that includes ways to look at sharing the benefits in a fairer way. We've seen that happen with some fisheries. I don't think owner-operator is going to solve any of the problems that we've looked at today.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Are you aware of west coast and east coast differences in policy and regulation? I mean, I'm sure you are, but in your opinion, do you think the existing regulatory climate is appropriate to the west coast?

[Christina Burridge]

As everyone has acknowledged, I think the coasts have developed very differently. Changes in licensing policy on this coast have been driven by conservation requirements, as I think one of the DFO speakers alluded to.

At the same time, I think that DFO has not always considered the socio-economic implications of those conservation measures, and we're always open to discussing ways to fix those on a fishery-by-fishery basis.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Mr. Kariya, you didn't get a chance to go through your report. I noticed three key recommendations near the end of your report, which have been addressed to some extent in the subsequent testimony, but in my remaining time, could you maybe quickly review and elaborate on your three recommendations to address the deficiencies in regulation?

[Paul Kariya]

I want to acknowledge the report that was done by the committee—it's a good report—in 2019. On the questions asked earlier about the slow pace of the response from DFO, you're right. We echo the recommendations that came out of that good report.

We have to reduce the impact of non-Canadian money. Is it anecdotal? There is some evidence. I think the German report Mr. Hardie referenced on money laundering has some actual examples of non-Canadian monies being utilized to impact quotas and licences. That has to stop.

The lack of transparency in the beneficial ownership of quota and licences is not new, but that too has to change. No one is saying that it will be easy, but ducking it won't solve it, and I suspect that a bit of the DFO response is ducking it. We have to get to it, so let's get on with it.

From a first nation point of view, I think our chiefs and leaders have had some impact at the negotiating table with Canada and with British Columbia, but that kind of engagement has to continue. There need to be transition plans. I think that some of the members Christina represents are fearful of change to come, and I think that our organizations, the people I work for, want to work with Christina's people.

The marine protected areas network Christina mentioned has had an active involvement from some of her membership, and we invite them.... In fact, some of them have pulled away now. They may not be happy, and we can understand it in regard to some of the change to come, but let's continue to work on a transition plan. I think that's what we're talking about.

The environment trumps it all. If the resource can't be sustained, we shouldn't be keeping to certain sustainability levels, and we know that there are great uncertainties. The models we used to have don't work like they used to, because of a changing climate and warming waters.

I'm sorry. I can go on too long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hanley. You win the star today for the longest stretch to go over the time, but we'll fix that another day.

That concludes our questioning for today.

I want to thank Mr. Kariya, Ms. Burridge and Mr. Pretty for providing us their testimony today, of course, and for answering questions to make the committee that much more informed on this topic.

Again, thank you to each of you.

We'll suspend for a moment while we change out for committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]