Fisheries Committee on May 8th, 2023

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

When we look at incomes—and this will be for Mr. Kariya—the statistics are interesting. They reveal a bit, but they hide some vital information.

Overall, when it gets to the retail sector of the B.C. fishery retailed between restaurants, food stores, etc., it's worth about $1.5 billion. At the wholesale level, it's about $850 million. The land and value to fishers is $400 million. This is what we hear. That's the gross.

I would suggest that, particularly where the harvesters are concerned, the $400 million, when you net out what they're paying to get the right to fish, is an awful lot less.

[Paul Kariya]

I'd agree with you, Mr. Hardie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Before you start, Mr. Kariya, I'd ask Ms. Burridge to lower the boom on her headset just a little, so that we can get the proper translation.

Go ahead, Mr. Kariya, please.

[Paul Kariya]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would agree with you, Mr. Hardie. I think we all know there are examples of fishermen who hold and own their own licences and fish them. If we compare their returns to those of fishers who are indentured to holders and owners of quota licences, there is no comparison. One is barely eking out a living, maybe not eking out a living, whereas one is doing quite well. Hence, the owner-operator model in first nations is something that we've been pushing forward, because we can see it working. However, that's unfortunately not what's happening right now.

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

You mentioned the competition for that sea cucumber licence and that the foreign purchaser came in with a lot more money than anybody locally could offer. Do you suspect that foreign interests are actually overpaying for access to either quota or licences? Are they basically throwing around a lot of money for whatever reason?

[Paul Kariya]

I hear all sides of the argument. Some would say to me, “Paul, it's the marketplace. If someone has excess money to throw around, it's their business; it's part of the market.” How do you peg what is a reasonable return or what is reasonable in what has been a more stable market? One might argue about that, too, from the past. However, it appears that there's something that's really gone out of whack with folks who are putting up money that does not reflect any recent or past trends. They're prepared to suck it all up.

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

Would it to surprise you to know the recent Cullen commission on money laundering in B.C. paid some attention to the ownership of licences and quotas based on the fact that people wanting to launder money or hide money in North America were prepared to pay 30% or more over market value just as a place to land their dollars in Canada?

[Paul Kariya]

It was shocking and stunning and disappointing to have fish lumped in with excessive housing and real estate monies, fancy cars and so on in that money laundering investigation, absolutely.

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

We know, and we've heard pretty graphic testimony in any number of hearings, of the marked difference between the east coast fishery and the west coast fishery. They evolved differently. Looking back in time, as you can, Mr. Kariya, was there a reason for the way things were done in British Columbia? As we look to what is a clear desire to move to an owner-operator type of regime for British Columbia, is there anything in what we've developed in B.C. over the years that's worth keeping?

[Paul Kariya]

That's a hard one to respond to, Mr. Hardie.

I grew up in the commercial fishery. To the chair's question about Paul Kariya, I'm proud, when I give public talks in other spheres, to say that there was a boy in the NHL whose grandfather came to Canada to fish.

I remember, from when I was a boy, when the first Davis Plan came in and my father, as a fisherman, was thinking through his options of a category A licence versus a category B licence, and then as herring and that went on.... Christina can recount some of this, too, from her time.

What to keep and what to throw away requires some thoughtful, complex thinking. I think first nations have suffered from being excluded from when the commercial licensing regime came in. That must be rectified. I think that's what the reconciliation agreement stands for. However, I think beyond that there's so much more. Again, this committee probably isn't the place to get into what's wrong with how resources have been managed in our province to the detriment of first nations, who I work for today. I don't want to give a glib answer and say, “Throw it all out,” or get into it without a further understanding of it, but there is a lot that needs to be changed, I suspect. We haven't gotten into the restoration of fish and fisheries. We haven't gotten into the overall management. Christina, in her opening comments, gave a comment about the northern bioregion marine protected areas network that we're working on.

I want to say that it's not just accessing fish to sell to make money that our nations are concerned about. They're thinking about all of our long-term futures in terms of how the resource—and it's not just the resource but the habitat—is managed. That's what the MPA network is about, and that's what Canada is proud about in terms of the world stage.

Is there a way to do this with fishermen, all fishermen? Yes, of course, so I just want to make the statement—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm going to have to end it there, Mr. Kariya. We're a bit over time.

We'll go to Madame Desbiens now for six minutes or less, please.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will ask Mr. Pretty some questions.

In your remarks, you talked about cartels. We heard words like “monopoly”. During the first hour, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials said they did not see a monopoly, based on survey data.

Do you think a survey is the right way to assess beneficial ownership?

[Greg Pretty]

No. The quick answer is no.

We need a declaration. I think we need to restate what the policies are here, and we need some direct intervention on these companies. Nobody has been charged, not that there would be charges, but there could be charges. There could be legal issues here that have been contravened and need to be addressed.

Until that's done, what you'll see is what I heard earlier today, that these thinly veiled financial deals between harvesters and companies, whether they be Canadian or foreign, obfuscate the actual intent, which is, as we know, to hold control of those licences.

If you have a declaration and nothing has happened in two years, we need to get at the issue here, because, my friends, there are cartel-like activities. Harvesters come to me and say that this should be investigated by the Competition Bureau, because what's happening here is that they all have the same price. They treat the harvesters like hockey players—a good reference today. They can own them, they can trade them and they can sell them. That's not what we bought into with the Canadian harvesting licences. We need to get back to that.

I know that's long-winded, but thank you for that question.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Pretty. Your response is very enlightening.

The Royal Greenland case is just one example. In Quebec, we are also seeing various manipulations, if I may say so, that leave a lot of power in the hands of the processors.

We should avoid going through the processors and thus giving them more control over our products. At this point, do you have any solutions for the committee to include in their recommendations?

[Greg Pretty]

Thank you.

If I can respond, first of all, one needs a permit, a licence from the province, to act as poorly as one does. Without that provincial licence, you can't manipulate, you can't obfuscate and you can't control. The initial fix to this is making sure that you have a licensing policy that actually is conducive to an orderly fishery. I've said this many times in the last four months, since I became president. You can't have a provincially issued processing licence, give it to some company or entity, and let them systematically then take apart the fishery and take apart the town's finances. That's what we're seeing here.

The initial fix is with the province, but you cannot have controlling licences that will eventually—as you are now seeing in B.C.—be controlling not only the licences but the quotas. When that happens you cannot negotiate a proper price, market-wise or otherwise, with harvesters. The control slowly shifts to the foreign-controlled interests and Canadian...outside provinces' issues.

That's the first step.

Some of these companies have very good ideas for marketing. I understand that. We deal with that, but they have to stay in their own lane. They have the process, but they can't interfere with the owner-operator. If it means jail, to send the message out for some of these cats, then that's what has to happen to fix this issue.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you very much.

I'll continue with you, Mr. Pretty.

Once the provinces have issued licences in the proper order, what would be the next step to have a better say in this foreign interference in the fisheries world?

Besides, how do you measure that other than a survey? You say a number of things are done on the sly. What would be the ideal tool, in your opinion?

[Greg Pretty]

I agree. Surveys are pretty ineffectual in dealing with a situation like this, but if you go back to the provincial licence issue, if you have a provincial licence, there have to be consequences. First of all, you have to have a plan. What are you going to do with that provincial licence? You are going to do multispecies. You're going to employ x number of people. You're going to get into the marketplace. There is going to be a benefit to the province for issuing licences.

Once that's done, part of that process is to ensure, as an extra standard here, that as a condition of a provincial licence the province will not engage in controlling license issues. That can also be stiffened, or supported, through federal regulations on individual licences. That's all we see as a start to having a better way of doing business to ensure that the owner-operator survives in this province.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Pretty.

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less, please.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Kariya, it was great to hear from you, and to see you along with my colleagues, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Arnold, and Mr. Epp, when we recently attended the Fisheries for Communities conference. Thank you for your testimony so far today.

I'm wondering if you can expand a bit. We have heard increasingly.... You spoke about first nations being increasingly disenfranchised and alienated from fisheries, in all species within fisheries, which are essential to Coastal First Nations communities in British Columbia.

In order to move forward with true reconciliation, what needs to happen to increase access for first nations to all species on Canada's west coast?

[Paul Kariya]

The reconciliation agreement wants to put first nations people back on the water. In that area north of Vancouver Island to the Alaska panhandle, the areas of the eight nations that I work for, we need a transfer mechanism of the licences and quotas that are being held. What was negotiated with the Government of Canada was to use the marketplace. Other tools could have been used.

The Government of Canada could have expropriated and compensated, and then turned over, under an agreement, access to species. That's at the heart of the matter here. I'm appearing is because the market isn't working. The settlement funds that we have received to go into the marketplace would be chasing silly money. They wouldn't have the buying power. We want to see that changed, and we believe the owner-operator approach we've heard of from the east coast could do that.

The goal is to get first nations people fishing again. All of the communities that I work for used to have a small boat fleet. None of them do now. Children and teenagers access the water by water taxi, or they dangle their feet off a dock. They are not on platforms that were used to fish. That's what we want to restore. We want families to have the opportunity to fish again, as well as a fleet that would go ocean-wide and participate, probably with a lighter footprint in terms of impact than has been managed under DFO.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you very much. I'll continue with a few more questions.

We heard about those implications for first nations communities and coastal communities that you're talking about. Could you expand a bit? You mentioned the willing seller and willing buyer approach. Can you expand as to why this market mechanism is not working to enable first nations to fully participate in fisheries in the coastal communities of British Columbia?

[Paul Kariya]

Our colleague from the union on the Atlantic talked about cartels. There are cartels working, I believe, in British Columbia. There are certain species that are held by a limited number of entities. I think they've probably banded together to work against us, saying, “This is the thin edge. We don't want to give up our access, and we'll work together on pricing and so on.”

There is a review in the agreement we have with Canada. In that review, when we negotiated with the past minister, we said we would come back. If indeed the market wasn't working, we would say to the Government of Canada, “You can take your money back. It's up to you, Minister and government, to do the expropriation in taking back and then compensating if you wish to. Those are options in our tool kit to make this reconciliation agreement work.”

The market is not working as a market in which there is free trade back and forth, with money to be used. That's the money we have. We have made some purchases, but very few, in the 18 months of operation and two years since the agreement was signed.

We're fearful that using this money.... We have a separate fishing corporation that we've incorporated, with a new CEO and a separate board of directors. They're experts in fishing. They're advising, “Let's not engage in this. We're just perpetuating what's gone on.” We must see fundamental change, and the market may not deliver that.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Kariya, I will continue with you.

What are the environmental and ecological impacts that are being seen by coastal first nations as a result of large corporations and foreign entities having disproportionate access to B.C.'s fisheries?

[Paul Kariya]

It could be a long answer.

I'll give a short one by saying that there are certain techniques and types of fishing that through science, as was invoked earlier, we have learned can be harmful to the bottom. For example, bottom trawling can be harmful. Maybe in other areas it's not seen as being harmful, but in certain sensitive areas it is. I think, through our involvement in management, we'd like to see the elimination of that type of fishing technique, particularly in many areas. Some of them maybe can be adapted in certain ways.

Let's do that together. I think the outreach from the nations involves working with the Government of Canada and other harvesters to ask, “Can we do this in a way that sustains the future in terms of fisheries in a more integrated way, rather than species by species, on an environmental basis?”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

We'll now go to Mr. Small for five minutes or less.

Go ahead, please.