Thanks, Mr. Chair.
It's great to see the three of you here in our last panel. It's been very informative.
We talked about owner-operators on this panel and the previous panel and how important they are to the east coast. In fact, it's enshrined in law. It's a massive move forward in terms of communities and community wealth, and it will constantly need to be improved upon.
Something really tweaked me. I believe it was you, Mr. Olson. I think you might have referred to it as well, Dr. Silver. You talked about foreign concentration. I come from an island where, in the first part of the 20th century, in the first five decades, one company owned an enormous number of mines, and they were called “the company”. The company also had the company stores that were owned by the company. The homes where the workers lived were called “company homes”. That wasn't too long ago in terms of the concentration of corporate wealth and how things consolidate and how choices are few, in particular for people who work in the mining industry.
It got me thinking about B.C. I don't want to say there are absolutely 1,000% comparisons here, but it got me thinking, Dr. Silver, on a couple of things in your work. You talked about the research you've done, and I'm curious. Have you done any modelling with respect to owner-operators in B.C.? If they were to have a more robust presence in B.C., what would that mean in terms of the supply chain money staying in communities and money staying with local fishers and local entrepreneurs?
Is there any data you could share or at least pontificate on if we were to look at that model? I can't give the parameters if we switch to 50% or 75% or 30%, but I'm curious because I would suspect that a profound number would be attached for local communities where we're consistently talking about rural economic strategies and coastal economic strategies. To me, the heart of those rural economic strategies is keeping money in the community.