Fisheries Committee on May 11th, 2023

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

Okay, I'll have to leave it at that, because I have limited time.

Ms. Sutcliffe, above and beyond the money, I want you to tell the committee about what you presented in Victoria on the other considerations that go far beyond the economics—the cultural, the community values, etc. Talk about the full picture, if you could, please.

[Tasha Sutcliffe]

Thanks, Ken.

It's more than I could ever say in a few minutes. There are a plethora of values that we see in coastal communities as a result of a thriving fishing community. It's everything from the infrastructure that supports so many other aspects of coastal community health and well-being, including wharves and docks, and people who are providing skills, like mechanics. There's also a lot to be said about the social and cultural values around the provision of food—the relationships, the understanding and the stewardship of the marine resource that's adjacent to you and your ability to interact with that, certainly for the first nations.

I work with the ability to maintain boats. Skills to access traditional foods are also a huge part of maintaining your fleet. I will actually provide some of that information in a brief to the committee as well, because it's much more than I could ever describe or give credit to in a few minutes here.

If I could just use one minute, I don't know if anyone has minutes to spare, but I just want to say that Kyle, our colleague here, is a commercial fisherman. He has a really important story to share, and he didn't get a chance to testify. I believe he prepared something. I'd be willing to give up time and put my answers to questions in a submission to get some time freed up for him, if there is a way to do that.

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

Well, I would presume my time is just about up.

Yes, it is. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Before I go to Madame Desbiens, I will say that in rounds of questioning, Mr. Louis might be able to get out some of his opening statements or remarks in answers, but other than that, his information is provided to the committee in written form, so the committee members have that on record as well.

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

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

Given that there is some of the same thing happening on the east coast and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we also have concerns. What worries us even more is that we have even heard that people want to testify anonymously. It's starting to scare us a bit, I have to admit.

I'd therefore like to give Mr. Louis two minutes to talk about this, because it does concern me.

[Kyle Louis, Vice President, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union – Unifor]

Thank you, Caroline. I appreciate that.

First and foremost, I want to acknowledge the Anishinabe Algonquin people, whose unceded territory we're meeting on today.

My name is Kyle Louis. I'm the vice-president for the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union. I'm also an active fish harvester.

I'd like to thank the committee for their time and effort spent on this study on this ever-so-important fisheries industry.

I'm a fourth-generation harvester and I'm feeling the pinch from foreign ownership and the lack of an owner-operator policy. The very fact that I'm able to be in front of you today is a direct result of this. Our B.C. prawn fishery kicks off in four days, and I'm without a licence.

You may ask why. I'll bring you up to speed on the current situation that other harvesters and I are facing.

I had taken out a loan to refit my boat to allow me to fish prawns and salmon with one vessel. I bid on the licence through a process whereby, when you're outbid, you're able to do a counter-bid. Not only was I outbid by 140%, but the sudden interest was from an overseas investor who was looking to secure as many licences and as much product as possible.

This licence was also a PICFI licence. PICFI was created to increase indigenous capacity within commercial fisheries, but there is zero DFO policy to ensure indigenous commercial harvesters get the first access at reasonable lease rates, which results in people like me either not being able to compete to lease licences or having to get companies to finance at lease rates such that we end up having to pay back the majority of the value of our catch to a company.

I can't afford to compete with these companies to buy my own licence. My only option, therefore, is to lease. Running a commercial fishing business is expensive, with most of the costs and financial risks having to be paid up front. This is just not financially viable when we're taking home only about 20% of the value of our catch, and that's before taxes.

That's just a quick snapshot of what I and a lot of other B.C. independent fishermen have been and are currently dealing with.

Again, I thank you for your time and your consideration on these issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

You still have a little over a minute, Madame Desbiens.

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

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Sutcliffe.

What will the consequences generally be on Canadian fisheries if we don't immediately get a grip on the extent of foreign investment? What will the short-term consequences be?

[Tasha Sutcliffe]

Yes, and again, I think I want to separate the idea of foreign investment from foreign ownership and control of the supply of the fishing access, because I think those are fundamentally two different things and have two different impacts.

I think there are examples and cases of companies in B.C. that have foreign investment or foreign owners, and those companies have been very good participants and partners in the fishery, and good citizens, I'd even say, in the communities in which they have operations. There are also some very difficult examples. It really depends on the model.

What's happening now is that these forms of investment from very large corporate interests are coming in and taking control of the supply and the whole vertical integration of the supply chain. As a result, with the money that gets left in communities, our ability to build on that and even to do some new innovative things with our supply becomes very restricted and limited. I think that is damaging not just for B.C. but anywhere where that continues to exist.

I wouldn't want to say that.... I'm not taking a position here that there's no role for corporations and there's no role for investment or foreign investment, because I think there also have been positive examples of opportunities created out of that. I just think that we need to look at the impact of the policy and what's causing the most damage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Sutcliffe, Ms. Orr and Mr. Louis, it's nice to see the three of you. I wish I were there in person, but I thank you for being here.

Ms. Sutcliffe, my first question is for you.

I'm wondering if you can expand on this. We've all heard DFO's statement that British Columbia necessarily has been different from the east coast due to the policy being built on conservation objectives. I'm wondering if you can expand on that and what your response is to those claims.

[Tasha Sutcliffe]

Yes, and thank you for that question.

I have to say that there are very few things that frustrate me more than that line we keep hearing, with the exception maybe being the line of the scrambled omelette.

I think we have to remember that the issue we are having around the control of access to our fisheries does not negate our ability to meet our conservation objectives. We're not even talking about the flexibility that may be needed in some fisheries for fishermen to trade amongst each other for things like bycatch needs. We're talking about who is owning and controlling the licences and quota. You can still put limits and controls around who gets to be eligible to own licences and quota, still meet all of those conservation objectives and still meet all of that flexibility around trading for bycatch and all of the other aspects that people talk about, such as very good monitoring systems.

None of those things has to be affected by saying that we don't want corporate concentration of our licences and quota. It's a false dichotomy, and I really wish that we'd stop hearing that language from the department.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Sutcliffe.

My next question is for Ms. Orr.

Ms. Orr, why do you think that the survey is realistically the only step that we have seen taken to date by DFO in response to the 2019 FOPO report that had extensive recommendations based on witness testimony?

Also, can you expand on the survey that has gone out? What are your comments around the difference between licence-holders and licence owners, and the implications of that survey not considering the differences?

[Emily Orr]

Thank you.

I think the survey is flawed as to who it's asking the questions of, and that's what's causing the difficulty in the results that are going to come from it. The survey is not going to provide the information or the data that's useful for answering what the foreign ownership or corporate concentration picture actually looks like.

Sorry; what was the first question again?

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

The first question was about your thoughts around why we have seen minimal action around the recommendations that were put forward in the 2019 report.

[Emily Orr]

My understanding is it's a capacity issue. That's the reason that DFO has provided to us.

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

Okay, thank you.

What was the petition that you put forward, Ms. Orr? Can you expand on why you put forward that petition and what the reactions are that you have been receiving to date?

[Emily Orr]

The reactions were a shock. Most people we talked to about the petition had no idea that Canada didn't already have some restriction on foreign ownership or corporate concentration. People were horrified that Canada would allow an open black market on our fisheries resource.

We put that petition forward because we needed to bring the attention back to this issue and we needed DFO to take some serious steps towards resolution of the problem. The petition was to bring that attention forward in hopes of driving change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

We'll now go to Mr. Small for four minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Orr.

If licences are held now by non-fishers or whomever in different walks of life or whatnot, who in your opinion should be holding these licences?

[Emily Orr]

Thank you.

Independent owner-operator harvesters and first nations are the ones who should be holding the licences.

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

Okay. Let's say we started unravelling that sweater. What's your vision for making changes to that? Would these licence-holders have to be compensated? Would there be some type of a redistribution scheme? Who would be eligible to pick up those licences then?

This is massive, according to what you've said to us here today.

[Emily Orr]

It is. I think it's a complex solution that we need to look at.

First is to stop the foreign ownership. Second is fleet separation. Third is the development of an owner-operator policy.

On the east coast they were given seven years to transition. It was between 2007 and 2014. That seven years was provided so that investors had time to divest.

We think that there are a couple of different models for the solution. One of them is perhaps the government—DFO—retrieving those licences and then reissuing them to independent owner-operators. Another is in an open market style: Those licences would be sold by the licence owners back to independent owner-operators in the same way that they are now, but with an impending deadline for those armchair fishermen to divest.

I think a provincial loan board for B.C. would be a really important part of that. B.C. and Alberta are the only provinces in Canada that don't have that. That type of loan program, provincially, helps east coast harvesters—owner-operators—to become more involved and to refit or buy licences or vessels. That type of program would help owner-operators on the west coast pick up those licences that would be let go.

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

How successful do you think that new program is in Atlantic Canada? Do you think it's achieved its goals, or do you think that certain groups or individuals are skirting around that and rigging it up another way, but it actually still exists? Do you think that's possible in Atlantic Canada?

Do you think that would end up happening in B.C. at the end of the day?

[Emily Orr]

I know that's happening on the east coast from my conversations with our sister union, the FFAW. It's not perfect. I think we can learn a lot from the way they developed their program.

What I know—and you'll hear this from Rick Williams when he testifies—is that there are some really compelling tax filer data statistics from fish harvesters on the east coast, and there's been some really good data around the landings values going to communities on the east coast since the introduction of PIIFCAF. It's not a perfect program, but it's certainly miles better than what we are dealing with on the west coast.