Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 14 - Evidence, November 17, 1998
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 17, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 6:05 p.m. to consider the questions of privatization and quota licensing in Canada's fisheries.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries. A special welcome to those watching at home. Tonight we will continue with our study on questions of privatization and quota licensing in Canada's fisheries.
Before calling upon our witnesses, I will briefly describe the committee's current terms of reference. Over the past several months, the committee has been conducting an inquiry into the privatization of Canada's fisheries and, more specifically, individual quota licensing.
Canada's commercial fisheries are undergoing dramatic changes. On the East Coast, the recovery of groundfish is proving to be uncertain. On the West Coast, certain stocks of salmon are seriously depleted. Less well known is the fact that the policies that have governed Canada's fisheries for decades are essentially being rewritten. Programs administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are becoming more client focused and demand driven. The federal government is also promoting co-management in the fishery and new powers in the Fisheries Act are being proposed to allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to enter into long-term partnership agreements.
Although privatization in fisheries covers a wide variety of matters, the debate centres largely on giving fishing operations some form of private ownership of the fish stocks in the form of individual quota fishing licences, also known as IQs, IVQs, ITQs and EAs. In very simple terms, these licences provide fishermen or fishing companies with the right to harvest annually a certain quantity of fish; a sort of swimming inventory.
These private fishing quotas are a major departure from the traditional fisheries management approach of seeing the resource as a common good owned by the people of Canada. The privatization of fishing rights began in the early 1980s. Very much a bureaucratic initiative, the process has been gradual. It has taken place over the tenure of several ministers of fisheries and has involved successive governments.
Canada's commercial fishing industry is now a mix of individual quota managed fisheries and common property fisheries. The privatization model is one that is enthusiastically embraced by classical economists, by neo-conservative theorists and think tanks, and by certain newspaper columnists and editorial writers. The private quota approach is heavily promoted by the corporate sector of the fishery industry and has long-committed supporters within the federal fisheries bureaucracy.
I should also add that individual quotas stir up strong emotions on both coasts of Canada. They sharply divide fishers and fishing communities into two camps -- for and against. Views are polarized and the issue of further extending individual quotas has many sides.
Over the past year, the committee has sampled the wide spectrum of opinion from several nationally and internationally recognized authorities in Canada, Iceland and New Zealand. We have made extensive use of video conferencing. To better inform everyone of our activities, the transcripts and background material are readily available on our Internet website.
This evening we will hear from two groups from British Columbia who have requested to appear before us. We will first hear from a delegation from the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council comprised of Mr. Roy Alexander, Mr. Cliff Atleo and Mr. Richard Watts. The NTC is comprised of 14 distinct First Nations who reside on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The Tribal Council's main objective is to provide support to member tribes to enable them to establish self-government. The NTC promotes the economic, social, physical and cultural development of its membership.
Mr. Alexander, please proceed with your presentation.
Mr. Roy Alexander, Advisor to NTC Fishermen, Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council: Mr. Chairman, we thank the Senate for inviting the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council to appear before you.
We should like to bless these proceedings with a short prayer in our traditional language.
(Mr. Cliff Atleo conducted a blessing in his native tongue.)
Mr. Alexander: Our coasts are dying. We need a fresh look at things. What is going on now is not working. We are not here today just to oppose the privatization and licensing regimes that are being forced on our communities. We are here to present to the Senate what we see as a very positive alternate that makes both social and economic sense. Our community leaders, both native and non-native, have worked very hard to form a working management alternative that is fully accountable, and we believe sustainable. This involves our communities and stakeholders in the region. However, if this current drive to privatization is not checked, there will be nothing left to manage.
We need the help of this committee to protect our future generations in our coastal communities. To date, the planning and policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has devastated our communities. It has driven an ocean people off an ocean it has fished for centuries. At one time our Nuu-chah-nulth fleet had approximately 300 vessels, more than 200 licensed vessels, as well as other vessels that did not qualify for licences. Every variety of fish was fished on our coast. Today the unemployment rate in our village is 70 to 95 per cent; this is for ocean people who have always made their living off the ocean.
This plan to save us began in 1969, when the federal government decided they would reduce the fleet and make them more efficient. They ended up driving out small boats that could not qualify, small effort trollers, small gill netters, combination fisheries that fished two fisheries, while they allowed the powerful seine fleet to grow by 74 per cent by the mid 1970s. We had a reduction of humans and a 75 per cent increase in fishing power. Hopefully we learn by the mistakes of the past.
By 1979, the Nuu-chah-nulth fleet was reduced to under 100 vessels. Today, less than 50 vessels remain. Most of them have had to sell one licence or another to stay alive and have continually lost resource access. After the current round of buy backs there are 10 to 12 vessels left. This is from 200 to 300 families with almost full employment year-round in coastal communities that have not asked for restructuring handouts.
In this concerted program, DFO policy planners have manipulated the licence system to eliminate participation and promote privatization. I am sure you have heard of that on the East Coast and the West Coast. They knew it would destroy the owner-operators -- they have talked about this in their policy documents -- and would disadvantage the fishery-dependent communities. While they are floundering, there is one industry that is growing. It is the movement of DFO officials moving to more lucrative positions with private fishing interests, then lobbying their former employers for beneficial treatment. We have seen people, who are under their one-year term, giving testimony here. It would seem to be an implied conflict of interest. No one is watching.
Canada's policies were based on accountable principles developed in the early 1970s. These were good principles, but who is watching? When these principles, known as the Five-Account-System, were put in place by various governments, they were good principles and were supported by all parties. They dealt with a number of social and economic factors, as well as regional development. Lately the words "regional development" appear to have been lost on DFO. They have all been set aside in the latest drive.
Canada's commitment to regional development and fishery dependent communities as well as its professed intent of increasing the participation of aboriginal people in the fishery, seems to have been set aside. The lack of accountability is glaring and needs to be addressed. It is a major contributor to the difficulties we have today with DFO. We are all hopeful that the Senate will set out some guidelines or recommendations to remove incentives for the people who work in the department. What the dedicated employees, whom we deal with every day, want to do is protect the fish. These individuals must be able to do their jobs. We are talking about billions of dollars worth of resources. There cannot be the temptation for them to be bought out of the department. They must conduct their jobs in an accountable manner.
If we are to save this resource and the resource dependant communities, as well as the harvesters that always depended on them, we must act decisively to avoid a tragedy of privatization of the commons and losing this common resource. I will ask Richard Watts to suggest some solutions that we hope the Senate will consider.
Mr. Richard Watts, Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council: I wish to introduce some of the people who came along with us and take this opportunity to make connections with senior people in the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans, Indian Affairs, and Human Resources Development. We want to emphasize the proposal that we think is an answer to our growing concern about the fishery.
With us today are Scott Fraser, the mayor of Tofino; Bill Irving, the mayor of Ucluelet; Rose Davidson, representative of the Regional District of Alberni-Clayoquot; Dan Edwards, West Coast Sustainability Association; Eric Tamm, on the executive of the Coastal Community Network; John Young, an employee of ours who is helping us in this area; and Rick Nookemus, one of the few surviving fishermen. We recently hired Mr. Roy Alexander to help our commercial fishermen in this situation, which has been worsening over the last few years. Cliff Atleo worked for many years for the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia and has since come home to work with his people and myself.
Our group represents some 14 First Nations on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I will point out to you on this map the area that we are talking about. It covers roughly one-third of Vancouver Island.
Our people managed the fishery on the west coast of Vancouver Island for thousands of years before contact. The resources around us, mainly the ocean and river resources, supported our entire Nuu-chah-nulth communities before contact. That left our people in the very admirable and enviable position of being totally employed, if I can use those modern-day terms. We were rich because of the resources around us.
As a matter of fact, because of the resources to which we had access, we had a history of trading with the many First Nations along the coast. Our communities and our societies were functional then. I am not saying that fishery is entirely to blame, but a big part of the problem is our inability to access those resources. If you take into account issues such as residential schools, you will quickly understand that dysfunction has almost become the norm, in part because of closed access to resources, as well as some of the other issues we must address.
The main reason we are here today is to talk about the fisheries and how they have affected our communities.
As time goes on, we are continuously reminded that, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, we have very small communities. "Reserves" they are called today. The Indian agents, who helped set up reserves in the late 1800s, told the government that our people did not require large tracts of land, because we lived off the ocean and the rivers and we would always have that access. They told our chiefs not to worry, that this would never be a problem in the future.
Today, that access no longer exists. The licensing regimes and the different policy choices of the government have had very adverse effects on our communities in terms of access to resources. We can go back to the Davis plan, the Mifflin plan, bad seasons, and over-capitalization of the fishery with upgraded boats and very expensive equipment. The days of fishermen fishing out of their home communities are long gone.
These are some of the issues which are particularly bothersome to us today. Through licensing regimes, hake fishery is almost totally taken by offshore allocations and offshore deliveries, because of a deal struck between the Polish government and our government. Black cod is almost entirely caught under individual quotas now. Our people cannot afford those licences, so they do not have access to those resources.
Almost 100 per cent of the herring fishery is controlled outside our region. There is no benefit to our communities except for three or four people who are actually involved there. At one time, about 300 of our people were in some way involved in that fishery.
In the halibut fishery, again, individual quotas keep out people who cannot afford the quotas. We have a couple of licences under the retirement scheme, but our access is very limited. It is to the point where a few of First Nations are sharing a license. A quota is attached to the licence, therefore, each First Nation only gets half of that quota.
In the chum fishery outside of Nitinat Lake, again because of the Mifflin plan as well as area licensing and single-gear licensing, very few of our people have the opportunity to take advantage of it. Most fisheries are limited to either a gill net or troll. Most of our fleet was made up of combination boats and our people chose to keep the troll. The chum fishery is a gill net fishery, therefore, again, they were left out in the cold. They did not get to benefit from that.
The plant workers in the Ucluelet plant were directly affected by the hake allocation going offshore to the processing facility. Approximately 60 First Nations members lost their jobs there because of that allocation, even though there was a written agreement from ten years ago saying that it would never happen that way. It did happen.
Most of this situation is the direct result of privatization of the fishery with individual vessel quotas and those types of things. Now we are looking at almost total privatization of the other licences and species.
This is why we are here today. We want to propose a regional aquatic management board. As an aid to our communities, on an interim basis during the process, we made the same proposal to the federal government during the treaty-making process. Recommendation 16 in the treaty-making process allows for interim measures agreements to be negotiated while we are negotiating the overall treaty. If there is something going on that may negatively impact the negotiations process, then an IMA, or interim measures agreement, may be used to stop that activity.
We chose that avenue to try to gain control of things such as licensing and management decisions as well as allocations and those processes.
In my own personal opinion, quotas may be an answer if they are community quotas or regional quotas handled by our region or our communities. This is not such a far-fetched idea. It is usually how First Nations are allocated their fisheries, no matter what species we are discussing. They could be allocated up to, for example, 50,000 sockeye for a particular First Nation. That is a community allocation.
The argument that this solution is too complex does not hold much water. About 60 communities along the coast must already deal with their allocation in that way as First Nations. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans does it every day of the week in terms of the fishery.
We also need to emphasize the despair and hopelessness of our communities, particularly our youth. There is no future in the fishery for them. We cannot pass it on to them. We are encouraging our children to do other things. If fisheries are held in private quotas and individually held allocations, they cannot carry on the tradition that has been theirs for thousands of years.
The resulting social and economic impact is devastating and can be seen in the levels of alcohol abuse and suicide. This is not something we take lightly. In our communities, we deal with these issues almost every day of the week.
As a Tribal Council, we have health and social development branches. The difference between the money that goes into social development and health care is like comparing the Eiffel Tower to a little ten-foot shack somewhere. There is no comparison. Mr. Atleo will describe the effect of this dichotomy on our fishing fleet.
We decided to create a management board. We received support through an interest-based conference held in Port Alberni in May 1997. Once our interests were identified with all major sectors and communities on the west coast of Vancouver Island, we discovered we were all struggling for the same things. The impact of decisions in management fisheries was affecting all the communities of the Nuu-chah-nulth.
This group was formed to bring the regional aquatic measurement concept forward. It would be community-based and would conduct its activities based on the principle of sustainability.
The board's structure and responsibilities are currently under negotiation. The parties have agreed to use the following guidelines, in the following order: conservation; aboriginal food, social and ceremonial rights; ecosystem management; involvement of a broad range of interests; transparent and fair selection of the members to the board; recognition of Canada's international obligations regarding fisheries; establishing a clear purpose and goals; fiduciary responsibilities to First Nations; exploring self-funding mechanisms for the board's operations; incremental approach to board functions; as well as coordinating with other processes inside and outside the West Coast region.
Mr. Cliff Atleo, Member, Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council: Honourable senators, I will address the question of why we need regional management boards.
We must first ask ourselves what kind of fisheries we envisage on the Pacific Coast in the future. We as Nuu-chah-nulth in West Coast communities have a vision and we are sharing it with you. If the vision of fisheries is one of privatization and more control of fisheries resources residing in fewer hands, then the approach of ITQs succeeds. If the goal is to provide a few individuals and companies with exclusive rights of harvest to what is a common resource, ITQs succeed. If the objective is to maximize profits and minimize the benefits to the public from these profits and marginalize coastal communities, then ITQs succeed. If the vision is for the best use of the commercial fisheries in British Columbia to create corporate profits, then ITQs succeed. If these are the visions, then the fastest way to achieve them is to proceed with the rapid transformation of fisheries in British Columbia to ITQs.
In 1980, DFO spent millions in a campaign to promote fisheries as our fisheries and resource. Years later, they are championing a management system that can be truly characterized as not our resource.
Conversely, if your vision for commercial fisheries in B.C. is for maximizing local benefits from local resources, fair and equitable sharing of fishery resources to provide national employment, and stability to local communities, then ITQs must be rejected. If ITQs are rejected, what should replace them to ensure a better and more equitable system of fisheries management? We believe the answer lies in regional management boards that hold allocations in trust for the overall benefit of future generations. Regional management boards empower communities to manage the fisheries resources for the sustainable benefit of all communities and all the resources, not for corporate profit alone.
I wish to emphasize that the concept of regional management that we are proposing is as old as the Nuu-chah-nulth. In our tradition, it is said that the chief has the responsibility to look after all within his domain. Coastal community management follows this traditional concept precisely. Management goals can be achieved with a community management model without privatization. Reduction in costs to government can be achieved by making the management board responsible for many of the day-to-day management requirements.
Sustainable long-term harvest, meaningful employment and healthy communities would be achieved because local communities would control the benefits of the local resources. As coastal communities, we have a vested interest in maintaining local employment and investment in our regions. All this can be achieved without privatization that would benefit only a few.
In North America, the Alaska salmon fisheries are managed through a regional management board system. We have reviewed some of the systems that operate in Japan where local fishermen and communities manage their resources. These systems work. They can work in British Columbia. We can negotiate a functional, effective and efficient model, made in British Columbia, for British Columbia resources.
We encourage everyone interested in the West Coast fisheries to look seriously at the alternatives before accepting ITQ solutions presently being advanced by DFO and a minority of individual and corporate licence holders.
In closing, we urge the Senate to endorse and encourage the regional management board system as an alternate to privatization and corporate control. In the interim, it will be necessary to suspend the pressure towards privatization regimes and ensure public employees are guided by accountability principles and strong conflict of interests guidelines.
Senator Stewart: Mr. Alexander raised the possibility that there is a questionable relationship between recent employees of DFO and some of the major private interests or corporate interests. You may know this to be true. It would be very helpful to this committee to have tangible evidence that would support your knowledge.
Mr. Alexander: I believe the evidence of conflict of interest is in the guidelines concerning your own hearings. As far as I understand, you have heard from a number of DFO and ex-DFO employees working for individual groups. In the guidelines, it says that people in senior positions have been retired for over one year. There are different names for it on each coast, but I believe they call it Interchange Canada Now. On our coast, they go back and forth. Is that a conflict of interest or is it a potential conflict of interest? I am not in the DFO to observe everything they do. Further to access to information requests, documents have been supplied where there is only one line that is not blacked out. It is as if they are secret service documents when they talk about fisheries management.
It is very difficult for the public to begin to try to police the police without a police board. I would say that one of the recommendations is that we have an ombudsman or police board to deal with these difficulties in DFO. The ministers are much too busy to deal with this issue.
If we could find actual instances, certainly, we would make the information available to you. You could look at the Interchange Canada program, which was previously called the Industry Exchange. You would see that it is confined to just a few companies.
Senator Stewart: That is a very important point. Some of these people may, by reason of their experience in DFO, have no culpable motive. They have come to see the world from that viewpoint, and that viewpoint may be quite wrong.
You mentioned that some witnesses before this committee had been involved in this kind of interchange. Could you give the clerk of the committee some of those names so that, when we review that evidence, we will recognize the nature of the source?
Mr. Alexander: Certainly.
Senator Stewart: I live in a fishing village in Nova Scotia. However, that does not help me understand very much about your fisheries industry. What type of boats would the First Nations people use in the fishery? Specify the fishery that you are talking about; tell me the size of the boats; and compare that with these large corporate enterprises who are now taking over those particular fisheries or that particular fishery?
Mr. Atleo: Senator Stewart, we have less than 50 boats left. On average, those vessels are trolling boats. They range anywhere from 32 feet to approximately 40 feet, which is a large trolling vessel. The other entities that you are referring to, namely, seine vessels, can be anywhere from 55 feet to 70 feet. In terms of value, they range anywhere from $600,000 to $1 million.
Senator Stewart: You talked about overcapitalization of the fleet. Let me reveal my ignorance. One of the arguments that I hear on the East Coast is that the tax system works to promote overcapitalization. If you reinvest in a new boat and you put a shower in it, it becomes what I call a yacht -- I tease the fishermen with that language. You have evaded taxation and have increased your equity. Are the native people susceptible to the same taxation regime as are some of these corporate entities?
Mr. Atleo: Revenue Canada has incredible leeway in terms of who it goes after. I do not think we want to get into that debate.
Some of our people are subjected to it, although that does not include everyone. First Nations people who live at home generally have a better chance of being tax exempt. If they do not live at home and live in an urban area, they are more susceptible to Revenue Canada.
Senator Stewart: That is an interesting line for me, but I will not follow it any further at this time.
We have two types of boats. I wish to move on to the next stage in the operation, namely, the processing of fish. How would the fish be processed effectively? By effectively, I mean economically and in a way that puts the product on the market in good shape so that you can command a good price. How is that done in the First Nations communities, compared with the corporate entity-type of fishery using the larger boats?
Mr. Atleo: There is an interesting dynamic occurring in terms of processing in British Columbia. The large entities that we have been talking about have been closing down their facilities. I suspect very strongly that companies like B.C. Packers now utilize their American facilities down in the State of Washington. They are major players in the State of Alaska. Our free trade agreement works very nicely for that.
In Steveston, they closed down a major plant, which employed several hundred people. They now contract their processing services to smaller operators.
We once had a native fishermen's co-op with processing facilities in Ucluelet and Bella Bella. That cooperative is no longer operating. Our product goes to where we can secure the best price. There are few buying stations. Ucluelet is a fishing town, which probably has the largest number of fishing vessels. Ten short years ago, we had 17 buying stations in that harbour. I believe we had one buyer last year.
Senator Stewart: I know this is a very difficult question to deal with because there are so many causes that operate where a First Nations fisherman sells his catch. What effect has the closing down of local processing had on the price he is able to obtain when he sells to an entity that will process the fish outside the local area?
Mr. Atleo: Some of that depends on how he handles the fish once he catches it. Some units can freeze the product on the grounds. Basically, the reduction of buyers forces the small operator's operating costs up, because he usually must go further in order to sell his product. That affects the quality of the product by the time it is delivered.
Senator Butts: Thank you very much, gentlemen. This discussion has been very valuable. We have been talking a great deal about the kinds of quotas that you are talking about as well.
You said that your regional management boards would work on licensing and quota development. Is that correct?
Mr. Watts: Yes.
Senator Butts: Therefore, you do want quotas, but you do not want IQs or ITQs. Do you just want Qs?
Mr. Watts: We said that we would handle allocations, and if we end up with quotas, then we will handle them. As long as you realize we are talking about community or regional allocations or quotas. I do not want to get it confused with ITQs. It must be something for the region or for our communities. What we are talking about is a very different concept. It is something attached to the west coast of Vancouver Island, which we would handle as a board for our communities.
Senator Butts: So that is not privatization, but an IQ is privatization. What is your real sense of privatization? I ask because you have condemned privatization.
Mr. Atleo: I will try to answer that.
Senator Butts: I am confused with the terminology.
Mr. Atleo: For First Nations people in British Columbia, it is very important because we are negotiating modern-day treaties. If we are negotiating resources that are privatized, there is a compensation factor that kicks in immediately, and all compensation costs in our treaty negotiations come off the top. If we start creating compensation, we are taking it away from First Nations, because it all comes in one cost and compensation comes off the top. The further the government goes down the road of privatization, the less will be available to First Nations in the negotiations.
Senator Butts: If your communities get quotas, will they then decide who goes fishing?
Mr. Atleo: We hope to negotiate that kind of jurisdiction.
Senator Butts: When individual fishermen go fishing, is the fish for them, or is it for everyone? I am just trying to get around the privatization question.
Mr. Atleo: We need to understand what we are talking about when we speak of community allocations. Right now, there is a buyback program in British Columbia, where licences are bought back. There is an allocation that comes with those licences. They will end up in a pool, and from that pool someone will have the ability to reallocate those resources.
Senator Butts: Is that your board?
Mr. Atleo: There is a large reduction of fishermen on the west coast of Vancouver Island. That means there is a reduction of allocations because there are fewer licences. We do not want to lose that quota. Once we succeed in establishing the joint management model or mechanism, we want to keep the quota on the west coast of Vancouver Island. We still want to be able to access it. We would like to privatize it. In other words, we want to be able to issue the licences to whoever will operate and whoever will harvest the fish. It is important to understand the whole picture. We can pick away at privatization.
Senator Butts: Does DFO have any say in this, or will you do it alone?
Mr. Watts: Yes, they will. We have been working cooperatively with them for a number of years. I will give you an example of what I was talking about in terms of community allocations and who would fish. As a community, we sit down together in my First Nation and try to design fisheries plans that share the fish as fairly as possible within the community. We do that by setting areas for fishing, opening times and closing times, and the type of gear that can be used for fishing. That is how we try to make it fair and equitable for everyone within the community. We have been doing this in our community for the better part of 20 years and it works very well for us. However, we are trying to expand that into the whole west coast of Vancouver Island, perhaps including non-Nuu-chah-nulth communities in the plans. It is not so far-fetched. If we had the regional management board and had that task put in front of us, we could ensure our communities set up fisheries plans and systems that would be fair and equitable to all our communities.
Senator Butts: On the regional management board, how do you get your members? Are all the members fishermen?
Mr. Watts: No. We do not have the board yet. We have a society set up on an interim basis. After we had our conference in May of 1997, we set up a steering committee. In the interim, we set up a society to bridge us toward this board. We also have an agreement with Fisheries Renewal B.C., a provincial program in British Columbia, to handle approximately $600,000 to help rebuild streams and to help with other enhancement projects on the west coast of Vancouver Island. It is an interim measure we needed to take to make ourselves functional. It also proves that we are capable of having a diverse cross-section of different interests on the west coast of Vancouver Island, working together cooperatively in developing this management board.
Through the steering committee, we have RAMS, the Regional Aquatic Management Society. The executive includes Rose Davison, Dan Edwards and myself. We have asked the federal and provincial governments to appoint half of the board. We as First Nations will appoint the other half of the board. In each community we will decide who the representatives will be, whether they be local politicians, fishermen, recreational fishermen, or councillors from our First Nations communities.
Senator Butts: Will part of that be decided by elections?
Mr. Watts: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: It seems that you are well on your way to establishing those regional management boards. There has been a great deal of work done and we see in your document that you have the federal minister, the provincial premier and many other people supporting this concept. You say that you could manage the fisheries. I have no doubt that you could. It would not be easy because whatever you do in fisheries is complicated. You must try to make allocations fair for the people who have an interest.
If you were to do the management of the stocks or the quotas, you would need more than what you have now in the communities, would you not? Or would you start with that first?
Mr. Atleo: I believe there is a process underway now of capacity building. From a First Nations perspective, through the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, we already have trained technicians, guardians and monitors. In addition, in order to meet the requirements that we envision in a joint management board, the West Coast Sustainability Association and our Regional Aquatic Management Society have secured funds that are also designed to build our capacity.
Senator Robichaud: You would need more resources to make it work -- not human resources but fish resources. You would still have some communities and some individuals in those communities who would depend on that resource, would you not?
Mr. Atleo: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: You mentioned hake. Would you envision going in the same direction?
Mr. Atleo: Our ultimate objectives are all aquatic resources, but we would look at those underutilized species. We definitely have a strong interest in underutilized species. We have a strong interest in establishing self-financing mechanisms, which would reduce government costs. We can be very creative in this area.
Senator Perrault: You are a credit to British Columbia. You have given us constructive ideas and thoughtful considerations in your presentation.
You said that you are well underway in selecting the best method to appoint the members of the Regional Aquatic Management Board. Have you decided on the details, namely, how many members and their qualifications? How will the board be selected? Will it be by referendum or will there be a selection process as there is in an election?
Mr. Atleo: We now have active members in the Regional Aquatic Management Society. They are called directors. They include representatives of communities, mayors, regional district representatives as well as representatives from the sport fishing community.
Senator Perrault: Do you have people with expertise in fisheries as well as people with scientific knowledge?
Mr. Atleo: Within our communities and regions of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, we now have biologists that are employed by us. There is an administrator, who is a trained biologist. He supervises three other biologists who work in the community.
Senator Perrault: I should like to know how many members there will be and what their terms of service will be. If we wish to be competitive in the world market, it is important that we manage this great resource as efficiently as possible.
Mr. Atleo: In the discussion document we created for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the negotiating process, we suggested that 10 members sit on the board.
Senator Perrault: You do not want it to be too cumbersome.
Mr. Atleo: No. We had flagged the idea of representation from water sheds, namely, Nootka Sound, Clayoquot Sound, Barkley Sound, and so on.
Senator Perrault: What kind of relationship do you have with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?
Mr. Atleo: We have a strong relationship.
Senator Perrault: Could you tell us your thoughts on that point?
Mr. Atleo: They are sitting with us now as we talk with federal treaty negotiators. DFO has been present every step of the way. They ask the same question: What role do you see us playing in terms of development? We see them as local fishery employees and, perhaps, part of the board. That is what this is about, namely, locally managed resources.
Senator Perrault: The community would have a vested interest in having a successful fishery, would it not?
Mr. Atleo: Yes. The marked difference in terms of what we are suggesting is that our board would be totally accountable.
Senator Perrault: Do you believe the days of fish congesting the waterways and oceans teeming with salmon will ever come back? They tell me that technology is such that, by using a satellite guidance system, every fishing boat knows exactly where the fish are at any time. They can identify schools of fish and they can harvest in a few hours what would have taken several days or weeks when these seas were teeming with fish. Do you think we will ever return to those days of abundance?
Mr. Atleo: It is our intention to rebuild many of the streams that have been ignored too long right in our own backyards. Some of us are young enough to recall those abundant days. We believe we can do it -- perhaps not to the levels that we remember, but we will come close to it. Because of development, there are factors existing now that have an impact on the capacity of some of those streams.
Senator Perrault: Today, is competition different than what it was in the past? There are fish farms out there. What is the future of the fish farm industry?
Mr. Atleo: If they continue to pollute our environment, it is very bleak.
Senator Perrault: Do you believe there are some health down sides?
Mr. Atleo: There is no question about it.
Senator Perrault: You wish to maximize your profits by establishing regional boards. Would you have a marketing person with expertise on that board? If not, with the trade situation as it is today, we could have a situation where American salmon from Bristol Bay could overwhelm us at some point. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Atleo: They have an impact now, simply because of the free trade aspect. People can bring 25 per cent of the production in British Columbia from the United States. This happens frequently, especially through the Alaskan door.
Senator Perrault: Have they not had oceans teeming with fish there in past years?
Mr. Atleo: Yes; they have had many.
Senator Perrault: Do you think the El Ni<#00F1>o effect that has been wreaking havoc lately is a one-time wonder, or will it permanently affect the ability of fish to reproduce?
Mr. Atleo: El Ni<#00F1>o is always a concern to us. It was here three or four years ago and a lot of coho returned this year. Their return had nothing to do with action taken by DFO.
Senator Perrault: You are not about to give up on the coho, then?
Mr. Atleo: No.
Senator Adams: We heard another native group from British Columbia tell us almost the same thing. The minister had stopped most of their salmon fishing early last June and some fishermen were to receive compensation. Does your organization operate in the same way? What has the minister said to you? Does he tell you that you cannot fish anymore? We heard that he has said that you cannot fish for salmon for five or six years. What does your organization think about what is happening now, namely, that fishermen cannot fish?
Mr. Alexander: With regional management, we can look at sustainable fisheries that happen in our region if they are managed locally on a small scale, but do not impact on endangered stocks. It cannot be done on a large-scale fishery. You cannot have a large fishery on these stocks. We can close the whole coast, but we do not think it is necessary. Our fishermen need to have access to the stocks that are healthy and it must be managed.
The question that Senator Perrault raised was a good one, namely, what about the value of these products? We believe we can do more with less. We can harvest less fish and get a higher quality. If you have been out sport fishing on the West Coast, you know that there are beautiful fish out there. There are beautiful fish all the way home, but we have a reputation for the highest quality fish in the world and the world is looking for those types of products. We do not need to yield a large harvest. We can harvest at a lower rate, if that is what is needed.
There have been El Ni<#00F1>os. Records indicate that there were some in the 1930s. They are a natural occurrence, and we must expect them and harvest at a lower rate when they come. We believe that we can do more with less on the West Coast; it is the right direction to go.
Senator Adams: How do you get the quotas now?
Mr. Alexander: Money is the bottom line. It is very difficult for people in remote communities, particularly where people have small reserves and a big ocean. You cannot mortgage to buy extra licences and quotas. Some fishers owned licences and quotas in the first place and they were expropriated. Many of the fishers in our region, both native and non-native, owned quotas and lost their privileges because they did not overfish.
This is the contradiction. They did not go out when they had a season with enough to sustain them in a small coastal communities. Later on, without the consultation that they were supposed to have, these fishers were informed that they were losing their licences because they did not put enough fish in. They did not go out and race for the fish, which is what we now talk about avoiding. They were penalized. They lost their licences all over the coast.
A couple of our fishers lost their licences and now they are getting them back, but a high limit has been placed on them. The fishers currently find themselves in the position of having to sell those licences in order to keep their salmon licences. Now they are being told that their salmon licences are going to be carved down to a licence for their area and that they cannot gillnet the regionally developed fish. Those regionally developed fish were promoted by the salmon enhancement programs, to foster regional development.
Native people's employment, which was one of those five accounts that I was talking about earlier, was thrown out the window. There was no consultation in the licensing division.
Fishers in our region are placed at a disadvantage. The fisheries are being turned into a capital system. It is no longer a question of keeping up a boat, having an efficient vessel, looking after your gear, and buying bait. Those things do not count.
The fishers' major expense now is buying a piece of paper from a slum landlord. They do not wish to be serfs in a feudal system any longer.
Senator Adams: Should the board be able to set a boundary and not allow commercial fishing in some areas. Is that your concern? How could that be worked out? Will they have quotas there?
There are about 14 communities where there is concern about the fishers. If everyone were nice, they could divide the quota and each person would be able to have a little fish every summer.
What areas would have the quotas for catching salmon?
Mr. Atleo: We see the importance for creating understanding between the local Native peoples. There are protocol agreements in place now.
That is being exercised now for some of our tribes who like to fish sockeye. An abundance goes through a certain territory.
We formally request that we can come and harvest there, knowing that a surplus exists there. If they agree we go and do that. They extend the same courtesy to us. If they want to come and fish herring, they formally ask us if they can come and harvest.
Even though they have a licence and DFO controls it, there is a practice of observing protocol. We see an extensive system of protocols and understanding between not only First Nations but other communities, as well.
Senator Adams: We heard that there is much more salmon this year than in other years. Have you heard the same thing? You see all the salmon just go up the river and back down, and the government says the fish are gone. I was wondering if you are finding the same thing in your fishery?
Mr. Alexander: Yes, there were large returns this year, particularly in the rivers for the chum.
As those fish started to show up, the large companies decided not to buy them. They walked away from it. It is very frustrating for us to lose control of these fisheries and then have large companies say they were not going to bother buying the fish we have harvested.
The companies are saying that we had better take our fish somewhere else. There is a real concern on the coast with this in-and-out motion controlled by the corporation, for the corporation's interest only.
We are concerned that we will lose our infrastructure. If we do, it will affect not just commercial fishers, who we are talking about tonight. If an American tourist goes up the coast and sees no fuel docks in Masset, for example, or restaurants, all industries will be affected.
We need all parts of the economy and that is what this board reflects. We are dealing with the commercial sports fishery, the average angler and all aspects of the communities, particularly employment.
The important thing to look at is principles. It does not matter which system is in place. If we want to call it a quota system, we can, but we are still just talking about a bunch of fish. You may have an open fishery and stop it occasionally and tell the fishers to only take five fish each. It is a simple management system.
There is nothing wrong with a management system. There is a big difference when you get to unprincipled ownership of the resource that future generations cannot control.
If we lose that right to control it and make people accountable to principles, we are in trouble.
The Chairman: My question concerns the proposed partnership provisions in the Fisheries Act, the former Bill C-62, which died on the Order Paper in the last Parliament. Are you familiar with the provisions as outlined in those proposals? Does your group have any position on those proposals?
Mr. Alexander: They scare us. We have been accused of being paranoid, but that refers to unjustified fears. We keep seeing these fears becoming reality and we are hoping that we can turn our fears into a really positive initiative here. Bill C-62 really concerned us. You may have the minister of the day being a very nice person, maybe a benevolent dictator. We could have a really good situation or one where we get someone who decides to abuse those powers.
I do not think that Canada wants to go down that road of turning those powers over to whoever happens to be the elected person of the day. We have great concerns over those statutes and I hope they will not come.
The Chairman: To be very precise, I was referring to clauses 17 to 22 of the former Bill C-62.
It basically gave the right to the minister to enter into partnership agreements with whomever he or she saw fit. It was an unfettered right. It basically gave the right to the minister to go for it. That was the part to which I was referring.
Mr. Atleo: The short answer is that those provisions are totally contrary to our interests in terms of community-based management.
Senator Robichaud: Would those sections allow the minister to go into agreements with what you are suggesting?
Mr. Atleo: We do not see the need for legislation to authorize the negotiations that are going on now in terms of treaty making.
Senator Robichaud: I am not talking about treaty making.
Mr. Atleo: This is related. We are building the foundation for what is to be functional and effective in the treaty. Our partners understand that, and we are embarking on this because of the availability of the treaty-making process. It is very related.
With respect to the power being requested in those clauses of that bill, our question is the following: Does it supersede any agreements reached in terms of the treaty-making process? If the answer is no, we would still have fears.
The Chairman: I wish to thank our witnesses for the valuable contribution they have made to our committee in our study. They have presented an alternative for us to look at.
Mr. Watts: We wish to thank you for inviting us and allowing us to have a voice and share our concerns.
The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Fred Fortier of the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission. The commission is composed of First Nations from across the province of British Columbia, as well as various aboriginal fisheries organizations. The role of the commission is to act as a communications focal point and provide First Nations with a forum for discussion on policy issues. Mr. Fortier is from the Shuswap Nation.
Mr. Fortier, please proceed.
Mr. Fred Fortier, Chairman, B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission: I should like to thank the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council for an excellent presentation. I also wish to thank the Senate committee for allowing us to come here and present the issues from the overall perspective of First Nations in British Columbia.
I hope you understand the dilemma we have in British Columbia and the issues we have been fighting over for many years. We need to look at long-term vision and solutions to the management of all aquatic species within the Pacific region. We thank you for the opportunity to present and appear before you to address this difficult issue of privatization and quota licensing in Canada's fisheries.
You have to date already heard from many interests, both pro and con, the corporate and the community, and many perspectives from the academic to the practical. I am pleased that you are now seeking the perspective of the First Nations in British Columbia. However, I need not remind you that it is your duty to seek our perspective. Issues such as these will have significant impacts on First Nations, and there is a real potential for privatization of these fisheries resources to infringe on our aboriginal rights and title.
The British Columbia Aboriginal Fisheries Commission is not a First Nation nor a First Nations government. Our organization helps facilitate dialogue on fisheries issues between and amongst First Nations, the Government of Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Government of British Columbia, and with individuals and organizations concerned with the fisheries and the fisheries resources of British Columbia.
To meet its fiduciary obligations as identified by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Government of Canada must seek out the perspective of, and consult meaningfully with, all First Nations that might be affected by issues such as the privatization of fisheries resources.
That being said, Mr. Chairman, the British Columbia Aboriginal Fisheries Commission can provide an overview of some of the concerns First Nations may have on the issues at hand.
First Nations in B.C. take the position that they have an inherent right to fisheries resources and that they have never surrendered that right. It is now convention and a fact of Canadian law that First Nations have a deep and proprietary interest in the fisheries. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that aboriginal title to the land. In December 1997, the court said that in some cases the Crown might even require the consent of First Nations on resource issues that affect aboriginal rights and title. In the case of the privatization of fisheries, where British Columbia First Nations can demonstrate a long and significant priority for access to the fishery, we suggest that this is the case.
First Nations take the position that in addition to exercising our aboriginal rights to fish, First Nations also enjoy aboriginal title to the fish due to the integral connection of the fish to the water and the water to the land. Privatization of the fishery amounts to alienation of the resource, similar to fee simple title.
Due to the underlying aboriginal title, governments need First Nations' consent to alienate the resource to privately held quotas. Settlement of treaty issues between the First Nations and Canada will require either an expensive buyback of private quotas or a substantial compensation to First Nations. These problems may be insurmountable hurdles to finding solutions with many First Nations.
Finally, the existence of private quotas will impair the flexibility of fisheries regimes that will be required to meet the needs and aspirations of First Nations and will interfere with future options needed for the resolution of fisheries issues with First Nations in British Columbia.
First Nations' rights and titles are held collectively by our communities. Privatization of the resource is inconsistent with this fact.
The Supreme Court has said that we cannot divest or market our rights and titles except to the Crown. We must consent to that. Therefore, the whole concept of transferable and marketable quotas is meaningless until and unless all aboriginal rights and titles are reconciled.
The scientific world is beginning to recognize the value and legitimacy of traditional ecological knowledge. The knowledge-based system within the First Nations in Canada and the world has maintained the balance within watersheds and ecosystems for thousands of years. However, it has taken us 100 years to destroy our fisheries, and we do not need to look anywhere else in the world but at ourselves with respect to Atlantic cod, coho salmon and Pacific salmon.
The conservation and management of the fish resources will require the best of modern science together with traditional knowledge to sustain and maintain an abundance of wild fish stocks -- and I stress "wild" fish stocks.
Traditional knowledge and practices are an integral part of the management and use of these resources. Such knowledge is inseparable from aboriginal rights and title and is the foundation of First Nations continued use and management of the fishery. This traditional knowledge is not an asset that can be marketed and transferred along with the quotas. It may be lost forever, putting the resources themselves at further risk.
Respect for traditional knowledge, innovations and practices, and access to the fishery by indigenous peoples is enshrined in the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is considered to be the global template for the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.
These principles were championed by Canada at the Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. It is now time to implement this convention in Canada. The creation of new legislation as policy is one place where Canada is obligated to follow through with these commitments.
We respectfully refer the Senate to Article VIII J dealing with traditional knowledge and practices and benefit sharing; to Article X C dealing with protection of access to the resources by local and indigenous communities; and several other articles, which are more or less relevant to this hearing.
The folly of fishery privatization has been experienced elsewhere through the introduction of transferable quotas and discussed in global fora extensively for the last decade. The impact of the privatization of indigenous and local community fisheries is well documented in places like New Zealand. Canada's own representatives to these international discussions should be consulted and Canada should learn from the experience of others.
Other agreements between the Crown, through the Minister of Fisheries, need to be facilitated and encouraged. There are many examples of existing and potential arrangements that need the appropriate legislative instruments. We stress that the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy needs to be advanced into policy.
The agreements between Canada and First Nations need protection from political manipulation by competing corporate interests and related challenges of the courts. We have seen that many of these corporate interests are against the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. Many of these provide advanced models of local stewardship and cooperative management around British Columbia. There are many examples of that across the province.
The Nisga'a Fisheries Agreement includes a quota that is outside of the treaty and works for those involved. Some First Nations, such as the Nuu-chah-nulth, are exploring regional management boards. Together with non-aboriginal interests, they seek secure access to the fish resources and management control within the region.
Privatization of the fisheries, through provisions of the Fisheries Act, which give the Minister of Fisheries unfettered authority to possibly operate outside of law and convention cannot be condoned by this or any government.
Privatization of fisheries results in the alienation of local and indigenous communities from their rightful role as stewards of the fisheries resources, replacing them with corporate interests and controls. Wild stocks of fish will be put at risk, all for the short-term and concentrated benefit of the corporate interests in this country.
In summary, privatization of the resource through quotas is inconsistent with First Nations' rightful role in the management of these fish stocks and should be, at a minimum, delayed until First Nations and the Crown have fully reconciled their respective title and rights in these fish.
Local stewardship is the cornerstone for the maintenance of biological diversity and, in particular, the diversity of wild fish stocks in British Columbia. This has been demonstrated in stream stewardship programs and is the foundation for the restoration of the West Coast salmon fishery today. These programs need to be encouraged through legislative amendment and policy development. At the same time, arrangements at reconciling the aboriginal interests with that of the Crown need to be encouraged and supported through legislation and policy.
Senator Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I found the presentation very complicated. We have the whole question of general aboriginal rights, the whole question of alienation, as well as the common problems with regard to individual transferable quotas.
You may have referred to this at the beginning but I will ask this just in case. Where is your organization based in British Columbia?
Mr. Fortier: We are based in North Vancouver. We have an office there. I also have another office in the interior, which I visit quite often.
Senator Stewart: How is the organization financed?
Mr. Fortier: The dollars come from the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. We entered into an agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We laid out the services that we will provide and the agreement spells out our objectives in dealing with certain issues.
Senator Stewart: Am I correct in thinking that one of your messages was that the question of individual transferable quotas should not be raised until such time as more fundamental questions have been answered relative to the rights of the aboriginal peoples to certain fish stocks?
Mr. Fortier: Yes.
Senator Stewart: When do you anticipate that those rights will be clarified?
Mr. Fortier: People should understand that, within the province of British Columbia situation, the Douglas treaty tribes had built into their friendship treaties access and rights to those fish. We also have treaty peoples in Northern British Columbia. Some peoples are inside the treaty process right now. Then there are those who do not support that kind of treaty process.
The dilemma of how to manage fisheries in the province is very unique in any experience that I have seen across the world. Before we can start alienating those resources to a private corporation, we as First Nations must come up with an arrangement to manage those stocks in a shared arrangement. Those are stocks that are trans-boundary in nature. They go through very many tribal fisheries as they come back into the river system.
It is very complicated. We must talk about the aboriginal rights to individual stocks that go back into the territories of First Nations. What does it mean to have title to those stocks? How do we divide up those many stocks that are in the various rivers and are coming back into the coast?
This is a difficult problem. However, once ITQs are implemented, you will then have many court challenges and disruptions to the fisheries. Somewhere along the line, someone fishes before you and those fish come back into a river system. First Nations have access to every stream across British Columbia. First Nations will be fishing. The biggest issue we face is the definition of conservation. That is what is used against First Nations all over Canada.
Senator Stewart: I am still interested in the nature of the commission. For example, is the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council a supporter of the commission? Do they have a member on it? Do they contribute financially to it?
Mr. Fortier: Within British Columbia we have a structure that looks at a B.C.-wide organization. This B.C.-wide organization facilitates and coordinates issues among First Nations in British Columbia. One of the principles of the commission is that we support watershed committees, regional management boards and areas in which capacity can be developed within regions. The capacity should not be developed at a B.C.-wide process. If that is developed there, you will have a corporate structure that does not meet the needs of watersheds or communities. There has been a significant amount of support among the people who have participated in the last couple of years within the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission to bring together the issue of fisheries. The federal government has not done a very good job.
There are many First Nations who are very supportive of an overall organization that will do things for them and not speak on behalf of them but will help facilitate and coordinate those issues.
Senator Stewart: You may have answered my question by implication. I shall return to it.
The tribal council that we heard earlier today was from the west coast of Vancouver Island. Is that a body that participates either by membership or financial support, or both, to your commission?
Mr. Fortier: They do not participate financially. Most of the dollars that come to the AFS are very limited. When I say "limited," I mean possibly around $300,000 a year. Anything above that are special projects and First Nations.
The commission is guided by First Nations communities. Membership of tribal councils or watershed committees is encouraged through the working group representations. First Nations communities have been very supportive of that process. There are both watershed First Nations that live in the interior on river systems and those who live on the ocean system that participate within the commission as members.
Senator Butts: Mr. Fortier, in your paper you speak about private quotas. Are those the same as individual quotas?
Mr. Fortier: Yes, they are.
Senator Butts: On the top of the third page you talk about the settlement of the treaty, which Senator Stewart was talking about a few minutes ago. You say that because of the private quotas, the First Nations in Canada will require an expensive buy-back of the private quotas. Are you anticipating that the federal government will need to buy back those quotas that they have given?
Mr. Fortier: Let us say that you are a nation 600 miles into a water system, which has six species of fish. If you are going to give a corporation access to a quota system, and that quota system that you are giving out as a government is given out so that there are no fish left, there are First Nations that say that they do not need a treaty with Canada to derive benefits from the fishery, including commercial fisheries.
If you turn over corporate control in a quota system, those people might not enter into a treaty. I have heard federal government people say, "Come into the treaty process," or "We will wait until we resolve your rights and title when you get into the treaty." I will be an old man before that happens. However, once you turn it over to corporate control, the rights and titles to those fish will need to be bought back or compensated. How do you compensate those communities for a fishery that will last eternally?
Senator Butts: However, you do say "or substantial compensation" so you allow for that, or presumably you will get a one-shot deal of money and then you will still not have quotas. I find that second paragraph on that first page confusing.
Mr. Fortier: If First Nations or a nation or community agree to ITQs, and then there is compensation, you will need to talk to those communities who will buy into the system. Right now, I do not see very many First Nations communities buying into this system of quotas.
Senator Butts: The witnesses previous to you spoke about quotas. I discussed this with them and they said that as long as it is a community quota, it is acceptable.
In your third last paragraph, you say "privatization of the resource through quotas." You need to put in "private quotas" or "individual quotas" or you have contradicted what you said initially.
Mr. Fortier: The issue of individual transferable quotas does not work within a First Nations environment because the rights are communal, collective and sui generis rights.
Senator Butts: You ought to add that in before quotas, instead of just saying "quotas."
Mr. Fortier: Thank you for your assistance.
Senator Butts: To just say "quotas," you contradict what your friend said before you.
Senator Robichaud: We heard witnesses previously who were aboriginal commercial fishermen. They had come to make the point that they were in a very sad position. There were fish going by their doorsteps that they could not fish because they were reserved for some other purposes.
When I mention the Aboriginal Fishing Strategy, the AFS, they seem to think that it is taking something away from them rather than giving. I made the point that those communities which are inland, a long way from shore, still have fishing rights. It did not seem to go over big with them.
Mr. Fortier: In British Columbia, First Nations people see that their right to commercialization is a collective sui generis right. That is expressed within that nation, within that community, by people in some instances hiring their commercial boats to go out and fish for the societal right of that community. They have every right to do that.
Some people might take a different view. This depends on where you sit on the river system or the ocean system. The right, which we express as an economic interest, a commercial right, is part of a societal need and put forward by the Sparrow and Delgamuukw peoples. Food means we can eat it; ceremonial is for communities, for whatever happens within a community, which could be deaths, weddings, happy occasions, sad occasions. The societal right is the economic right. That will be expressed in the future by First Nations and will be expressed more and more.
You mentioned that the native commercial fishermen were here representing that idea. They allowed for that fishery, for the use and benefit of other First Nations upriver. In our discussions, they are talking about Fraser River-bound fish. We on the Fraser River had difficulties this year in meeting the escapement objectives of certain stocks. Water problems and environmental conditions had an impact on that. There were some selective fisheries issues that were involved all along the coast. We had problems right at the start of the year because the department did not lay out its management objectives and did not reach an agreement with First Nations before the fishing plan actually started. I believe it was June or July before that had taken place.
Senator Adams: I heard you say, I believe, that you wish to have control over quotas and community use. Your people can do things for yourselves and even allow fishing at any time without a specific season. From there, you can decide to catch a certain amount and you can get into granting quotas to the commercial fishing. Is that your concern?
Mr. Fortier: What I see, and probably many other people in the province see, is that I work in a river system and I also belong to a river system where I am one of nine tribal groups within that watershed. Each group has a separate language. That is only on the Fraser River. Then you start getting into the coastal region. Introduction of individual transferable quotas would affect all of the First Nations downriver who have had access, and all of those First Nations in the river system. You are also talking about access from First Nations or indigenous people from the U.S. side of the area, which are also Nuu-chah-nulth relationships.
I see that as a big problem because I do not know how you will meet food ceremonial societal needs for the tribal groups in British Columbia and implement ITQs at the same time. It is beyond my wildest imagination that we would do this to a resource and its future because we must look at the preservation of the stock, not the economics of the stock.
Senator Adams: Those of us who live in the North are allowed to put our nets in the ice and the lakes. I know in B.C. you do not get very much freezing, even in the wintertime. We have no type of quotas in the community and no fishing season: we fish 12 months a year. We are not allowed commercial fishing of char. We live in very cold weather and the Arctic char grows one inch a year. I do not know how fast the salmon grow or how many pounds a year they gain in British Columbia. The population grows and in the meantime the people use it for the community.
Do you have any difficulties between commercial and community use? Do you have control?
Mr. Fortier: When you look at the British Columbia and the Pacific West, and at how fisheries are managed, where are the commercial fisheries? They are in areas such as Vancouver Island, all the way up and all the way down. Specific areas are like a gauntlet. In 1994, we were less than 12 hours away from destroying a major run in the Shuswap area, in Adams Lake. I believe that we are looking at access to local stocks. Some First Nations, even in this last year, did not even get fish in their own communities, and there were millions of fish.
We must find a way to look at the economy of the fisheries. What do we gain from them when those fish move through? With the fish comes the sport fishery and the commercial fishery, for those communities that want to get into that. I believe that it was Mr. Atleo who talked about the protocols of fishing in other people's territories.
We have the same protocols in the interior where, if a fishery cannot occur or be sustained, then we either do internal protocols between nations or we do external protocols with other tribal groups because we have shared areas. We try to respect their licensing system and in some areas they even limit you to the amount of fish that you can catch. Communities are taking control of their fisheries, even commercial fisheries, because when some people look at commercial fisheries one tribe might agree on how a commercial fisher might operate and another tribe right next to them might do it a different way.
First Nations have different aspirations. With 28 tribal groups, I do not know how many ways we might design a commercial fishery.
Senator Adams: In the meantime, do you have quotas right on the river, or quotas only outside the rivers? How does the system work?
Mr. Fortier: Under the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, there are three pilot projects in British Columbia. One of them is at the bottom end of the Fraser River. They are allowed. In each of these pilot sales arrangements, they are allowed to sell their fish from that pilot sales arrangement. They develop a quota with the government. They catch the fish and sell them.
In other places in the river system and across British Columbia, First Nations do not have, as the government says, the right to sell their fish commercially. That is why I say it is important that the collective right of First Nations to sell fish is within a community, or within a nation. Some nations have, perhaps, three or four major watersheds. Some of them might only have a major river running through. However, some First Nations have been fishing passing stocks.
I think it will be an issue about which First Nations will have to describe what their needs are for those three areas, namely, food, ceremonial and societal needs, as well as what the protocols are between them to get those fisheries.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, this has been an important and interesting submission by Mr. Fortier. We are all impressed by his obvious concern about the conservation of this wonderful species known as the salmon and his determination to protect it. I do not know if this will be controversial or not, but I will begin by saying that we have two great fish in Canada, the Atlantic salmon and the Pacific salmon. They are bringing Atlantic salmon into British Columbia to inspire them to greater efforts or productivity. As a conservationist, does the mixing of the species in this way concern you?
Mr. Fortier: The ability to take responsibility and empower those communities is what will protect the local stocks.
When you talk about the introduction of alien species within the environment, it seems that regardless of what we are doing -- and I will be careful when I choose my words -- we do not want to play God. Sometimes, however, we are in that position. Consider the Great Lakes and the introduction of Atlantic salmon. Similar arguments have been made in Norway and Finland.
Senator Perrault: We have Pacific salmon in Lake Ontario, as you know.
Mr. Fortier: I know that. I saw a great presentation about how we should reserve them in the Great Lakes for the economic opportunities of sport fishermen.
The point that we should be making here is that we in Canada do not have a wild fish policy. If we had a wild fish policy in Canada agreed to by First Nations, by Canada and those stakeholders on the other side, then we might not see Atlantic salmon in British Columbia. I say that because, at some time, we will pay the price. If we are to play God, then we will pay the price in the future.
Senator Perrault: You said in your presentation that your organization helps to facilitate dialogue on fisheries between and among First Nations, the Government of Canada, the Government of British Columbia and with individuals and organizations concerned with the fisheries and the fish resources in British Columbia. That is a very commendable type of activity.
Have you held conferences in the past year or two to bring some of these people together?
Mr. Fortier: This is my second year in which I have been the chair of the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission. We have set ourselves up to look at quite a unique structure. I must compliment the First Nations in British Columbia. Some 10 years ago the difference between the coastal communities and the inland community, which is where I am from, caused us to walk away from each other because of what the government was doing to us. It took us 10 years to build our relationship back to where we can talk to our brothers and sisters along the coast.
Our resources were going down. We saw the impact on our rights and our title to fish. We were forced to come together. It is not that the government forced us. We were forced to protect our own stocks because we have a collective right.
We formed an organization at that time, and we have continued it. It has a post-season assembly, a pre-season assembly and an annual general assembly. Certainly, I would invite the chair and co-chair of this committee.
Senator Perrault: Will you put us on your list?
Mr. Fortier: I certainly will. You will see at those meetings some of the things that are happening in the Pacific West. I will give you an example of one of the most important things that is happening.
Looking into the future, the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission sees a big dilemma in British Columbia. The provincial government sees it, as does the federal government. How do you manage a fishery in British Columbia on the West Coast where there are 28 different tribal groups, and I do not know how many hundreds of stocks of fish going back into all the major systems, on the island and on the central coast? We do not have a working mechanism that brings First Nations together to decide on management principles. There is not a process by which we can get together first to talk about how we will manage that fishery before we talk to the commercial sector and the federal government. I do not know about the province yet. We are still thinking about how we will deal with them.
Senator Perrault: In your presentation, you say that respect for traditional knowledge, innovations and practices, and access to the fishery by indigenous peoples is enshrined in the Convention of Biological Diversity, which was considered to be the global template. My question concerns the word "template" and its concept. Is it possible to develop a template that is good for every type of fishery? Is it conceivable that certain fisheries or certain marine activities lend themselves to individual quotas and that others should be community quotas? Is it possible to have a one-size-fits-all template?
Mr. Fortier: One of the things you see at the international level is how we develop principles with which we will abide in the international arena. When you talk about how to do that, you have to look at traditional knowledge. What does traditional knowledge mean to you and me? We believe that in order to protect, preserve and maintain knowledge, you must have access to the resource. It is plain and simple. Cutting out the access, the practice and the innovation that people have been using for thousands of years eliminates the knowledge incurred in the management of those species.
Senator Perrault: Do you concede the fact that, perhaps, there are different ways to manage different sectors of the fishing industry? For example, does the lobster industry on the East Coast lend itself to private quotas when the situation in British Columbia presents a different set of facts and lends itself to community quotas? You may not have the technical information. It is a thought that crosses one's mind.
Mr. Fortier: One of the basic principles is the sustainability of the local resource and the community associated with that resource. You have heard many examples from the Nuu-chah-nulth, where every community has access to that resource. If you take away that access, you take away the economic and social structures and so on.
Senator Perrault: I have one final question. You said that the Nisga'a Fisheries Agreement includes a quota that is outside of the treaty and works for those involved. You do not want to see the Nisga'a template applied to other fisheries in British Columbia then? The Nisga'a have worked out something different.
Mr. Fortier: I will give you the standard answer regarding what many First Nations are saying about the Nisga'a agreement. I congratulate the Nisga'a on what they have negotiated. It is a Nisga'a agreement between the Nisga'a and the Crown, and I think they should be commended for negotiating, over a long period of time, something that was satisfactory to both sides. However, in British Columbia, there are First Nations or groups who might have different thoughts on how they would arrange a treaty with Canada or who might question whether they even need a treaty after the experience of the Delgamuukw.
The Chairman: I have a couple of very brief questions. The commission deals regularly with the Crown, and you just mentioned the Crown a couple minutes ago. I would like your reaction to a newspaper article that appeared last January, which talked about what the Queen's husband said in a speech. Prince Phillip suggested that fish stocks should be privatized. He felt that that practice has prevented overfishing in New Zealand. In launching the UN's International Year of the Ocean on behalf the Worldwide Fund for Nature International, of which he is president emeritus, the Prince said that most fishing policies amounted to a free-for-all.
What do you think of Prince Phillip's comments on the question of privatization?
I realize that that is not a fair question so I will ask another on a slightly different topic. On the pilot sales program, where do the licences come from? Are they licences that have been purchased from existing fishermen or are they new licences issued by the minister?
Mr. Moore: Under the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, communal licences are provided under the Fisheries Act by the minister to agreement holders. Those quotas or licences that are enshrined in those arrangements are sometimes a combination of purchases out of the commercial fleet, and sometimes a mixture of those purchases and historic fisheries. They are often composites of those things. They are part of the negotiations and they are different for every fishery.
The Chairman: Who decides on who will fish the various licences?
Mr. Fortier: I know that for the lower Fraser River, the arrangements that have been made on pilot fisheries, things such as the times they can fish and what stock they will fish, are negotiated prior to any fishery. Then those in the lower river put forward who the fishermen will be for each and every fishery, on any species of fish they are fishing. It is a process that involves those people who have a pilot sales arrangement, and they agree not on how many fish they will catch, but on the time frame during which they know they will catch these fish. It is marked up against their allocation and then they try to meet that allocation in some areas, maybe half a million sockeye or whatever, depending on what they negotiate.
The Chairman: Would it be the regional director of DFO for British Columbia who would make that decision, or would it be a local regional director, or a more local DFO official that would come into the area and say, "Let us negotiate"? What are the mechanics of it? How does it work?
Mr. Fortier: Under the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, there are management agreements with certain specific areas, like a regional management board for a specific coastal area or a watershed. In the case of watersheds, they have watershed arrangements that lay out the process by which they would manage a fishery and decide who sits on the management board. That is what we call a bilateral arrangement, and it lays out who should be at the table, what the issues will be and how the committees will be structured under any watershed or regional management board. A monetary value is also attached to running that organization or region. They then negotiate separately with tribal groups. Even though within a watershed or region there might be up to six tribal groups, they still have to deal with allocations for individual communities as well as collective tribal communities.
The Chairman: Mr. Fortier and Mr. Moore, on behalf of the committee, I thank you for contributing to the progress of this committee. Your presentation has been most interesting.
Have you any last comments before we wrap up?
Mr. Fortier: Yes. In order for us to have a better relationship with the senators involved in this committee, I would invite the chair and co-chair of this committee to come and view and participate in some aspects of our annual general assembly, which will be held February 16-18, 1999, in Kelowna. Senators, if you should like to accompany the co-chairs and see what happens in British Columbia to help you to better understand the fisheries, you are welcome. It is three days of good, friendly discussions about fisheries management in the province.
The Chairman: That is a most gracious invitation, and I can see from the smiles around the table that the invitation is seriously being considered right now.
Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.