Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 4 - Evidence, March 10, 2005
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 10, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 10:48 a.m. to examine and report on issues relating to the federal government's new and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I will now call the meeting to order and welcome everyone. In October 2004, the Senate gave the committee an order of reference to examine issues relating to the federal government's new and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
[English]
We are pleased to have before us this morning Chief Simon Lucas of the Hesquiaht Tribe. Chief Lucas holds an honorary doctorate degree from the University of British Columbia. He has served as Co-Chair of the Aboriginal Fisheries Commission for 16 years and is also a member of the West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board.
Chief Lucas is accompanied by Mr. Andrew Day, Executive Director of the Aquatic Management Board, which was launched three years ago, in February 2002. The mandate of the board is to take an integrated-ecosystem approach to aquatic resource management on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Welcome to the committee.
I understand that it is the custom to say a short prayer prior to a meeting. Please proceed with that.
[Mr. Lucas spoke in his native language.]
Mr. Andrew Day, Executive Director, West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board: We appreciate the opportunity to be here. Senator Comeau has outlined what the Aquatic Management Board is and I understand that you have some materials on it. It is the only board of its kind in Canada authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Oceans Act. It has been operational for three years, with the pilot period ending at the end of March of this year.
I have two main messages for you. One is that the board has been an effective vehicle for implementing the Oceans Act, and the second is that it is a cost-effective investment for Canada in fulfilling its mandate toward fisheries and oceans. We are asking the federal government to continue the board's mandate and funding past the three-year pilot period.
The board is important to Canada for a number of reasons. First, it is the only formally established body showing progress under Canada's Oceans Act and Oceans Strategy. The Oceans Act came into force in 1997. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the lead agency on that. The Oceans Act is very clear about the way the minister will work in managing fisheries and oceans and spells out a cooperative framework with First Nations communities and stakeholders. It also lays out an integrated-ecosystem-based approach. That is a very different approach from the compartmentalized, segregated approach with which fisheries and oceans have traditionally been managed.
The challenge that the board faces in helping Canada achieve the goal of implementing the act and the Oceans Strategy is that an integrated-ecosystem approach does not fit well within the more segregated, stovepipe approach of current agency and stakeholder structures.
Another reason that the board is important to Canada is that it plays a leadership role in setting an innovative strategy for diversification and development in one of Canada's most important coastal regions. I will highlight the importance of this region later. The board generates diverse economic development in coastal communities, which produces jobs and tax revenue for Canada. Meaningful employment income also reduces social costs, such as health and welfare, and eases political pressures resulting from conflict. The board also reduces costs to Canada by leveraging funding and resources from a variety of sources, identifies areas of duplication and reduces inefficiencies among agencies and governments.
Finally, the board builds relationships between the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations, federal, provincial and local government and industry. In light of recent court cases involving the Haida First Nation and Taku River, this contribution can aid Canada and industry in improving their relationships with First Nations in a cost-effective manner. It is also a critical role, given current treaty negotiations and large-scale litigation by some of the Nuu-chah- nulth First Nations over fisheries access, which Chief Lucas will talk about.
This is an extremely significant ocean area. It produces over half a billion dollars annually from diverse ocean activities. It has extremely high conservation values, as identified by NAFTA's Commission for Environmental Cooperation and an international symposium held last May. It is one of the largest convergence zones for marine shipping and navigation. International security is a major global concern and that is tied into the shipping industry. There are known oil and gas reserves in the area, and other energy sources such as wind, tidal, hydro and methane.
Water resources are a growing issue of economic and security importance. This area has the highest rainfall in Canada, at nine metres in one location, and therefore is key in terms of water management and use.
The area has a high level of tourism, with over 1 million visitors. It is also the second-largest commercial and recreational fishing ground in North America, second only to Georges Bank.
Aquaculture and biotechnology are emerging industries in the area. Ocean science technology and research is also key, with the Bamfield Marine Science Centre and Project NEPTUNE, which is a multi-billion dollar Canada-U.S. initiative for monitoring the seabed.
The area has a unique oceanographic feature, that being an eddy in the Juan de Fuca strait between Washington and Canada. That eddy kicks nutrients up the coast and also carries exotic species, oil and other pollutants up through the west coast of Vancouver Island and further north in Canada.
It is important that such an extremely rich and economically, ecologically and socially important area be managed properly in order that it continues to provide benefits for Canada. The board is an example of an innovative governance mechanism to make that happen.
The board was set up over a period of approximately six years. There were several years of work within the region and then several years of negotiating with the federal and provincial governments. The board has accomplished a number of things. It has contributed to economic development in the area, with a number of jobs and direct economic activity. It has served as a catalyst for entrepreneurship, partnerships and capacity building. It has created infrastructure that promotes the area and raises awareness of oceans issues. It has been a cost-effective investment, raising approximately $600,000 for projects, leveraging a further $186,000, garnering $208,000 in financial or assets gains and generating approximately $200,000 in contributions in kind. The board has also contributed to oceans action in the area and to habitat and species sustainability through a range of projects, and those are outlined in the booklet we have provided to you.
We have laid out a number of strategic directions. We have identified five key pillars for moving forward. Those include, first, a participatory, accountable and transparent management system to improve aquatic governance and lead development; second, economic development by marketing the region as a whole, creating a WCVI brand name and developing new opportunities; third, a science and technology cluster of aquatic industries, academic institutions, communities and First Nations, technology companies and governments, and applied hands-on educational opportunities; fourth, improved government-to-government relationships among First Nations, Canada and British Columbia, and capacity building within First Nations communities and; fifth, a neutral information system and network that enables diverse information to be accessed and communicated in a user-driven manner.
Over the next five years, as the board continues, those will be the five main areas that we develop.
The board represents, in a way, the core of those five, which is the first one, a participatory, accountable and transparent management system. Without that core and the ability of groups to work together and set these directions, they tend not happen.
In the more compartmentalized system, there is no one group responsible for looking after the whole, and for looking forward and leading development.
As I said earlier, our two key messages are that the board is an effective means of implementing the Oceans Act, which is a critical piece of legislation for Canada; oceans are increasing in importance economically — they are seen as the new frontier of economic development — and there is a growing understanding of the role that the oceans play in relation to climate regulation and water sources.
Second, the board is a cost-effective way of implementing Canada's mandate. It has shown that it can help reduce Canada's budgets for its agencies and attract funding and resources from a variety of different sources that enable Canada to do more with less.
I will stop there, as I would prefer to spend more time on questions than presentation. I understand that you are specifically interested in the issue of individual transferable quotas. The board has made a number of recommendations on those, which I can describe in the question period if you would prefer.
Mr. Simon Lucas, Chief, Hesquiaht Tribe and Member of the West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board:
[Mr. Lucas spoke in his native language.]
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to address the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Our feelings are good feelings toward you today.
Our ancestors tell us that we are of the same people that have occupied our lands.
We are of the same people that spoke the language that I speak today, so we thought it was important for the committee to know that we still hold that language dear.
I know that the Hesquiaht chiefs would like to thank you for listening to our people back in 1998, which they did here. Since that time, we recognize that the Senate committee made some recommendations. Unfortunately, what has happened since then in our part of the world is that the meat on the bones has been totally taken away. The only thing we have left is the skeleton.
We come here pleading for someone to listen to the Nuu-chah-nulth people. For some reason, the Department of Fisheries tends to listen to investors more than the people who were born and raised here, the people who lived in our territory since time began.
I want to say that in our tribe, the Hesquiaht Tribe, we had an archeological dig in the 1970s. What they found was that all of our people, whether they were buried inside the caves or by other means, were consistently buried with clam shells and crab shells; 35 species of fish that went back 5,000 years were identified in that dig. Finally, they decided it was no use digging further because it was consistent. People have been eating these aquatic resources since they have been here. A couple of other tribes have made those same kinds of archeological digs.
There was a question about yellowfin tuna. One of our reserves found there was yellowfin tuna during certain times when the warm water hits our coastline. I think that is important for people to understand.
When you look at this book, you will find from the research we are doing — and our people have always known — what happened. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans was not listening to our people in our plight in the area of fisheries, so we have done some research. The researchers have been coming to our tribe and finding out, for example, about black cod.
During the early times, or if you went back even as late as 50 years ago, our women were still using black cod broth to enrich the milk in their breasts. We have always used those kinds of aquatic resources for health benefits. It is important for people to understand that.
The fishing companies are another thing — Nelson Brothers, Canadian Fishing Company and BC Packers. I grew up in a cannery called CPC, which was run by Nelson Brothers; and I was born in a cannery in Nootka, which was run by Canadian Fishing Company. As I was growing up, I only noticed two groups of people working in those canneries, and it was Chinese people and our own people that were there. We are the ones who developed those companies and made them the way they are today. Our people played a major role in developing those companies.
In the end, the investors became the enemy as we started talking about the treaty discussions. The unfortunate thing is Canada tells the world that the aquatic resources belong to Canada, but the investors are the ones that get compensated. We say, ``Look, we need to get back to the economy that we once thrived on, for the sustainability of our community.''
My ancestor is shown on this paper here. You can see, when you look at the picture, when this was taken. Look at my young ancestor smiling. It is very different from today, with the high stress level that we are having in terms of how we will be involved.
Back in the 1970s, I was involved in a study. We were already concerned about the plight of our people because we saw the canneries shut down. Many of the first people that were laid off, naturally, were our women in the canneries that were there. Once the companies started to centralize, our people were laid off.
In terms of what DFO did, as you know, they created a website on Dr. Pearce's study. What they did not do on the website, which is totally alarming to me, is include the study we did. We think it is totally unfair for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to do that. We, as First Nations people, made the effort to gather around the province to make some recommendations, but they totally avoided those things.
We recognize that our Nuu-chah-nulth territory is comprised of several communities, and they are not only First Nations communities. We clearly recognize that we have these differences of opinion — strong opinions, at one time literally fighting through the media. Our elders said we need a place where we can have human discussions without any kind of hatred, which we saw developing very rapidly in our discussions, especially on the treaty issues.
I will use an example you may have heard before. The price of halibut was $8 a pound when we first started the treaty discussion at our level. Now it is $45 a pound. The black cod was going for $11 a pound. Now it is out of reach at $85. For us to stay in and compete in the commercial industry, when it cost us nothing to survive on aquatic resources, and for my community to live in other communities, it will cost us $25 million. The treaty table is saying they will loan us $1 million to enter into commercial activity. We cannot compete with $1 million. We really need someone to listen to us on how we are proposing to do that.
What has become apparently clear for us as Nuu-chah-nulth tribes is that through the Aquatic Management Board we are able to discuss these issues with the outlying communities outside of the First Nations. It has become a major vehicle in terms of communication, and it is how we all learn about our activities within Nuu-chah-nulth territory.
Our people are totally opposed to the quota fisheries. We saw an example of how quota was handled in other parts of the world. In some areas it destroyed the environment.
We looked at your recommendations. We are talking about our relationship with aquatic management. It was built out of total respect for those people whom we were literally fighting. We are talking about the [speaking native language]. We are willing to share our territory with all those people who are living in Nuu-chah-nulth territory. The chiefs have said that our land is open. We do not want to chase anyone out.
I hope I have given you some sort of picture.
The Chairman: That is an excellent picture and it opens up a good area of discussion, both with you and Mr. Day.
I would like to start off with our deputy chair, Senator Hubley. She is an able spokesperson for Prince Edward Island. She is now interested in what is happening on the West Coast.
Senator Hubley: I would like to extend a warm welcome to both of you this morning, and to thank Chief Lucas for your prayer, which opened our committee meeting. It is something of a rarity here, but it was very kind of you to share that prayer with us.
Your testimony is critical to our committee at this stage, when we are looking at the evolution of the ITQs and its effect on the people, because you bring all of that information to us today. You have given us much of your history and your culture, which have been closely tied to the fishing industry. You have brought us forward from a time when people were actually involved in a small boat fishery, I suppose, and how that has evolved. Our committee is concerned whether, as we move into new areas and ways of licensing, we are in fact neglecting not only the people but the environment, sustainability and viability of the fishery. Therefore, I want to assure you that your thoughts this morning have been very important to us.
I would like to go back and begin with how the AMB was formed. What were the reasons? Was it on behalf of the native people or was it the whole environment related to the fishery? What brought the AMB to fruition?
Mr. Lucas: Mr. Day will talk about the actual situation, but what happened is, as we came to the early talks prior to the treaty discussions, we were talking at that time about our vast differences with the sport fishing industry. We were concerned about the trawl fishery that was happening off the coastline in our territory and what it was doing to the ocean floor. We were concerned about the attitude of the environmental people. They were making statements without consulting our people. We were concerned about the regional districts and the comments they were making in terms of what we wanted with regard to a fair share of the aquatic resources, and what it meant for our community to be sustainable.
We were saying that these are the things that we want in our territory for our territory to continue to prosper as it has done in the past.
We were very angry with each other. Our heritage area chiefs got together. They talked about the Nuu-chah-nulth territory, all of these territories combined together. The heritage area chiefs said that this is our territory and we have to recognize that there are other people who live within our territory aside from our own First Nations. There are many different factors in these communities. It was then they said that if we are to be responsible for Nuu-chah-nulth territory, we have to be responsible for all those who live within the territory.
How can we do that? The aquatic resource was a top topic of discussion for the Nuu-chah-nulth people. We started off with the most difficult. We said: Let us take the most difficult topic that we have, which is our ocean, our rivers and lakes, where all of our resources are connected. It was before we ended up forming an organization called RAMS: Regional Aquatic Management Society.
That is a short version of a long series of discussions that we had. In the first few meetings we were literally screaming at each other.
If you look at this book, it says that we said we want to present a phrase that our people use, which means that everything is one. We said, ``Let us use that and get us to one table.''
Senator Hubley: You were one of the four partners in the board. I believe it includes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Province of British Columbia, regional districts, and the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council.
Does the funding to sustain your operation come from each one of those levels of government?
Mr. Day: We have a funding formula that is 50 per cent federal, 25 per cent provincial, 20 per cent Nuu-chah-nulth and 5 per cent local government.
That was discussed previous to the board's establishment. The actual amounts have varied from that, but that is the outline of the structure of funding.
Senator Hubley: As to decision-making consensus, are you an equal player on this board? Are you part of the decision making?
Mr. Lucas: That became very important because we had a dialogue with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who wanted in the beginning the absolute authority. Finally, we came to a consensus to say, look, all of us have to have equal say at the table, and it took several meetings to come to that. Sometimes it takes one meeting, sometimes it takes two meetings to come to some sort of consensus, but so far, it has been working.
Senator Johnson: Coming from Winnipeg, I am not an expert in deep sea fishing, but I am very interested in the study that you did in New Zealand — I tend to ask questions about what is happening in the rest of the world because many lessons can be learned from what other countries are doing — on the fisheries there, the Maori and quota management system for the First Nations and the panel on fisheries. In New Zealand, the Fisheries Amendment Act implemented a quota system in 1986. At the time, 32 species of fish were introduced into the QMS, and the intent was to eventually manage all commercial fisheries as ITQs. However, the process of their introduction was halted because of the Maori fisheries claims, based on the treaty of Waitangi of 1840, so while treaty claims were not considered when drafting the act, in time the QMS was employed to settle claims.
Are there parallels between this experience in New Zealand with ITQs and the Maori treaty claims and current fisheries issues in British Columbia? In your opinion, is the notion of introducing ITQs in the salmon fisheries, as proposed by Pearse-McRae, based on what happened in New Zealand with its QMS?
Mr. Day: First, I have to make it clear that I am now responding as an independent consultant, not as the executive director of the board.
I believe there are strong parallels. There is an interest in both cases on the part of government and the civil service and some parts of industry to implement quotas, while at the same time there is an interest in and obligation on governments to respect the rights and title of First Nations and integrate them into their decisions. In British Columbia, we have unresolved treaties. There is clearly an impact on the settlement of those treaties through the introduction of any kind of licensing or allocation regime that creates a form of property right. As happened in the New Zealand case, I think we are into a situation in British Columbia where the effects that kind of regime will have on First Nations are creating a lot of tension and could result in an injunction situation. It has already resulted in the litigation that Chief Lucas referred to where, because of the loss of access that they faced and the cost of regaining access, they felt that their only recourse was through the courts. There are strong parallels in New Zealand. After the injunction came down, a government-appointed panel produced a set of recommendations that was rejected by the First Nations, who then had their own panel to make recommendations, very similar to the Pearse-McRae and First Nation panel. It is strikingly parallel, I would say.
Senator Johnson: Do you think it is reasonable to make this comparison or this parallel? How were the Maori claims settled?
Mr. Day: It went back and forth for years. Legislation came from the New Zealand government, then there was a response from the Maori, and then it went back to the negotiating table. Eventually, they were able to negotiate a settlement, and that was partly based on an opportunity through the sale of a large company, Sealord, the ability of the government to purchase that and transfer the assets to the Maori, which resulted in a significant jump in access for them. That resulted in further negotiations and settlement.
Senator Johnson: Do you think it is reasonable for us to look at these other countries' models, and do you think New Zealand is a world leader in fisheries management?
Mr. Day: I think it is very worthwhile to look at international experience. A study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development looked at individual quota systems worldwide. A study by the committee to review individual fishing quotas in the United States also looked at them, and these are broad-based bodies with diverse representation, so they tend not to be ideologically driven. I cannot comment on whether New Zealand is an international leader. I think every country has its unique set of circumstances, and calling something a leader is more of an ideologically driven denomination.
Senator Johnson: What other countries are comparable with our situation? We are all working in the same oceans. It is a very small world and we all have to work together. I am curious to know how we are interacting and whether we are learning from other nations in terms of managing the resource. There is only so much of it. The waters are not owned by anyone. My question is how are we doing when it comes to not just our own country, but with the other nations in ensuring that the ecosystem is respected?
Mr. Day: On the fisheries front, most nations have conditions of licensing or other mechanisms that try to address the negative impacts of individual quota regimes while accessing their benefits. We on the East Coast of Canada have some provisions. On the West Coast, there are fewer. Canada is a leader in terms of the Oceans Act, which is a strong piece of legislation, but other than the Aquatic Management Board, it has not put in what I believe to be the key to that, which is a functioning, multi-party organization — more of a cooperative management regime — within the ecological regions of Canada. We still have, as I mentioned earlier, a very compartmentalized, sectorally driven management scheme, and the oceans do not work in that way. Many of the problems we are seeing within the oceans cannot be approached that way. They really need a much more coordinated, integrated effort. If we do not make that effort and start restructuring the way we deal with oceans and oceans governance, Canada will fall far behind other nations, which are starting to tackle the oceans in the way that the oceans work.
Senator Johnson: That is good to know. What do you think would bring us up to speed with other nations, then? Is it what you just said about government and cooperation? How will we fall behind? Are we behind now?
Mr. Day: I believe Canada has a significant opportunity to become a world leader by creating structures such as the Aquatic Management Board, which would lead to the cooperative development of oceans programs and create a structure whereby different parties could work out their differences and focus on what they have in common. In the absence of those structures, we end up with a situation where nobody is leading that effort, or where a number of departments and groups have aspects of that responsibility, but there is no forum in which they can share that responsibility.
It is a system based more on blame and ``It's someone else's problem'' than on cooperation, trust and collective action.
Senator Johnson: How many of the problems you are having are caught up in this kind of bureaucracy, in terms of things not being clearly defined?
Mr. Day: A significant part of the problems we face is the mentality or the cultural belief, be that a business culture, a civil servant culture or a community culture, that you can get what you want by acting independently, without respecting the interests of others or of resources. As long as that mentality is fostered by the way organizations are structured, we will not get to a point where we will start learning how to work together to address issues in the oceans, which need a broader-based approach. It is a fairly pervasive mentality. Again, we need a forum that can help lead a change in that culture and help people see that their interests are best served by working with others.
The Chairman: I am glad you pursued questions on the experience in New Zealand. This committee wanted to look at what is happening in other jurisdictions, but the Fisheries Committee is not a high priority with the powers that be who decide on budgets.
I should not be criticizing my colleagues in the Senate on this, but I will. Regardless of which side has been in government, it has been difficult for the Senate Fisheries Committee to convince the budget decision makers of the importance of our work. There are new decision makers every couple of years, and they tend to view fish as being something that you throw into a boat and then eat for dinner. They do not realize that fish is a resource that has taken care of communities for thousands of years and that it is more than an economic backbone, it is a culture and a way of life for many people, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.
We were asking you about some of the work that you have done because it is hard for us to do that work through our own means. We are looking at other avenues to get information on what is happening in other jurisdictions.
Other countries have experienced what is currently being proposed in Canada on privatization. To see the results in other jurisdictions would be like getting into a time machine and seeing how these changes would impact Canada.
I will return to the Oceans Act. This committee was a great supporter of the Oceans Act. We approved that bill in record time because we wanted to have the act. Even though I am extremely pleased that the AMB was a result of it, it is still too little considering the great potential of the Oceans Act. We should have more AMBs elsewhere. The downside of the aquatic management board is that it is more difficult for those people who make decisions to understand. An ITQ is very easy to understand. You take total allowable catch, divide it into shares and hand a little share to each vessel owner. It is up to them to beat the bushes for the fish. If they cannot find enough fish to make it pay, they can sell their quota to someone else. That is a model that any economist can explain to first-year students. An ecosystem-based approach to managing resources, which includes transport, tourism, various sectors of fish and the interrelationship among fish, is much more difficult to understand.
For some time this committee has been looking for a way to make it easier to understand, for a way to easily explain what the AMB is doing. Have you tackled this problem as well?
Mr. Day: I think the easiest way is through example. That is the way that people are inspired and learn about a different approach. We have tried to come up with a number of examples in our first years of operation that show what this approach can do. At its core, it is relatively simple. You need a body with all the different parties involved to sit down to identify areas of common interest and pursue them. Those areas would be things like water quality, which has an impact on all groups and which no one group can address on its own. The board has acknowledged that we have water quality issues on the West Coast. We do a report on that, with options and recommendations for moving forward. We form a partnership with the university for research on some aspects of the problem. We develop technology and new business opportunities around those problems, and we work with people who are affected by them to help develop strategies for coping with the issues. We do things like developing a regional information system that has all the information from federal, provincial and local Nuu-chah-nulth governments, as well as from users.
When you create such a common information base, you can do things such as identify areas that are of high conservation value and high economic value. You can start creating coastal use plans, the same way as we have city plans or land use plans. You can start identifying marine environmental quality indicators to get a picture of changes in salinity levels in the ocean, in pollutant levels and in acidity levels. Using those as a basis, you can start to understand how those kinds of changes impact different industries. If you know that there is a connection between water temperature and algal blooms, you can monitor water temperature and algal blooms and create a risk- management framework for aquaculture operations that can be negatively impacted by that.
The Chairman: It all makes so much sense, but I return to my initial comment. It is so much easier for a fisheries manager with dwindling resources to choose the ITQ model, where it is survival of the fittest, a model supported by the big national newspapers — in downtown Toronto, of course — and promoted by some of the major right-wing think tanks, rather than a model that makes a lot of sense but takes 10 minutes to explain.
This is one of the dilemmas we face as a committee. How do we get this point across? A model that does make sense may be a little more complex than a two-line comment in a so-called national newspaper that supposedly speaks on behalf of all Canadians.
Mr. Day: Part of that is because it is designed to do one thing — it allocates resources. It does not address the protection of those resources or the connection of those resources to other resources. It is a very specific tool for a very specific problem, whereas the board is a tool for managing a range of different issues.
The Chairman: The allocation part, I assume, is one of the aspects of the board. How the fisheries resources are allocated is part of the mandate of the AMB, is it not?
Mr. Day: That was a subject of great debate during the board negotiations. There are some groups on the board that believe that the board does have a strong role in that because, as Chief Lucas has mentioned, those kinds of decisions have a significant impact on the livelihood of communities and people in the areas.
The Chairman: I submit to you that if you intend to look at an ecosystem-based approach to managing the resources, obviously you will not have an outside agency deciding this individual will get 10 per cent of the herring quota and this other person will get X per cent of the groundfish quota. The herring and the groundfish are interrelated; one is beholden to the other. You cannot have isolated decisions being made on herring, groundfish or other species, because they are all part of an integrated environmental ecosystem. Therefore, decisions being made on one have to be based on the others.
That is why I would have assumed that the AMB would have fought to get involved, maybe not with the ultimate decision, but at least to guide the allocation of quotas. That decision has not been fully endorsed then, is that correct?
Mr. Day: No, I would hope that others had your grasp of the rationale, because that certainly fits within an ecosystem-based approach.
The Chairman: Exactly. This is the kind of model we would like to look at. We understand there are some in some jurisdictions, and we will be looking at them quite closely to see the results. This is a system that has been proposed by people who actually looked at the ecosystem approach. It really is the way to go.
I would like to return to what has been happening over the past number of years — and, Chief Lucas, you are quite aware of it — the dwindling access that your people have had over the past years. Has the government, to your knowledge, done any kind of assessment of the social, economic and cultural impact of what has been happening on your communities?
Mr. Lucas: There has not been anything coming from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or Indian Affairs. As I stated, back in the 1970s we were already concerned about the plight of our people, in that we were already down to 175 licences that made up Nuu-chah-nulth. At the time, besides those licences, we had what we call ``potter fishermen;'' there were close to 100 then. Back then, we still had people fishing in canoes.
The terrible thing that happened with the buy-back is that there was really no consultation with the First Nations, but the investors had a major role in that. One of our members sold his troll licence back for $90,000; but what was not expressed was that he owed the company $80,000. Another one of our members who was a seine boat owner sold out his licence for some-odd $400,000, but he was still $200,000 in the hole. That was not taken into account.
The unfortunate thing is after the buy-back our social welfare department saw a major increase in need because of the deckhands and all of those people who were involved. The increase in our social development budgets was well over 25 per cent.
The Chairman: You have done your own study.
Mr. Lucas: Yes.
The Chairman: I will just read the title of it: ``The Effects of ITQs and Fisheries Policy Regimes,'' and an under-title, which is, ``The Destruction of Nuu-chah-nulth Fishing Communities.'' I see here that in 1950, you had roughly 225 boats; and as of 2005, you are down to 16 remaining vessels. I read somewhere — I do not have the number in front of me, but it is quite large — that a number of the quota licences are now held by people in the city of Vancouver.
Mr. Lucas: Outside of Vancouver, yes.
The Chairman: Rather than your own Nuu-chah-nulth traditional territory. How can one rationalize having all of these quota licences in Vancouver? There is no fishing in the city of Vancouver.
Mr. Lucas: Unfortunately, when you talk about those kinds of things, one of the things that we are hit with is this is a free enterprise system in Canada. It is not about protecting those people who do not have anything.
The Chairman: We have heard it quite a number of times. We have two visions being proposed by some in Canada. One is that we need to have private enterprise, the marketplace, drive and decide what should be the most efficient means of harvesting the resource. Another group of people have been saying communities who have been historically dependent on those adjacent resources should have first crack at them. They should be the ones who decide where it is landed, how it should be processed and so on. To me, it makes a lot of sense that the local community should be more involved in that kind of decision.
Is this the kind of message that you want to send to us, that this is the vision that you would be proposing?
Mr. Lucas: Yes, when you are at the table talking to both levels of government, in our part of the world, what we are saying is if we sign a treaty for ever, what does that mean for our people? We are the fastest rising group of people in Canada, and what will it look like 50 years from now? What will our economic base be in the world of aquatics? We are saying this is what we need when we look at 50 or 100 years from now to see how our communities will be sustained.
There is another thing that really worries me in terms of quotas. Several years ago, I addressed the indigenous people in Tasmania. One of the horrible things that happened down there in terms of the quota system is that they set up areas that were strictly for quota fisheries. They could not fish their food, or do societal or ceremonial activities, within those quota areas.
This is what we are scared of, if the quotas come into place and they could say that we cannot fish here because these belong to the quota people. We found this out from the black cod and halibut situation. We as a group of First Nations people fished halibut all of our lives, but we ended up with no licence in our territory because they said that we have landed 5,000 pounds over this period of years. We never thought for one moment that we were going to be literally shut out of that industry. Therefore, the black cod and halibut is a prime example. What they did not do was look at the impact on the community of Hesquiaht. What does it mean? Unfortunately, when the canneries shut down, they did not look at the impact on my family. They did not look at what happened to my mother when she was laid off from the cannery. They did not look at what impact it had on the extended family and the community. None of that has ever been done. Now we have people who have been living on welfare since that started, because there is no opportunity at all. We are saying that we want a share of that opportunity. We do not want it all; we want a share of it.
The Chairman: I believe Minister Regan is a very fair man. I have known him for quite a number of years and I sincerely believe that he wants to make the right decisions on behalf of coastal communities and communities dependent on the fishery.
If you had a message for us, we could relay it back to the minister, not to the department, because it is an entirely different kettle of fish. I have always felt that the department has its own agenda and they do as they darn well feel like doing. However, I have always believed that the ministers are kind of caught up in what the department is doing. You have all these people playing around out there and the minister cannot be aware of what is being said or done or how it is being said or done, so we would like to relay a message back to the minister on your behalf. What should we say to him?
Mr. Lucas: You should tell him that the heritage chiefs of Nuu-chah-nulth see an opportunity, and need help, along with other communities, to develop an organization called an aquatic management board where people of all sectors in Nuu-chah-nulth territory are able to work together and discuss issues. I think that has never been seen. It is important for our people to recognize that we have been isolating ourselves for so long that we forgot about the rest of the people in the Nuu-chah-nulth territory.
The Chairman: I have one final question for Mr. Day, and then I think we have some wrap-up questions.
We had a witness, a Dr. Daniel MacInnes, who appeared before us back in February, and I will read to you a quote from toward the end of his presentation: ``If I am going to say anything to you today, I will say this; I want you to stop this.'' He was referring to ITQs, the privatization. Do you agree with his statement that ITQs should be stopped?
Mr. Day: I do not think it is an either/or scenario, the one you described earlier. I think there are ways of improving the economic performance of fisheries and of addressing social, ecological and economic circumstances of communities. There are a number of examples and tools in the world. There are some put forward by the aquatic management board that can enhance the benefits of different fisheries management approaches, whether it is quotas, territorial use or effort restrictions. It can get the benefits of those and also address the costs. The ideologically driven imposition of any one management approach, whether it is quotas or others, in situations where they are not warranted is just not practical. Also, there should be a serious look at the costs of trying to push an approach without addressing issues such as First Nations' interests, because I see the extensive costs that that would create in a legal framework and that probably outweigh what could be accomplished if you sat down and looked at it more practically and had a number of groups sitting down at the table trying to negotiate something.
Senator Hubley: I will be as brief as I can. In January 2005, the AMB recommended that proposals for renewal in any fishery, including the Pearse-McRae report and the First Nations panel approaches on salmon, should contain details about how they would be fully implemented. Just from listening to your testimonies here today, I think that should be broadened. They should be looking at the recognition of historical fishing practices that would include the First Nations and the consultation with all of the stakeholders. I go back to what Chief Lucas had said, that is, perhaps their studies were not included and their position was not fully understood by the decision makers. You have also touched on sustainability and especially on the ecosystem. If you are putting forward recommendations, you should spell those items out so that they become part of the dialogue, they become part of the issues that have to be discussed before any change is made to any fishery, not only those on the east or west coasts.
My question has to do with another proposal, in which you said that there should be a public fisheries licence registry for all fisheries that would include a quota registry for quota management fisheries. Just give us an idea of what you were hoping to achieve by recording licensing.
Mr. Day: One aspect of that is to provide more public accountability as to how the resources of Canada are being allocated and to whom. Under an individual transferable quota regime there is no geographic basis for the allocation of resources, so they can be held by a company from anywhere in the world. The Oceans Act is fairly specific about the resources of Canada benefiting Canadians, and especially coastal communities. This is a way of providing accountability as to whether that is happening or not. Also, it can provide a useful tool for industry, but they tend to do it themselves in terms of having a registry that enables them to trade quota or buy and sell licences.
Senator Johnson: Can you tell me how many people there are now in the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth communities?
Mr. Lucas: In Nuu-chah-nulth, if we are including the 14 tribes, we number about 7,000. However, we are about 5,050. Some are living in urban areas for economic reasons, and some for mostly educational reasons.
Senator Johnson: Of the people in the communities, how many are involved in the fishery?
Mr. Lucas: I will just use my tribe as an example. Our tribe numbers just under 700. We have three trawlers left and they are not in the community. We basically have no one involved in the fishing industry in the Hesquiaht community. Therefore, the only thing that we do is harvest for food and for societal and ceremonial activities.
Senator Johnson: What would you like to see as opposed to what you have?
Mr. Lucas: In the 1970s, our tribe had about 30 commercial boats, and in those times it was a healthy community. Social welfare was almost non-existent. We want our community to be healthy, with our people participating in the economy to the benefit of others. We want a different kind of wealth; we want community wealth. When I was a commercial fisherman, many in my family benefited from my activities.
Senator Johnson: How would you describe the health of your community now?
Mr. Lucas: Right now it is despairing. It is hard to live in a community where you get up in the morning and worry about what the members are thinking.
As an example of how our people feel, after the tsunami in Asia that destroyed thousands of lives, we felt their pain. Many millions of dollars were raised in Canada in response to that, and we wondered where we fit in. We have an unemployment rate of greater than 80 per cent. Where do we fit into the social fabric of Canada? People in Canada do not understand the social fabric of our community, and sometimes we are deeply pained by that.
Senator Johnson: Given your proud history and the fact that you are more reliant on ocean resources than others, I can imagine how painful this could be. Was this exacerbated by the attitude of the Pearse-McRae panel? It says here that they refused to come to your communities, that it was too expensive to take a one-and-half-hour ferry ride to Vancouver Island.
A panel was set up in response to Pearse-McRae that came up with different proposals. You travelled to remote communities and talked with the people whose livelihood depends on the fishery.
I cannot understand why this attitude would prevail, given your situation.
Mr. Lucas: I was part of the delegation that came here to negotiate with DFO. Our concern was that Drs. Pearse and McRae were not going to any communities at all. We came here and negotiated for $300,000 to do our study. B.C. is such a huge province that even our own people who were working on this document could not reach those communities. Prior to that, we invited Dr. Pearse to come to the communities that were hardest hit. In our community, we cannot apply for a job in a superstore or a gas station. We have nothing. It is just our community. Vancouver is very different from Hot Springs Cove and other communities, where there is nothing else to depend on. In a big city, you have the opportunity to apply for different jobs; in our community, you do not.
Senator Johnson: Yet, of course, you want to make your lives there.
Mr. Lucas: As in the past, we want to continue to live where our homes are. As our elder says, we respect our hereditary chiefs because of our territory. We were once the wealthiest people in Canada.
Senator Johnson: I am very glad to hear your story.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this will be strongly reflected in our report.
The Chairman: I wish to thank our witnesses. You have been extremely helpful to us and this meeting has been most interesting. I thank you for your kind words regarding our 1998 study. My researcher has advised me that we did not travel for that study, either. I guess you can do work from Ottawa if you really put your mind to it.
We hope to be on the West Coast in the fall. We have tried to go there a number of times and we will try once more. We would like to visit your communities and speak to your people. It is quite different doing this work in a community than from Ottawa, as you know very well.
Again, thank you for sharing your knowledge and for your suggestions this morning.
Mr. Lucas: On behalf of our hereditary chiefs, I would like to thank the committee for listening to us.
The committee adjourned.