THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 5, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 6:35 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on the commercial fisheries licensing regime on Canada’s Pacific Coast; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Bev Busson (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good evening. My name is Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia and deputy chair of the committee. I have the pleasure of chairing the committee this evening with you all.
Today, we’re conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I would ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines on how to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from the microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphones. They will be turned on and off by the person at the control. Avoid handling your earpiece while the microphone is on. We all want to make sure that everyone is safe during this proceeding.
Should any technical difficulties arise, please signal either me or the clerk, and we’ll do what it takes to resolve the issue.
Before I begin, I would like to take a few minutes to allow the members of this committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening. Thank you for being here. Baltej Dhillon from British Columbia.
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Good evening. Welcome. Mohamed Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
[Translation]
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Surette: Allister Surette, Nova Scotia.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
On November 18, 2025, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on the commercial fisheries licensing regime on Canada’s Pacific coast. Today, under this mandate, the committee is happy to be hearing from the following individuals: Guy Dean, Chief Executive Officer of Coastal Nations Fisheries Limited Partnership; Trevor Russ, Director, Policy and Programs, Coastal First Nations-Great Bear Initiative; and Howie Wright, Executive Director, Ha’oom Fisheries Society.
On behalf of all of us here, we want to thank you for being here. I understand you each have opening remarks, which we are interested in hearing. Following your remarks, members of the committee will have questions for you. Mr. Dean, you have the floor.
Guy Dean, Chief Executive Officer, Coastal Nations Fisheries Limited Partnership: Thank you, deputy chair, and thank you, honourable senators, for the opportunity to speak with you all today.
As you may know, Coastal Nations Fisheries is a groundbreaking, 100% Indigenous-owned fishing company and was created to recognize the economic fishing opportunity envisioned from the signing and formalization of the Fisheries Resources Reconciliation Agreement, or what we refer to as the FRRA. Our company is collaboratively owned by eight nations that are signatories to the FRRA and are comprised of the Haida Nation, Metlakatla First Nation, Gitxaala Nation, Gitga’at First Nation, Kitasoo Xai’xai Nation, Heiltsuk Nation, Nuxalk Nation and the Wuikinuxv Nation.
Our work is twofold — to acquire access, including licences and quotas, from willing sellers in the open marketplace in order to create and run a coast-wide commercial fishing company, participating in a multitude of fisheries and species; and to help our shareholder nations to implement their own community-based fisheries in the waters adjacent to their homes and communities. Our model and goal is to run a fair, successful and profitable business that not only generates jobs for our nations’ citizens but generates profits from our commercial company that are distributed back to our shareholder nations so they can invest back into their communities and create infrastructure for long-term food security, cultural survival and economic needs.
While the introduction of individual vessel quotas, or IVQs, has had a positive effect on sustainable harvesting and maximizing marketability of commercial species harvested on the Pacific Coast, an unintended consequence was the creation of a commoditized trading market where non-fishing speculative investors and offshore ownership of licences and quotas have driven up prices. This license concentration and offshore ownership are threatening our West Coast fisheries, our coastal communities, independent fishers and First Nations in British Columbia. In fact, since 2015, when negotiations for the FRRA began until today, many species licence and quota values have risen in price by as much as 150%, with some licences, like red sea urchin licences, rising by over 400%. This is because of those groups and individuals that have chosen to use this fishing access as a speculative investment for their portfolio or money sheltering, versus actually fishing the asset and bringing value to local economies and the coastal communities that rely on this resource. If left unchecked, this will undermine the economic objectives of the FRRA and our organization. Our ability to acquire access with the funds available has already become greatly diminished.
Rest assured our company has taken great effort to not contribute to increasing prices through our own acquisition process, but it has impacted our ability to provide enough access to support our nations’ citizens and our company. As an example, we focus our procurement strategy on those priority species important to our shareholder nations, which are harvested close to their communities. Spot prawns are one of those desired species, but for the past two years we’ve had limited success acquiring those licences, as speculators have pushed prices up to levels that have been unsustainable — raising prices by 64%. Instead of fishing these licences themselves, these speculators have been able to charge high lease values with little benefit back to those who actually harvest and fish the prawns and the communities they live in.
Moreover, what is increasingly disturbing is the unregulated competition and lack of controls for licences and quota in B.C. that allow anyone in the world access to this Canadian Pacific resource.
It is our opinion that for us to have vibrant commercial fisheries that benefit working harvesters and First Nations, we need a made-in-B.C., owner-operator, fleet separation policy that moves into regulation.
While we acknowledge the positive benefits that the Atlantic Canada fisheries have experienced through fleet separation and owner-operator policies, we are also conscious that some of our fisheries and how they operate are unique on the Pacific Coast, and we need a made-in-B.C. model to ensure everyone is treated fairly. Tools such as licence and quota registries, fair leasing policies, supplier agreements and extended transition timelines all need to be taken into consideration for the successful implementation of an owner-operator policy here in B.C., yet those are simply tools to help reach a desired outcome.
What is clear to us is an owner-operator regime could both help reduce the inflated market value for licences and quotas over time, and allow all coastal nations and independent fishermen more affordable access to licences and quotas, while creating vibrant coastal communities that share the economic benefit of the fisheries they participate in.
Finally, I’d like to provide a personal perspective. We’ve heard some concerns about the potential impact the implementation of an owner-operator policy may have on those processors who currently own access to this resource. Having started in this industry as a deckhand in my late teens, working as a commercial diver in my early twenties and subsequently working may way through the industry from harvester, processor, wholesaler and distributor, I’ve spent over 40 years in the industry.
The processors I know treat their fishers fairly, create jobs in communities up and down the coast and keep supporting the local economy. Their concern is ensuring they can maintain supply, so there is an economic benefit not just for their organization but for those coastal communities they work and live in.
Through effective supply chain agreements and a multi-year transition plan to owner-operator regulation, I believe their concerns can and will be addressed.
Not just confined to Atlantic Canada, we’ve seen the owner-operator model implemented successfully in Alaska with little impact on those processors actively involved in the industry, who are committed to the long-term viability of the industry for all.
We believe that to support an enduring, effective industry, vibrant coastal economies and successful ongoing Indigenous reconciliation, the benefits of seafood harvested within B.C.’s commercial fisheries need to flow through working harvesters, First Nations and the coastal communities we live and work in, and for that to happen policy needs to change. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Dean.
We’ll move on now please to Mr. Russ. Trevor Russ, you have the floor.
Trevor Russ, Director, Coastal First Nations-Great Bear Initiative: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening to you all.
Members of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, my name is Trevor Russ. I am the Director of Policy and Programs for the Great Bear Initiative Society, better known as Coastal First Nations.
I am also a member of the Haida Nation and have been a fisherman my entire life. I’ve participated in federally regulated fisheries in the past and continue to fish under my rights to provide food for my family, friends and community.
I appreciate the opportunity and the invitation to speak with you today as part of your study on the commercial fisheries licencing regime on Canada’s Pacific Coast. Our organization is an alliance of nations from the North Pacific Coast that include Gitga’at, Gitxaala, Haida, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo Xai’xai, Metlakatla, Nuxalk and Wuikinuxv Nations, whose territories include over 40% of marine waters and coastline on the Pacific Coast.
For the past 25 years, our member nations have been working together, nation to nation, with federal and provincial governments on land and marine policy issues, including fisheries.
The Great Bear Initiative Society —Coastal First Nations oversees the implementation of many negotiated agreements between our member nations and the Crown, including the Fisheries Resource Reconciliation Agreement that was mentioned.
A transformative agreement itself, signed by our member nations and the Government of Canada in 2021, which commits our member nations and Canada to the collaborative governance and management of fish, fish habitat and fisheries, and includes financial resources to support increased access to federally regulated commercial fisheries.
With the support of our board of directors, who are the elected leaders of our member nations, we have engaged with other First Nations and industry partners to develop options for a made-in-B.C. approach to licence policy reform that supports an owner-operator model and First Nations-owned access to federally regulated fisheries.
In 2022, a letter was sent to the then minister of fisheries and oceans, the Honourable Joyce Murray, and Premier of B.C., David Eby, from our leadership, indicating our member nations’ willingness to work with the Crown to develop a made-in-B.C. approach to licensing policy reform in B.C.
In 2024, a letter was sent from Premier Eby to the then minister of fisheries and oceans, Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, expressing the need to move forward with a made‑in-B.C. approach to licensing reform. The current, federally regulated licensing policy in Canada’s Pacific doesn’t support coastal communities and working harvesters. It undermines efforts to sustain and build viable fishing enterprises and rewarding careers for residents of the coast.
With the current licensing policy, community access to wealth generated from adjacent waters is greatly limited, making efforts by First Nations communities and local and provincial governments to build thriving, resilient communities even more challenging. It also greatly impedes the ability to fully realize the goals of resource reconciliation agreements between First Nations and Canada.
Section 2.5 of Canada’s new Fisheries Act calls for, among other key considerations in decision making, consideration of social, economic, and cultural factors in the management of fisheries.
In Atlantic Canada, licensing policies are developed to protect the interests of coastal communities and independent harvesting enterprises, and, in doing so, strengthen socio-economic and cultural outcomes.
These policies have recently been put into regulation to further ensure that in Atlantic Canada, First Nations, coastal communities and independent harvesters are primary recipients of the economic and social benefits derived from harvesting seafood.
The same protective measures in policy and regulations need to be put into place in B.C. We’re committed to working together to ensure that the benefits generated from commercial fishing in the north Pacific Coast stay with First Nations, working fish harvesters and adjacent communities, contributing to the resilience, prosperity and well-being of our coast and province.
Thank you again for the time.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you Mr. Russ.
Mr. Wright, you now have the floor for your presentation. Thank you.
Howie Wright, Executive Director, Ha’oom Fisheries Society: I’m from the Gitxsan Nation in northwestern B.C. on the Skeena River. I’ve been working with Ha’oom Fisheries Society since April 2022. Ha’oom Fisheries Society is the group that implements rights-based fisheries for the five Nations that went to court starting in 2003 and ending in 2021 through the B.C. Court of Appeal case that constitutionally protected their Aboriginal rights to harvest and sell fish in their territories upwards to 9 nautical miles. After that, the nations signed a reconciliation agreement with the government to start implementing those rights.
Since then, it’s been a combination of implementation through the Ha’oom Fisheries Society and negotiations for a final reconciliation agreement with the nations.
Part of that is the involvement of the mitigation and purchasing of licences to implement through the nations’ rights-based fisheries. The nations have signed, through their reconciliation agreement, a community-based fishery agreement to implement converting commercial licences. Within those, we’ve experienced how regular commercial licences are used. I’ll spend the rest of the time commenting on how fishery modernization can help improve those processes and recognize their relationship between the nations’ rights-based fisheries but also within the regular commercial fishery there.
The nations fish from the town of Tofino, up north to Zeballos on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The nations are Ahousaht First Nation, Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, Hesquiaht First Nation, Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation and Ehattesaht First Nation.
A lot of the decisions that Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, made in the past have concentrated the salmon fishery in the hands of processors and investors, having rules to treat fish as a commodity, to be bought, sold, and leased as opposed to a source of food security to benefit small-scale fisheries. In the context of fishery allocation, we need to protect the access rights of traditional fishing communities from industrial fishing and to control private actors that affect the lands, territories and waters upon which these communities depend.
The nations do support the development of a Pacific owner-operator style of regulation for fisheries. We need to focus on active fishers, not armchair or inactive licence holders. Corporations, other than personal corporations for tax purposes, including foreign ownership, should not be able to buy licences and quota in B.C. We also don’t agree with vessel size restrictions in the fleet as you move toward transfers of licences. For the nations, we don’t agree on one licence per species. For the nations, we’d like to see a special licence for all the species as authorized by the Hesquiaht, the hereditary governance of the Nuu-chah-nulth Nation.
We should also look at permitting and separating of stacked or married licences for sale by the licence owner and giving the opportunity to divest some or all of their licences to promote and facilitate existing harvesters and new entrants to become owner operators. We should have a moratorium now on the further introduction of individual property rights regimes, such as individual fishing quotas.
I believe that we could have an undertaking of a licensing review and, within two years, look at having their own Tla-o-qui-aht licensing for the five Nations; removing some of the vessel, gear, and length restrictions where they have not been proven to achieve conservation objectives; ensure that licences are not owned or controlled by processors/investors; and have a timeline that can look at moving any of those for sale, similar to what was done on the east coast.
Commercial fisheries contribute to food security for First Nations through two pathways: directly by providing fish for people, especially low-income consumers, to eat and thereby improving both food availability and adequacy for safe, clean diets; and indirectly by generating income for the fisheries sections of First Nations. Thanks.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wright, and thanks to all three of you for your presentations. We have some senators who would like to ask you some questions.
Senator C. Deacon: My thanks to each of you for being here and your opening comments. I was really struck by a few phrases that were used: licence concentration, licences have become speculative portfolio investments, unregulated ownership, and treating fish like a commodity. A commodity for me is something that is mass-produced and widely available. Those are all phrases that ring true based on the testimony we’ve had so far, especially based on what we’re hearing on the B.C. coast.
I’m most interested in your made-in-B.C. owner-operator policy and how we transition toward that. What are your recommendations in that regard? How would we recommend, as a committee, that transition occur?
Mr. Wright: Thank you. I did provide some recommendations on how to start moving forward in terms of the licensing reviews and setting one as a timeline and looking at starting to remove the gear-length vessel restrictions, where they haven’t been proven to achieve conservation objectives that inhibit the nations to work together on those there.
The other one that is not owned or controlled is to move toward the owner operator but having a timeline also for that transition, maybe three to five years in terms of licences that have been inactive in giving that opportunity, but also for the owner not controlled by processors or non-fishermen.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you. Mr. Dean?
Mr. Dean: Thank you for the great question. I certainly don’t have all the answers to what a made-in-B.C. model looks like, but there are a number of nuances about our integrated groundfish fishery, for example, and we need to be able to allow for the temporary transfer of quota to cover bycatch and overages. In those cases, saying that leasing can’t occur does not make sense. However, it does make sense to provide a platform or a fair leasing policy tool that’s not built on creating a profit for speculative investors but, rather, solves the conservation and sustainability concerns of the fishery.
We have so many diverse and wonderful fisheries on the B.C. coast, and they all need to be evaluated with different licensing rules. That’s what I mean by a made-in-B.C. model.
Senator C. Deacon: I don’t think we’ve heard that nuance at all from previous witnesses.
Mr. Russ, would you like to build on what we’re hearing, or any place you feel perhaps something different is needed?
Mr. Russ: For sure, and thank you for the question. We’ve shared in the past with the department what we propose as a staged approach, starting with a clear commitment from the minister to work with the province and First Nations to collaboratively develop and implement a stakeholder engagement and transition planning process for a new Pacific region licensing regime. The process should have an agreed‑upon time frame that shows meaningful commitment to immediate implementation, including a clearly defined timeline for transition. In our discussions we’re having at a bureaucratic level, we use the reference of what was done in Atlantic Canada with a seven-year transition timeline. Immediate steps in the transition to an owner-operator class of licence should be designated to align the Pacific region’s licensing policy and regulations with Atlantic Canada’s inshore fisheries, and that comes with a long list.
We could share a lot of documentation with you, senator. Through the clerk, I can have my staff send over some documents for the committee.
Senator C. Deacon: That would be very helpful and much appreciated. Thank you very much.
Senator Surette: I, too, thank you for your presentations. There was a lot of information there.
To finish off on Senator Deacon’s question. As a made-in-B.C. owner-operator, is there any indication of any movement by DFO up to this point? We’ve heard of a Pacific Coast modernization plan. Do you have any indication if there is anything moving, or if there is any interest by DFO in moving to an owner-operator system or model?
Mr. Dean: Thank you, senator. We’ve certainly participated in many of the modernization meetings. We have even had some one-on-one meetings.
There are concerns about the impact it’s going to place on licence holders and what that means for them. There are good processor citizens who own quotas, and what will be the impact on them? There are some concerns.
In terms of implementation, we know about the beneficial ownership survey that went out, which was flawed. We haven’t followed the steps necessary to really commit to making this process work. There is a lot of discussion going on, but there is also a lot of concern about the actions that they’re going to take moving forward.
Mr. Russ: Similarly, we’ve participated in the engagement process following the 2019 recommendations from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to the ministry itself, which, in reference, was that flawed process that we identified. Following that, we engaged with departmental staff around the need to move forward, and they went ahead. I believe it was last year that they had another process meeting that kind of asked the question: Is there a need to address the licensing regime in B.C.? There hasn’t been any response since they had engagement sessions at that time.
The appearance is that there isn’t much of a will to move at this point, even with strong, multi-party considerations signed off at the committee level.
Mr. Wright: Similar to the other two witnesses, we have engaged with the department on fisheries modernization. On that, I forwarded our letter that we sent to the minister on the response for fishery modernization, which were some of the key themes that I identified.
We also coordinated with other First Nations on the coast and in the interior about the need for a change in that. As people have mentioned, we haven’t had much in terms of engagement after that. We have been contacted for further discussion again, but I’ve identified that it would be nice to move forward, past discussions, to actual implementation on that.
We do a lot of work with DFO internally, and we do see quite a few of the frustrations over how we want to work together and move forward on reconciliation, but there are some old policies and rules in place that inhibit that, such as vessel length or stacked licences. Having a nudge on that would help.
Senator Surette: My original question was based on what I’ve heard from your three organizations. It appears you currently have more of what we would know on the East Coast as a corporate model. If I understand properly, you own licences and quota, but you all said that you support an owner-operator model. It looks like two different models altogether among your organizations.
Can you comment on that? How would you transition what I understand is corporate ownership to an owner-operator model?
Mr. Wright: Thank you.
I think the transition from the corporate owner-operator to the owner-operator model is what we’ve been implementing in the fishery for the nations there. Where they are, it’s within a community-based economic fishery. We transitioned those licences into a community fishery. Then it’s individually fished per fisher on that, and depending on the fishery, some of it is by derby style in a suuhaa or salmon fishery. Or if it’s done via the halibut quota, there’s a certain amount for each fisher.
Some of that transition from the five Nations is moving that access and enabling community development, fisher-based fisheries that occur within each of the nation’s communities. Currently, hat’s how we’ve been doing that in terms of purchasing licences. Some of those, as I mentioned, are difficult for pricing because, as Mr. Dean mentioned, converting stacked licences has been difficult.
Senator Surette: If I understand properly, the captain doesn’t own the quota and the licence, the nation does. It’s not like the owner-operator as we know it on the East Coast —boots on the boat.
Mr. Wright: Most First Nations have community-owned licences. For the five Nations, it’s either nation-owned or through the community-based fishery.
Senator Surette: Mr. Russ? Mr. Dean?
Mr. Russ: Thank you, senator.
Yes, very similar. There are provisions in the Fisheries Resources Reconciliation Agreement that, as acquisition of licences and quotas are purchased by coastal nation fisheries, a percentage of that access is then transferred over to the communities themselves to manage under a community-based fishery. The profits earned are then accounted for by reinvestment into more access, stewardship and management, so the dollars are fully accounted for and utilized within each of the communities specific to the agreement. The benefits are still felt on the ground, with the lion’s share of the profits returning to the fishers themselves.
On the transition part, I would leave that more to Guy Dean to speak to. Thanks.
Senator Surette: Mr. Dean?
Mr. Dean: Thank you, Senator Surette.
That’s a really great question. Under the owner-operator principle on the West Coast, we believe that licences and quotas should be owned by Indigenous nations or fishermen. As a100 per cent Indigenous-owned company, we believe we have the rights to that ownership, and four reasons jump to mind.
First and probably foremost, our coastal nation’s citizens have been disproportionately impacted for centuries compared to others, so this is an opportunity to treat everyone fairly and justly.
Two, our company already follows a different model on leasing and providing access to our fishers for licences and quotas than other fishing companies. For example, in local community-based fisheries, the nations have all agreed to lease the quota at one third of current market lease prices. On the commercial side, depending on species, we prefer to work on an evenly shared model depending on species, where the company and the fisher equally share the profits.
Third, numerous studies have shown — and Mr. Russ pointed this out — that assets fished by First Nations bring more benefit back to coastal communities, both economically and socially, versus those leased by larger corporations and investors who are not invested in the communities that the fishers live and work in.
The fourth and final piece, while we focus on having a good business model running a profitable organization, we don’t retain any profits. Instead, we return those profits back to the nations so they can be used for further investment in fishery-related activities in the communities they live in. This includes using those funds to rebuild the infrastructure required to have a successful fishing industry, including ice-making facilities, cold storage, processing and even ongoing stewardship of the resource using a combination of Western science and Indigenous knowledge.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much for your very compelling testimony.
I was wondering if you could give me an idea of the current health of the stocks that you harvest. To what extent does Indigenous knowledge factor into maintaining the health of these stocks?
If I could finish with the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous fisheries in the region and on the East Coast. We’ve certainly seen elements of friction, discontent, et cetera. I was just wondering what the picture might look like on the West Coast.
Mr. Russ: Thank you.
How I would frame the first part of the question is to point out that there is a good example of how the department has utilized Indigenous knowledge in fish management in new processes and rebuilding plans. In Haida Gwaii, there is what is called the Pacific Herring Rebuilding Plan that was mandated to move forward after some confrontation over the department’s will to open the herring fishery a number of years ago. Just recently, they published a rebuilding plan that includes the use of Indigenous knowledge in the plan itself.
In other processes, also in Haida Gwaii, they have a razor clam fishery that fell off over the last number of years due to stocks, but it was also focused on a rebuilding plan that was co-managed between the department and the nation itself for quite a number of years prior to the collapse.
Also, I know that they’re working on a sea cucumber fishery that includes Indigenous knowledge, and other members of our organization on the coast are taking it into their own hands to gather the data and input that are utilized in fish management. Whether or not it is taken into consideration at this point is arguable, I would say, because in policy, it only states that Indigenous knowledge may be considered by the department in fish management.
I’m sorry. What was the second part of your question?
Senator Ravalia: It was based on the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous fishers in your area.
Mr. Russ: Correct. Yes.
In terms of the state of it today, I wouldn’t say that there is hard confrontation, but words do get exchanged, whether it’s in person or just shared through different media channels. I would foresee, as access to resources diminishes and nations are not being granted commercially regulated access by the federal government, there is potential for reaching a breaking point at some point, I would assume.
Senator Ravalia: Mr. Wright, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Wright: Yes. I’ll first comment on salmon stocks on West Coast Vancouver Island and the suuhaa and local chinook stocks that have been low in returns for years and have triggered some management action, both domestically and internationally, on the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
One of the fisheries of the five Nations is the offshore ABM fishery. That’s a managed fishery between the U.S. and Canada that has a set amount, and any conservation as it relates to those amounts has to be agreed upon by both countries.
We are working with the local government and DFO on the restoration of those West Coast Vancouver Island stocks through rebuilding plans. Again, it gets difficult when you have a large organization like DFO along with these small communities that want to restore their stocks in a way that tends to have too much control by Big Brother.
Also, there have been reductions in halibut, which is a coast-wide fishery, in terms of total tack. We’ve seen reductions in the five Nations fishery on that.
I’ll use another example of West Coast Vancouver Island herring, which has been closed to the commercial fishery for a little over the past 20 years. More recently, in the past couple of years, there was a small commercial opening for a spawn-on-kelp fishery for the five Nations as well as opportunities for a regular J licence, as it’s called. So far, only the five Nations have been open for a roe, or spawn-on-kelp fishery.
Part of the Indigenous knowledge on that is working with the nations on when and what types of fisheries occur for the herring fishery. When they do the roe-on-kelp, which is the eggs on kelp, when that occurs, they move on to a certain return size for a gillnet fishery. The last one is for the seine fishery. Part of that Indigenous knowledge is working with Knowledge Keepers regarding where they historically see herring spawn and using that as an indicator. Those types of discussions are just starting.
In terms of the relationship with the other user sectors, we need to remember these are small communities on the West Coast, from Tofino up to Zeballos, and a lot of people know each other. In terms of the transition from moving toward a rights-based fishery, the reason the nations went to court was they were being marginalized in terms of their access and involvement in the commercial fishery. Making the five Nations fishery a greater priority has been happening, and there is animosity locally between the user groups there. So far, we’ve been working with the commercial sector and the recreation sector in the areas and slowly developing relationships and figuring out how to move forward together.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Mr. Dean, do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Dean: I think Mr. Wright and Mr. Russ have really outlined the key points.
All I would say is not all of our species and fisheries, but, in general, the fisheries on the West Coast are relatively well managed. Their total allowable catch or TAC, is set at low levels for conservation efforts. As a company ourselves, we’ve taken steps to use sustainable catch methods to focus on only fishing sustainably as best we can.
When we talk about relationships with other user sectors, I think it’s clear that there has been friction in the past, but as we move forward, many of the fishers recognize that the future of the industry is in the hands of the First Nations. I think there is much greater acceptance as we move forward from the non-Indigenous fishers, for sure.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: Thanks for the testimony.
We have heard that one of the major problems is not knowing who the holders of the licences are, and that has been a significant problem. Over the last two or three years, have your organizations been in a situation where you pursued a licence or quota, only to be disappointed either because these entities dealt with themselves or there was a bidding process or game you just couldn’t afford to play, or you weren’t aware that these licences were being sold? Could you reflect on that?
Mr. Wright: In terms of purchasing and the willing seller and willing buyer, the nations’ agreement involves purchasing and the mitigation policy DFO has. The minister can also decide and grant access to, say, the five Nations on that, and they have done it before, and I’ll use the example of the halibut quota that was increased and transferred to the recreational sector. That can be done.
Senator Cuzner: The minister purchased the quota and awarded it to the nation?
Mr. Wright: The minister didn’t have to purchase the quota. The minister could actually designate that quota to a different sector, so it can be done. However, they do have their willing seller willing buyer policy with mitigation to the fishery.
I can probably send some details of that in terms of the minister’s discretion to do those types of authorizations and movement of quota.
Senator Cuzner: That would be helpful.
Mr. Wright: We have had access to a licence and a prawn or halibut quota and not knowing who you’re buying from. They have generally been corporations that we purchase from, but also knowing that likely the amount available from a willing seller is decreasing as nations are looking toward transitioning and purchasing licence or quota. We’re a group.
I’ll let Mr. Dean comment for the Coastal First Nations, but there is also another group coming online in terms of following the same purchasing mitigation on the east coast of Vancouver Island and also in the Vancouver areas moving toward an agreement looking toward purchasing. It does make that difficult in terms of competition. Looking at alternative processes may be a way to help move along that process of encouraging via modernization by giving a timeline that they need to sell by. That would help on getting commercial access for First Nations.
Mr. Dean: Mr. Wright pointed out two surprising things that we have found since we started our acquisition process. One is the willing seller often leverages nations against themselves. We do have dialogue between each other, between Mr. Wright and myself and, as he pointed out, other nations to ensure we’re not competing against each other, and we’re doing our best not to contribute to increasing prices for licences and quota.
Senator Cuzner: You mentioned the Alaska transition experience.
Mr. Dean: Yes.
Senator Cuzner: Could you expand on that little bit? We don’t have any information on that. What was that transition period?
Mr. Dean: I’ll need to send you that information, and I’m happy to arrange that to be sent to the senators for sure.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you.
Mr. Dean: One of the things that surprised me was there are many willing sellers — fishing companies and processing companies — that have been set up in Canada. Although registered in Canada, the actual money to set up and run and acquire access is clearly offshore.
As mentioned, we spent quite a bit of time acquiring licences and quota, and all of these transactions have been drafted and run through our lawyers. It’s surprising the number of times we’ve heard anecdotally that the representatives from those selling companies need to get sign-off for our agreements from their offshore investors before they can sign the agreements on their own.
While we might be acquiring, through a registered Canadian company, the funds to operate the companies are certainly not coming from within Canada.
Senator Prosper: Thank you to our witnesses here. It’s been quite informative. My question might be outlined within the Fisheries Resources Reconciliation Agreement, the FRRA. Can you tell me how you undertake commercial activity and activities related to the food, social and ceremonial fishery? Is it under one regime, or is there a separate regime? Could you highlight the relationship between those two fisheries?
Mr. Dean: Thank you for that question, Senator Prosper. I can’t comment about food, social and ceremonial simply because we only deal with commercial licences and quota. I’ll have to defer to Mr. Russ and Mr. Wright on that.
Mr. Wright: For commercial licences in the regular commercial, it would be like any other regular commercial person, and if they want to take some home, it would count against their tack or count, and that would just be used for home use. That’s the terminology.
Under the community fishery, it’s called dual fishing, where the nations can fish commercially under their communal licence but also have the right to fish for food, ceremonial and commercial, or FSC, purpose. This is, generally, identified on the licence. That’s how it’s curved right now between FSC and commercial, depending on if it’s a communal commercial licence with the nation or if it’s a regular commercial.
Mr. Russ: Some of the Indigenous fishers I know do have the ability to dual fish under their commercial access and do that. However, there is a clause, as you referenced, senator, in the Fisheries Resources Reconciliation Agreement recognizing that the fishing itself is done under the aggregate, and each individual nation holds its inherent rights and title, which includes the right to access for food, social and ceremonial purposes. They each have the ability to negotiate directly with the Crown on the right to access food, social and ceremonial individually.
It’s not addressed under the FRRA agreement as it is. It is left to each nation that is a party to the agreement to, at their will, negotiate with the Crown on that piece.
Senator Prosper: Further to that, Mr. Russ, I think you mentioned it takes place outside the FRRA, and it’s more a bilateral discussion between the nation and DFO for food, social and ceremonial?
Mr. Russ: Yes.
Senator Prosper: Mr. Dean, you mentioned how the prices for licences have been going up, I believe 150% in certain scenarios and 400% when you referenced sea urchins. And then you had this term of “money sheltering.” Can you provide a bit of clarity in terms of what is meant by that term?
Mr. Dean: Well, I know there’s been some talk about money laundering occurring within our fisheries. There was a 2019 report titled Dirty Money that suggested licences had been acquired to launder money, but I actually have no facts to support that.
When I used the term “money sheltering,” it is because we know that there are offshore investments and offshore ownership and foreign investments occurring within our industry. And whether that’s illegal or simply for tax shelter purposes, we just know it’s occurring.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: We have senators for second round, but before they get to their questions, I have a question.
I’m not sure who would like to answer it, but I think it was, Mr. Dean, you mentioned the fact that, as you do your fishery, there are a number of “offshore” companies that you encounter. We’re not asking for statistics, but what is your professional guess about how much of the commercial fishery on the West Coast is done by people who are “offshore” either directly or indirectly through investment?
Mr. Dean: Thank you for the question, deputy chair. I would — I don’t know if I could really hazard a guess. I would estimate that some of the conventional fisheries, like salmon and herring, and some of the fin fish fisheries, have very little foreign investment, but it’s the fisheries that are destined for other markets and export traditionally in — in other countries that typically have more ownership involved in them.
Some of the dive fisheries and some of the trap fisheries tend to have a higher predominance and percentage of foreign ownership than some of the more traditional fisheries that you may be used to.
The Deputy Chair: I would imagine — you talked about sea cucumber, spot prawns, some of those things that wouldn’t necessarily find their way into a No Frills grocery store, would be part of the offshore source fishery?
Mr. Dean: Correct. Geoduck, sea cucumbers, urchin, red urchin, green urchin and crab. There seems to be a higher predominance of investment and foreign ownership on those products.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Wright or Mr. Russ, do you have any comment on that question before we move on?
Mr. Wright: None from me, thanks.
Mr. Russ: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the only thing that I would add to it is that there’s no real fact-based way to check.
I know the department itself put out a poll to harvesters to ensure that they are B.C.-registered companies, but that’s as far as it goes. So there’s no real way for us to really back up — it’s only been speculative, from what we’ve heard from insiders.
The Deputy Chair: Is that due to the lack of transparency in the registry?
Mr. Russ: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Second round, if you can bear with us, if you have the time, senators are very interested.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for the testimony here today. I just wanted to pick up on Senator Prosper’s question. Mr. Dean, you already responded to this with respect to money laundering and money sheltering.
I wanted to pick up on that conversation and offer the opportunity to Mr. Russ or Mr. Wright to also comment on whether you have experienced or seen, with the absence of registry transparency, all the things you’re speaking about; foreign ownership and not really knowing where the money is coming from, prices are going through the roof. Have you come across or heard, or have you observed any type of activity that would mimic or would look like organized crime coming into the fishery industry?
Maybe Mr. Wright and then Mr. Russ and Mr. Dean, if you wanted to comment on that?
Mr. Wright: In my current role, I haven’t experienced any of the foreign ownership or organized crime in the fishery there. In the nations’ fishery, under their rights-based fishery is 100% dockside and verified in the fishery there, and it’s quite monitored there too.
I have heard some rumours in terms of other fisheries that could be more cash-based are buying higher and selling lower through a cash sale, and then having that laundered through that approach there. I have only heard through word-of-mouth of that type of example, but not that I’ve seen in the current fishery that I work for.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. Mr. Russ.
Mr. Russ: Similarly, I haven’t in my role. It’s more a policy reform and implementation oversight role. Similar to Mr. Wright, I’ve only heard of transactions. I’ve never witnessed or had it happen anywhere around my activity.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you. Mr. Dean, anything to add to that?
Mr. Dean: No, I don’t really think I have anything to add. I think Mr. Russ really highlighted the need for a proper licence registry that actually highlights the beneficial owner of the licence, and that would combat that problem, I believe, or it would help. It would be a tool to combat that problem.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: I short-changed you. Would you like to ask another question?
Senator Dhillon: No, thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: I have two unrelated questions.
We’ve heard concerns from DFO about the privacy concerns of licence holders and that it shouldn’t be a public list. I can’t understand why a national resource that is licensed by the government would not be publicly available — the beneficial ownership wouldn’t be publicly available. Have you heard any justification for that? Do any of you have anything to offer in that regard, just justifications around that?
The other concern that you’ve raised is DFO’s concerns over the current licence holders. I’m intrigued that they’re concerned that licence holders might be speculating in the industry more than the health of the industry, the communities that fish it, and the health of the ocean.
So I’d love to hear some explanations around either one of those, if any of you have a way to help me. Maybe start with Mr. Wright, if we could?
Mr. Wright: Thank you, senator. For Fisheries and Oceans Canada, concerns about privacy might be a standard response in terms of sharing public information. I didn’t see an issue in terms of having a public registry on that, and it could be a referral to the privacy commissioner for those types of things to help answer DFO’s response on that.
In terms of the current licence holders and concerns, I think one of them — as Mr. Dean mentioned — was having the supply and the people to fish that supply if you go to an owner-operator model. There have been examples — as he mentioned — in other areas, such as Alaska and the East Coast, in terms of moving toward owner-operator.
I’m hoping that helped answer your two questions there.
Senator C. Deacon: Anything as a follow-up, Mr. Dean or Mr. Russ?
Mr. Dean: Certainly. I agree with Mr. Wright. There shouldn’t be any privacy concerns.
There is already a database available, if you look, that is supposedly of beneficial ownership, but we know it is not accurate. I see no reason why it shouldn’t be publicly available.
With regard to the processors, you’ve already had testimony from several processors. In the case of Mike Frost from Canfisco Group, who is one of the larger holders of salmon and herring licences, he clearly stated that his organization was not opposed to owner-operator policy.
I’m not stating that every processor would be happy with an owner-operator regime change, as there are some that have used these assets as an investment strategy. However, I don’t think you would get pushback from the good players in the industry — those who are invested in their fishers, in the coastal communities up and down the coast and share ownership with First Nations and fishing vessels and access to resources and just want a stable supply to feed their operations.
I really don’t believe these good corporate citizens that are positively invested in this industry will have an issue with the owner-operator policy, as long as that transition is done responsibly, and they can maintain access to the resource through supply agreements with their independent fleet.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you.
Mr. Russ, anything to add?
Mr. Russ: Just on the latter piece. I know that, in certain fisheries, it’s also a way of price control on the actual guys that are out on the water risking themselves and catching the resource. When I was still participating in numerous fisheries — I used halibut as the example — where the vessel and the crew were being allocated 10 cents to the dollar to be able to cover the costs of being out there. That’s fuel, bait, grub and paying your crew and the shares to the boat as well.
I don’t know what it is today, but that was a number of years ago now, so I see it as an ongoing challenge. We are also aware that the middle folks managing the supply chains are controlling access by driving up some of the prices that we see today.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much.
The second question I want to ask builds on earlier questions from colleagues. I really want to understand the principles and guardrails that need to be in place. When we are distinguishing between the type of corporate ownership that you’ve established in your communities and the broader corporate ownership that we’re seeing in the industry, what are the key principles and key guardrails that need to be in place in order to make sure that that community benefit is there?
If you could help us understand those, that could be quite helpful, because that’s a distinction that I don’t think we’ve really drilled into, and it could really help us in our understanding.
Mr. Russ, if you could start. Then we’ll work our way around.
Mr. Russ: Sure. Again, in the documents that I will have my team share with the Senate committee, we do have a number of recommendations to ensure that when community-held access is still there, that there are parameters around how they can be utilized for the benefit of the community.
I’m hoping that is what you were getting at with your question, senator.
Senator C. Deacon: Yes. I am just trying to understand what those are. If that’s a document that’s coming, then we’ll look forward to that.
Is there anything you can offer in the meantime from any one of you? Mr. Wright?
Mr. Wright: Yes, we’ve gotten guidance from our nations in terms of how to balance the licences that the nations hold. That’s a benefit for the nation, but also a benefit for the fisher. Mr. Dean provided an example of a percentage of the regular lease rate that would help get a better balance for the fisher.
The other one is looking to make sure that the benefits do stay in the communities that we work for and that it goes back to the communities.
Another one is that the fishers fish the access too, so I think it’s very similar to owner-operator and that they don’t themselves become their own armchair person and have the access and lease it out type of thing.
What we found is when First Nations do have and own under their corporate ownership, it tends to then flow back into the community and benefit those communities. There are some examples, and when you do a fishery, the fishers are from there, and they tend to go — and it’s a sense of place for nations, and they always come back home. If they do fish, they will come back home and spend within the community they’re associated with, too.
That is some of the guidance that we’ve been provided by the five Nations in terms of how we operate.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Dean, do you have anything to add to your colleagues?
Mr. Dean: Yes. I’ve already highlighted that we don’t retain any of our profits, and our profits are distributed back to our shareholder nations. I think that’s key and critical for the success of those communities.
We’ve already had two of our shareholder nations take those profits and reinvest back into acquiring ice machines for their communities, which they didn’t have before. Those are feel-good stories about the success of investing back in the community.
I think, then, obviously, those tools that I talked about, like having a licence and quota registry — Mr. Wright pointed this out — fair leasing policies, inline supplier agreements and extended transition timelines, are all tools, but those tools need to be implemented for you to have a successful model.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
I’m going to channel my inner Senator Manning and ask you to keep your questions as short as you possibly can, please, as we move forward. You made it in under the wire, but we are keeping our guests.
Senator Surette: Mine will be very brief. I have two questions, and we can just go around.
We’ve heard from some independent fishers on the Pacific Coast that in leasing licences, they could pay up to 70% to 80% of the price of their landings. I’m wondering how that affects your nations and your organizations.
We have heard from non-Indigenous witnesses from the Pacific Coast as well that access is the issue, not licensing. In other words, there is not enough fish for the number of licences that are there.
The other problem or issue is that there are more and more protected marine areas. If I could get your comments on some of that and how it affects your nations or organizations, maybe starting with Mr. Russ.
Mr. Russ: Sure, I would like to start with the second question around the marine protected area, or MPA, processes. Our nations have been actively engaged in that process from the onset. A lot of the work was initiated by the member nations of our organization along with other First Nations on the coast that have guided the important areas in their territories, the development of the MPA network process and currently actively negotiating through the governance processes for those areas.
Of course, it’s been identified by fishers that it does affect them because those are the prime areas for the specific species that are targeted in those areas, whether they are mating grounds or whatever may be in those areas that are causing the effect of access because that’s where the majority of the fish congregate, depending on species. The ability to get your quota in a shorter amount of time obviously goes away with that ability to travel.
There are concerns raised, but there is also an understanding by the nations of the need to take an ecosystem-based approach to the management of the resource, and that there is going to be a lull from time to time that you’re going to have to go through. Other regions that have been studied have shown that there are benefits to those areas over the longer term, but it’s a short-term cost for those that are having to bear the brunt of that. The nations are prepared to take that on.
The Deputy Chair: Would anyone else like to comment?
Mr. Wright: The high percentage of a lease cost to the sale of the fishery is a reality for fishers. For the five Nations I work for, they do have a rights-based fishery protected under the Constitution, section 35, very similar to the FSC that was mentioned earlier. Due to a lot of the management and resources in the area, they’re not able to fully fish in those. So it’s also a combination of them doing regular commercial that allows the nation to fish outside of their territory there. I’ll use halibut as an example, which is going for $7 a pound to lease, and fishers are getting $11 paid to them. They still have to pay for their gas, operations, maintenance, crew, food and those types of things.
Where we’ve been able to help on our part is that a better balance of that per cent in terms of the lease rates in terms of the regular going rate.
You also mentioned access. For the nations, they do have a Court Defined Area, in which the court declared where their rights are associated. Say the nations have purchased regular price prawn access, but when they convert it into the community fishery, they can only fish in their CDA, it’s called. What happens, though, is it opens at the same time as the regular commercial, and it works off a spawner index that you fish it down to, and then it closes that area.
What has been happening is we’ve had fishers fish at the same time as the regular commercial, and they fish it down, it closes, the regular commercial can leave and head to the next area, but our fishers are stuck in that area there. That’s an issue for the nations as you move forward with some of the modernization of licensing and how to capture more regionally based management for this type of fishery that has access issues there but can move more toward a regionally based approach to management.
Those were two examples.
The other one is DFO, and MPAs have had some large areas within that Court Defined Area of an MPA rockfish areas there, and have limited the nations’ access to those areas. That’s something that needs to be resolved between the nations and the government.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Dean, did you have anything that you would like to add to that?
Mr. Dean: Certainly, as a commercial fishing company, the MPAs will impact us as well, but there is a lot of fear in the unknown. There is also a lot of positioning to try to lobby for the best interests of the entire industry by some of these organizations and groups. We have also done our own research. We do some extensive research in our acquisition process to make sure that we’re buying what we think is access that benefits our nations’ citizens. But there are some of the traditional fisheries, like salmon, where there is access to the resource that is in over capacity, for sure. That’s one of the reasons that we have not invested heavily in salmon, for sure. Those are definitely concerns.
When it comes to leasing, I’ve already mentioned what our company is doing, as Mr. Wright pointed out about the leasing policy for halibut, halibut is a really good example. In our case, we have agreed to split. If the landed cost of halibut is $11, we’ve agreed to take $5.50 and give our harvesters $5.50, which is much different than what the rest of the industry is doing. We want to be a profitable company, but we want to be a fair and equitable company as well.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Ravalia: Very briefly, and this may not even be relevant, but does aquaculture fall into this arena at all? If so, what are the impacts in terms of regulations and your ability to develop an aquaculture industry? Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright: Where aquaculture relates with some of the licensing regime is some of the seeding of some of the commercial species. Geoduck is one of those in terms of seeding and zones that would have overlap on some of the food fishing there. The other one is the clams and clam beds of historical areas that have commercial licences for the nations there. There are historical aquaculture practices as it relates to clam beds in the territory there, too.
There are aquaculture fin fish, but also shellfish aquaculture that occurs in the territory as well. For Ha’oom as an organization, it is more related to commercial fisheries and not related to aquaculture.
Senator Ravalia: Gentlemen, did either of you want to comment on that at all? Mr. Dean.
Mr. Dean: Yes, in our case, as part of the FRRA, the capital we receive from Canada is very prescribed and can only be used for wild capture species, so we’re not involved in aquaculture at all.
The nations can take any of the profits that are generated, and they can use that toward aquaculture. I know, in some cases, up by Prince Rupert in northern B.C., one of our nations is actually investing in seaweed culture.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you. Mr. Russ to finish off.
Mr. Russ: Yes, not currently. In the past, though, prior to the Coastal Nation Fisheries and the Fisheries Resources Reconciliation Agreement, we did some investment into some opportunities around shellfish aquaculture. A number of the nations, as part of the aggregate, did some research, and then it led to the creation of what was then called Coastal Shellfish Corporation, which grew scallops out of Prince Rupert, but it was unsuccessful due to access to seed at the time. There had been interests in the past from the member nations to explore.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
We’ve come to the end of our list, and I want to thank all three of our witnesses today for the valuable information that you’ve passed on to us as we prepare our report on our comparison. Coming from British Columbia, myself and one of my colleagues here, we live in a beautiful part of our beautiful country. So thanks for taking the time to share that, and I wish you all the best.
(The committee continued in camera.)