Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 2 - Evidence - November 27 meeting
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 27, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 9:15 a.m. to consider the questions of privatization and quota licensing in Canada's fisheries.
Senator Gérald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I will call the meeting to order.
This morning we will look at a film that was done some months ago on the crisis that took place last year in western Nova Scotia. It depicts the feelings of people towards actions of the fisheries. I will leave it to yourselves to determine whether there may be another side to the story, but I think this film will give you a flavour of the non-supportive attitude of some people towards fisheries policies.
This fits in quite well with what this committee has been asking the government to look at for the past number of years. As a matter of fact, the last two reports of this committee have asked the government to look at the whole question of privatization and to come up with a definitive policy, or at least a more open policy, on its views on privatization. It is a result of not having tackled this very important issue and why it is important that the committee continue looking at privatization as one of its subjects.
(Video presentation.)
The Chairman: I have just a couple of comments. The film does present one view and, as you can tell, it does not pretend to present the other sides of the issue. This is why, last year, this committee chose to take a balanced view of the privatization issue and to attempt to identify the issues -- not necessarily come up with solutions but at least identify the issues.
This committee's last two reports, dated 1993 and 1995, have asked the government to look at this issue and to come up with some kind of policy. We have yet to have any kind of response, as far as I know, from government on this whole subject. At one point in the film it was mentioned that, to date, the government has no policy on this.
We are still seeing much activity on the East Coast. As a matter of fact, the Commons fisheries committee is presently touring the East Coast. Many of the problems they are hearing about are symptoms of this privatization issue. That is why I believe this committee, looking at privatization, is on the right track.
One of the things this committee has talked about is talking to the people in the fishing communities on the East and West Coast. Another method would be to look at the experience of countries that have taken the privatization route all the way. For example, Iceland and New Zealand are two countries that have completely privatized, as far as I know; and Norway is well on the way to becoming completely privatized.
We can learn from their experience; not necessarily adopt or refute what these countries are doing, but at least learn from their experience. What we must decide is what should be done first? Should we look at the other countries to find out what their experience has been and then come back and talk to our own fishing industry? Or should we talk to our fishing industry first and then examine what has happened elsewhere.
Senator Jessiman: Mr. Chairman, two years ago we were looking at setting up a teleconference with outside people. What happened to that initiative?
The Chairman: The teleconferencing was scheduled to be done last April, actually. However, by the time April came around, we knew an election was going to be called within a matter of weeks and, in this regard, rather than issue a contract and commit public funds -- video conferencing can be quite expensive -- we decided to hold off.
Senator Robertson: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about privatizing here. There are the inshore fisherman, who are really their own business people; and then you have the corporate draggers. Are we considering all of these in privatizing? Define "privatization" for us again. Are you saying that the inshore fisherman are not privatized?
The Chairman: Very briefly, a quota licence, on a year-to-year basis, entitles a person to a percentage of the quota that is allocated to his or her fleet. For example, under-65-foot draggers are allotted X-number of tonnes of fish. If a person owns X-number of shares, that person is entitled to a percentage of the quota that is allotted to his or her fleet.
Senator Robertson: I understand that.
The Chairman: For example, let us say that on January 1 the minister says that your annual allotment is 100,000 tonnes. With that information, you can spread your catch over the year.
Senator Robertson: Be careful when you are talking about privatizing.
The Chairman: We are talking about privatizing the fish, the resource itself. In other words, for the minister to say to a fleet. "This is your fish."
Senator Jessiman: In a particular area?
The Chairman: Yes. I am allowed to buy Senator Jessiman's share of the quota; I am allowed to buy Senator Robichaud's share of the quota.
Senator Robertson: It is just the fish you are talking about?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Robertson: All people who fish can be considered.
Senator Robichaud: Not necessarily.
The Chairman: It is the fleet and the type of fish.
Senator Robertson: Do we have the right name on this thing?
Senator Robichaud: We are not sure.
Senator Robertson: What bothers me is whether we have the right name on this thing.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Information is surely available on how the corporate quota system was developed.
The Chairman: Yes, this information is available and everything was done according to the rules.
Senator Robichaud: Is information available on ITQs and on the seasonal fishery so that we can distinguish between the two systems?
The Chairman: Yes, our researcher, Claude Emery, prepared a series of documents last year covering almost all of the major issues such as fishery type or zone and the various species.
Mr. Claude Emery, Research Officer, Library of Parliament: The committee also has an Internet site which provides general information on the study.
The Chairman: On this study in particular and on our previous reports as well. With your permission, we intend to continue making the committee's reports and proceedings available on the Internet.
Senator Robichaud: I see. When we look at the stocks that have been more or less privatized...
[English]
Senator Robertson, take the snow crab fishery in New Brunswick, for example, where a limited number of people can go out to fish.
The Chairman: Correct.
Senator Robichaud: If you remember over the last couple of years, we have tried to redistribute that wealth. I think you will remember what happened when we tried to redistribute a very small portion to the inshore people, who are the little guys. We are looking into something that is very sensitive. Even if it makes the best of sense to try to redistribute, that is not always how it is interpreted out there in the streets and in the community. This is an important issue to the fisherman, to the factory workers, because they are affected by whatever happens out there. That is why I would like to have all the information that we can possibly have so that we know what we are talking about.
Senator Robertson: The other aspect to your point is that it affects so many people; the methodologies affect the stocks and so we must look at that.
The Chairman: I remain convinced that our approach is the proper method to use, rather than tackling hot issues, for example, like TAGS, or whatever. I think we are approaching this thing in a very meaningful way and that it is the way to go.
Senator Jessiman: By looking at that film, if those people got what they apparently want, it is that they just want to go out and fish, period. Surely they cannot believe that there should not be any regulations.
The Chairman: The film, as I noted earlier, is very raw and it presents one side of the equation.
Senator Jessiman: It presents it so far to one side that I just cannot believe they believe that.
Senator Meighen: Also at the base of it is the identity of the purchaser of quotas. I suppose it is possible to restrict the identity of the purchasers. If quotas are changing hands from one fisherman to another, that is fine. One fisherman can also be a front for a corporation.
The Chairman: Your are right on the ball on this one, right on the money.
Senator Meighen: Have they ever tried?
The Chairman: This is what this committee is all about. To date, we have had, for example, the think tanks, such as the Atlantic Institute of Management Studies, the Fraser Institute, private property groups, pushing for this. They are very articulate; they present a very strong case.
Senator Meighen: Pushing for?
The Chairman: For a private property fishery.
Senator Meighen: Privatization.
Senator Robertson: There is that word again.
The Chairman: They call it private property, ITQs, but privatizing the resource.
Senator Jessiman: That is a location, is it?
Senator Meighen: Whoever came up with that term really got it backwards.
The Chairman: There is nobody more private-sector oriented than a small boat person.
Senator Robertson: That is right.
The Chairman: On the other side of the equation, those representing the competitive fishery people have not been very articulate in their presentation. I am not pointing that out as a fault; they are not as well organized, of course.
Senator Robichaud: As a point of information, those people were dead-set against individual transferable quotas.
Senator Meighen: Was that because they could not be sure that the transfer would go to another individual?
Senator Robichaud: Their argument goes like this: If I am a wealthy fisherman and you are having some problems, then I can buy your quota -- you will sell because you are having problems and need the money right now, while I can wait -- and go and fish it. They are dead-set against that.
When snow crab was redistributed, a certain number of tonnes was allocated to MFU, for example. The result was that they divided the allocation between X-number of fishermen, but they could transfer. So that happened.
Senator Robertson: Did the Department of Fisheries give them the ITQs?
Senator Robichaud: No. They gave them an allocation. Out of the general quota, X-number of tonnes -- I think it was 9,000 or 10,000 -- was given to the inshore, through their associations. The fishermen themselves decided that X-number of names would be drawn out of a hat to go out and fish because there was not enough for everybody. They would have a definite quota. They could sell their quota; they could transfer it. And it happened in many cases.
I do not agree with that. I think the fishermen should be out there fishing, but some of them chose to sell it. It depends on where you are, what fishery you are involved with, and how it is presented to the association.
The Chairman: You said it depends on where you stand.
Senator Robichaud: It depends on what region you are from.
Senator Butts: I just wanted to add to what Senator Robichaud was saying. In their minds, they are selling it to a neighbour and it will stay in the community. To me, that is the key. If the union is dividing it up among its members, it is not going to National Sea. It is a different meaning of ITQ than the one they are putting on National Sea. Whether that is right or wrong, I am not judging. I am just understanding it, from years of talking with these people.
When you say private property, it seems to me that that carries the opposite meaning of common property. The medieval notion of common property was that the creator put it there not for individual use, but for the group, the community, the society, whatever. It is the same principle when you talk about Crown lands. That is the only way I can understand it anyway.
I think the fishery is the only area left, of all our natural resources, that is trying to cling to the idea that the fish out there belong to us all and that if we need it to live, then we ought to have it to live, however we work that out.
Senator Robertson: Back to Senator Robichaud's comment -- and I understand perfectly where he is coming from, in that we were all watching the crab commotion with great interest. What was the sense of going through all that commotion and having them sell back their quotas. It seems to me that if we go that way, the fisheries department should have allowed them to sell back. If the fishermen say one day that they want the quotas for their own resources, why would they be able to sell them the next day? I just do not understand that policy.
Senator Robichaud: This was a case of taking some quota from the offshore.
Senator Robertson: I understand that.
Senator Robichaud: Which had the monopoly. There were 130 boats, making a good living -- and I have nothing against that. For the inshore, especially those who fish for lobster only, there are good times and bad times. This year in our area, it was a disaster.
Regarding the quota that was transferred from the offshore to the inshore, when it was distributed within the inshore I would say that about 50 per cent of the fishermen did not want transferable quota while the other 50 did want it.
Whenever I met fisherman in a group, I would ask them: If you were to get a quota for crab, would you go out fishing? About 33 per cent would say, "Yes. If we can get quota, I will organize myself, organize my boat, and I will go." Others would say, "It is too far out; my boat is not well-equipped." For those who wanted to go out when they chose transferable quotas, it that meant that anybody could participate in the fisheries, even those who did not want to go out.
Senator Robertson: That is my point; I think that is a wrong policy. Why would you do that?
Senator Robichaud: Because the fishermen decided that is how they wanted to do it.
Senator Robertson: You know what they are going to do; they were looking for quick money.
The Chairman: I think Senator Robichaud is bringing up an extremely important example of why we should continue with this rather than trying to solve it this morning. However, I think we are approaching understanding, if we can understand the issues, rather than coming up with the solution. If we can understand the issues, we are well on the way to contributing something to the debate.
Just for those who might have missed it, I wrote an article a few weeks ago, copies of which I have here, if you wish. It was published in the Telegraph-Journal in New Brunswick. It is interesting to note that The Chronicle-Herald did not publish my article at that time. However, after we raised a little bit of a fuss, the Chronicle did decide to publish my article. They published it this morning, as a matter of fact. So finally, justice prevails.
The whole point of my article was to raise the debate, to keep the debate alive and to present issues around the debate; not necessarily to come up with solutions but to debate it. That is what is important. I have a copy of the article here, for anybody who wants it. As well, there is a bit of a clip on what was presented this morning in the film.
Where do we take it from here? My immediate reaction is that we should look at what has happened in those countries that have gone all the way into this -- let us call it "privatization" for a moment -- and then examine its potential impact on Canada.
Senator Meighen: Is there any scientific documentation as to the alleged damage created by draggers? If so, why do we not deal with that?
The Chairman: Regarding the draggers, there is no scientific proof anyway.
Senator Meighen: Ask any fisherman, he knows.
Senator Butts: A study done at Dalhousie did illustrate with TAGS the damage that is done and why the cod, for example, cannot breed on that ground that is absolutely levelled out. There has been a study of that in Dalhousie.
Senator Robichaud: There have also been many improvements to the various drags, such as the size of the mesh, either diamond or square, resulting in a chance for the small fish to exit. It is complicated. There is a lot of technology involved.
The Chairman: It is very technical, it is very scientific, and it would be beyond the scope of this committee. I think this committee would better serve the public by looking at a policy issue rather than a scientific issue.
Senator Robertson: We may need to get to Senator Meighen's point eventually.
Senator Meighen: If the draggers take all the fish, this may become very academic.
Senator Robertson: That is right.
The Chairman: What is your suggestion on the next step? Should we talk to those countries that have gone the privatization route in order to inform ourselves before we come back and see Canadians?
Senator Robichaud: There seems to be, Mr. Chairman, an opinion that we have privatized fisheries in New Brunswick, in Atlantic Canada and on the West Coast, on all coasts. I suggest that we do some research that meets your definition of "privatized fisheries". We can start from there, see how it is developing, and then move on from there.
The Chairman: Excellent point.
Senator Robichaud: If we go elsewhere to look at privatization, not knowing what exists in our own backyard, I do not think we will be able to associate.
The Chairman: Excellent point. We have taken some baby steps in this regard. We are aware of a quota system as it relates to scallops, herring, the gulf snow crab on the East Coast. I think there are few other fisheries. On the West Coast, there is the black cod, the abalone fishery, something they call a geoduck, and a few others. There are some fleets in the groundfish sector, for example, that are under an individual transferable quota system and some that are not. We will try to get a feel for the numbers. Excellent point.
Senator Meighen: We do not know why other countries took a certain route. Perhaps we could get a little background as to why they made the decisions they did. If we find something that looks intriguing, we could zero in on that. I have my doubts as to the efficacy of spending a great deal of time researching other situations.
The Chairman: A number of witnesses have pointed to various countries as to how well things are going. They cited Iceland, for example. Therefore, I it is important to investigate whether or not the situation is as positive as they have said it is. If so, it does not necessarily mean that it would apply to Canada. Conversely, others have said the situation in other countries is a disaster.
Senator Butts: Much of that research can be done in the library. Iceland has been written up, as has Norway. My perusal has shown me that their success is in aquaculture, and specifically in the fish farms all along their shores. They saved their smaller communities by going that route. Another positive result is that their efforts have resulted in new biological information. However, we, in Cape Breton, have had little success with aquaculture because of the susceptibility to disease of some of our fish.
The Chairman: I am not suggesting that the committee travel to these countries. I would propose that we glean as much information as we can about what is happening by using a satellite link, just as we did last year.
Senator Robertson: As most of us know that over the last two or three years the lobster fishery has experienced severe difficulties. Reports indicate that, unless the government takes some steps immediately to deal with the circumstances in the lobster fishery, that fishery could go the way of the cod fishery. The east cannot take any more hits. I would feel somewhat comforted knowing that this committee will studying this whole area.
It has been three years since the fisheries council produced their first report, and they have made some excellent recommendations, none of which has yet been adopted. It is time we started applying pressure on the department to take steps to preserve this fishery before it is too late.
The Chairman: May I make a suggestion? Under our present mandate, nothing precludes us from asking a DFO official to make a presentation on the lobster fishery. Our mandate is broad enough to cover that. Should we ask someone from the department to appear before the committee next Thursday morning?
Senator Robertson: I would also like to have information from other sources.
Senator Robichaud: This area is of vital importance to Eastern Canada. An excellent report containing clear recommendations was prepared, but it has never been acted upon. I do not think the problem lies with DFO. I think there is, perhaps, a lack of information sharing between the various fishermen's associations and the department. I believe that, if they were to come together, DFO would implement the recommendations regarding hoop size, the number of traps and so on.
Another problem lies with the fishermen themselves, in that they tend to focus on their particular concerns and never reach a consensus.
Senator Robertson: Perhaps this committee can help the fishermen to reach some consensus.
I have no reason to doubt the voracity of the report; and the findings contained therein, quite frankly, scare me.
The Chairman: It would be a good idea to talk with representatives of DFO and ask for their suggestions.
[Translation]
The Chairman: That could be a starting point.
Senator Robichaud: The committee and DFO representatives could visit those associations involved with the inshore fishers. As you will see, this is a complex problem.
[English]
Senator Robertson: May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the report be circulated to all the members of our committee so they can be familiar with its contents before fisheries comes in next week. They same would apply to any other documentation which can support the figures in the report.
The Chairman: That will be done.
[Translation]
Senator Meighen: Could you explain to me why this committee never travels? Is it because we do not have the funds?
Senator Robichaud: The committee decided not to travel. I was not a member in the past. Certainly we have to justify any trips to Atlantic Canada or elsewhere, but I think that we could request the necessary funds.
Senator Meighen: In principle, our request should not be rejected.
The Chairman: No, but we have not made such a request in the past. There is nothing preventing us from doing so now. Sometimes, the best approach is to speak directly to the fishers in their community.
Senator Meighen: We would feel much more comfortable then.
The Chairman: We would learn a great deal more. The subcommittee on agenda and procedure could review this matter and come up with a proposal.
[English]
Senator Rossiter: This article indicates that the fishermen were to appear in court on November 7. It would be interesting to know what happened.
The Chairman: We will find out what happened.
Senator Rossiter: This article, dated November 7, states that the case against the fishermen will go to court next week. I am sure information regarding the findings of the court must be available.
The Chairman: As you can see there is no lack of work for the committee to tackle.
Senator Robichaud: If we choose some issues like the lobster situation where we can sort of circumvent --
[Translation]
... isolate the problem and determine what really is going on. In many cases, steps could be taken to save the fishery. For example, the lobster fishery could be threatened in a few years' time if we do not take the appropriate action.
The Chairman: The public often has a difficult time taking a position on these complex matters. Therefore, we could help inform them.
[English]
Senator Butts: An added complication is that the season varies at every spot along the coast, which means that the fishermen have difficulty in reaching a consensus.
Senator Robertson: Surely we have learned something from the cod experience.
Senator Butts: The cod experience is more offshore, and all the ground fishermen are together on that. The main problem is trying to deal with 10 or so fishermen's unions.
Senator Robichaud: Different regions have different groups of fishermen. Some of those groups unilaterally decided to fish only a certain size of lobster in order to allow regeneration. That was their decision. If we were to invite other groups to become involved, it might be the catalyst to further steps being taken. However, as I have said, some groups have acted on their own without input from DFO or any other body.
The Chairman: It has been a most interesting morning. It is obvious that much work remains to be done by our committee.
The committee adjourned.