Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 15 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 26, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 8:30 a.m. to consider the questions of privatization and quota licensing in Canada's fisheries.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We will continue with our order of reference, which is the privatization and quota licensing in Canada's fisheries. Before I call on our witness, I wish to make some short introductory remarks.
Today's hearing is once again being televised, so we extend a special welcome to those who are watching at home. We are very pleased to have before us the Honourable David Anderson, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Over the past several months, this committee has been conducting a study of privatization and quota licencing in Canada's commercial fisheries. We made extensive use of video conferencing, and sampled a wide spectrum of opinion from Canadians. We also heard from experts in Iceland and New Zealand, countries considered to be the world leaders in privatizing their fisheries. We appreciate the valuable contribution of all witnesses, both in Canada and abroad.
Although privatization covers a wide variety of matters, the debate in Canada centres largely on giving fishing operations some form of private ownership of fish stocks in the form of individual quota licences, also known as IQs, IVQs, ITQs and EAs. These fishing licences provide individual fishermen or fishing companies with the right to annually harvest a certain quantity of fish -- a sort of swimming inventory. Quota licences are a major departure from the traditional competitive fisheries management approach, and the question of extending them stirs up strong emotions on both coasts in Canada. Fishers in fishing communities are very much divided on the issue.
The privatization of fishing rights in Canada began in earnest in the early 1980s. I should add that the process has been gradual, has taken place during the tenure of several fisheries ministers, and has involved successive governments. As such, the subject matter is not a partisan one, and it has many sides.
For the record, Mr. Anderson, we realize that you do not have an easy portfolio. These are difficult times in the fishery. The mandate, programs and services of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans directly affect the lives and livelihood of tens of thousands of people in the freshwater and ocean fisheries. They also indirectly affect the lives of other people in many communities, who depend on the fishery. You are called on to make decisions that affect many fisheries in many regions, and to balance conflicting demands.
The minister is no stranger to very difficult water-related activities. I refer to the days when he was an Olympian and a rowing champion. The members of this committee do not envy your current Olympian challenge.
We look forward to your opening comments, and to a good round of questions.
Hon. David Anderson, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: There are many conflicting and difficult pressures on fisheries, and there is a need to have a dispassionate and in-depth analysis of these without the immediate partisan concerns that sometimes affect elected officials. This suggests to me that, in the examination that your committee is making, the Senate is very much fulfilling its traditional and extremely important role. I welcome your remarks, and I am very honoured that you have invited me to be here today.
[Translation]
I want first of all to commend you and committee members for all your hard work reviewing privatization and quota licensing in Canada's fisheries.
There are difficult questions involved in this issue and you have spent a great deal of time interviewing witnesses and gathering information from other fishing nations. I look forward to reading your report, which I understand will be released in December.
Since this is my first time appearing before your committee, I would like to begin by reviewing briefly my long term goals and providing a progress report on some of my department's major policy initiatives. After that, I will return to the subject of privatization and quota licensing.
[English]
For obvious reasons, most of your attention -- and mine -- has lately been concentrated on fisheries. Some of Canada's major traditional fisheries are in trouble, and some are in deep trouble. We have had to act decisively to change the way that we manage our fisheries -- both in the Pacific salmon case and in the Atlantic lobster case, to cite two examples -- to save what we have, and to forestall bigger problems down the road.
I must note that the state of the fisheries, as troubling as it may be, is not our sole concern. My department is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We sometimes tend to forget the "oceans" component of DFO, and that the state of the world's oceans is also a matter of grave concern.
As for the fisheries, I have one simple message to communicate today, which is the same message that I have been striving to communicate everywhere since June of 1997, when I first became Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That message is straightforward; conservation must be our first priority. When it comes to fisheries management, conservation is my first priority, and it is the priority that I have set for my department.
[Translation]
The message is that conservation must be our first priority. When it comes to fisheries management, conservation is my first priority, and the priority I have set for my department.
[English]
I have sometimes described this as saying, "Without fish you do not have fishermen." I believe that is a very simple truth that must be well understood. Yes, it is important to have the opportunity to fish, but the entire industry will disappear unless we protect the stocks.
Recently, I was deeply honoured to receive the Atlantic Salmon Federation's International Conservation Award. I accepted this award, and I share it with many people on the coasts and riverbanks of Atlantic Canada and the Province of Quebec. I said at that time that it is shared with the men and women of my Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, who are on the front lines of science and of the management of the fisheries resource in Canada. I thank them all for their diligence and dedication, their patience and perseverance in accepting and following through with the difficult task of conservation.
I mention the Atlantic Salmon Federation because, 50 years ago, prior to entering the Senate, a very distinguished senator, Senator Hartland Molson, was one of the founding members of the organization. Senator Meighen is a continuing and very active member. The interest of the Senate in the Atlantic Salmon Federation and, I might add, in conservation generally, is well known and well appreciated.
[Translation]
Conservation and protection of fish stocks and habitat is not easy. But giving in to the inevitable political pressure to subordinate the long-term interests of the fish to short-term opportunity has not worked in the past, and I am convinced it does not work in the present, nor will it work in the future.
Conservation must come first, for the simple reason that, if we do not protect and preserve fish stocks, we will have no fishery at all.
[English]
There is no arguing with the fact that we have reached a critical point where decisive action is essential. We still can stop the collapse of important fish stocks, but there is no room for compromise, and certainly no time for delay. That is why I have put conservation first. As much as we want to see a productive fishing industry across the country, we must put the health of the stocks first. However, I do believe we can have healthy stocks -- and from that an economically viable fishery -- if we manage properly.
My vision -- what I would like to see in the future and what we are working towards -- is a fishery that is viable, sustainable and efficiently managed. We need a fishery that provides a good living for independent, professional owner-operators and employees, and one that supports economically healthy coastal communities. It must be a fishery composed of healthy inshore, midshore and offshore sectors. It must be a fishery that supports a flexible, versatile and self-reliant industry, largely self-regulated and operating without government subsidies. It will have room for all sectors -- commercial, aboriginal, and recreational, and it will be a fishery in which government and industry work together to achieve these goals.
If we put all the elements of this vision into practice, we will have a healthy fishery and flourishing fishing communities in the coming century. However, if we fail, we will lose an irreplaceable resource, and we will leave our children and grandchildren in a world infinitely poorer than the one that we inherited.
Honourable senators, I know you spent a lot of time considering the issue of individual quotas. I do not have time today to review the history of fisheries management in Canada, but I would note only that the first quota system began in 1970 on Lake Winnipeg.
We have had various management schemes applied in different fisheries since then, particularly since 1977, when Canada extended its exclusive economic zone to 200 miles from our coast. These schemes relied on limited entry licensing, with vessel and gear restrictions to control fishing capacity. They were combined with measures such as total allowable catches, escapement targets or recruitment strategies to limit catches and protect the resource. However, we now recognize that a competitive "race for the fish" management style, if I may use that term, leads to ever-increasing fishing effort, and excessive fishing capacity.
To address the tendency to overfish, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans promoted alternative management regimes for a number of fisheries. These included individual quotas, known as IQs, individually transferable quotas, known as ITQs, individual vessel quotas, and enterprise allocations. Together, these are known as the IQ programs.
There are three things we should remember about IQs.
First, IQs limit the amount of fish that fishers can catch. This removes the incentive for them to try to increase their catch shares. The hope is that fishers will instead try to maximize efficiency and economic returns from their fixed allocation. IQ programs have been perceived to increase the incidence of discarded small or unwanted fish. In practice, however, IQs have been more effective than previous management regimes in promoting conservation, and in achieving economic objectives.
Second, IQ programs do not confer property rights to either the fishery or the fish. They are conditions of a licence that provide the fishermen with access to a specified quantity of fish. They are an extension of the limited entry licensing system, which is, in fact, in wider use. They do not create -- or need not create, perhaps I should say -- private rights.
Third, only some IQs can be transferred from one fisher to another. These transferable quotas, which I referred to a moment ago as ITQs, have raised concerns. I know that some of you share these concerns about quotas becoming concentrated in the hands of larger operators. However, most IQs are not transferable. The few fisheries in which a transfer can be authorized have limits on the percentage that any single quota holder can hold. In fisheries where there is transferability, our guidelines limit the amount of quota anyone can have to a small percentage of the total quota of the fisheries. The minister retains the discretion to permit such transfers.
Finally, two comprehensive reviews of individual quota programs conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since 1990 have shown that individual quota systems benefit both fisheries management and fishers. For the most part, they have become the management style of choice for the fishers who have tried them.
[Translation]
The rate of participation in IQs demonstrates their popularity among fishers. These voluntary arrangements now represent over 50 per cent of the landed value on both coasts combined.
IQs are just one of the management tools we use to manage the fishery. Most programs are voluntary in nature and are implemented based on recommendations from industry. They facilitate a more cooperative relationship between fisheries managers and fishers, as well as more conservation-oriented fishing practices. And they facilitate our co-management approach whereby government and fishers work together to jointly manage the fishery.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention or the intention of the government to privatize Canada's fisheries. We believe we have a way to balance the size of the catch with the capacity of the resource. Of the management tools we use to achieve this, individual quotas are an important one. They have been effective.
[Translation]
Individual quotas are not a step toward privatization. IQs are a step toward the fishery of the future. You will recall that one element of our vision for the fishery of the future is that it will be a largely self-regulating industry.
[English]
From individual quotas, the next step towards that vision is co-management. Individual quotas are not a prerequisite for co-management, however. Our co-management approach is applicable to all fisheries and fish management regimes. A number of fisheries are now being managed under cooperative management systems, and these are working quite well.
Last September, I struck an independent panel to advise the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the best way to make these partnering arrangements, and on the appropriate legislative framework for such partnering arrangements. The panel will review the experience with co-management to date, and with public expectations about partnering. It will also address commonly raised concerns, such as the eligibility of organizations and partners, the approval process and duration of fisheries management agreements, and how to ensure transparency and openness. I expect to have their report next month.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward with great interest to reading your final report when it comes out in December, but I certainly will be happy to try to answer your questions today.
Senator Stewart: You emphasized the importance of conservation at the start of your presentation. I do not think that anyone around the table would disagree with you on that as a long-term goal. If it is to be a long-term goal, however, it must also be a short-term goal.
From your brief, I got a very rosy impression. That is to say, yes, we have problems, but we are moving ahead, and things are going well. I want to ask a question on a point that seemed to run contrary to that general impression. On page 2 of your brief, you said that some of Canada's major traditional fisheries are in trouble, and you specifically referred to Pacific salmon and Atlantic lobster. What is the major trouble in the lobster fishery, which is a traditional fishery in Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Anderson: I do not wish to give too rosy an impression, but I would like to indicate that landings in Atlantic Canada are up compared to a base year of 1989.
The Quebec shore has had the value of landings to fishermen increase about 39 per cent. Atlantic Canada is up approximately 18 to 19 per cent. In spite of the bad news we have had in the last 8 or 9 years, the value of landings has increased. There is much to be confident about for the future, with careful management.
The fisheries will continue to be a very important factor in the economy of Canada, and of Atlantic Canada in particular. The increase in the gross provincial product of Newfoundland this year will be largely due, not to Hibernia, but to fisheries landing increases.
In response to your specific question on Atlantic lobster, we had concerns about Atlantic lobster even though they are at a very high level. They are, in fact, double to triple what they have been in the past.
Lobster is at a high point on the cyclical curve that we have noticed over the decades. We want to maintain that high level for as long as possible, and to eliminate the trough that has always followed previously. We decided to do that by way of doubling egg production. We decided to do that in order to double the number of lobster eggs, and thus avoid some of the problems, such as the weakening of the lobster stocks that we see in Maine and other American states.
We took measures to increase the carapace size. This measure was generally well received by the industry and by fishers themselves. It was a very unusual step for the industry. There was some grumbling from some parts, centred mostly on the north shore of Prince Edward Island. "Grumbling" is, perhaps, too weak a term for some of the criticism that took place. It has been necessary to take steps that have not been politically popular. People think that the existing situation will continue in the future. They tend to believe that even if it does turn down, it will be in the future, not this year or next year, so let us keep on doing what we are doing.
To take anticipatory measures when things are good is unusual in the fishery. That is the frame of reference for my remarks on the lobster fishery. Having said that, however, I have to assure you that we have no indications that there will be major problems with lobster at all. We expect lobster to continue to be a very important component of the fisheries. Lobster is the single most valuable component of Atlantic fisheries. We have no signs of that trough occurring soon. We do know that troughs do occur, however, and we have to try to anticipate that and raise the trough, rather than lowering the peak.
We have a four-year plan for doubling egg production. On the whole, the fishers have been very cooperative, and have been very imaginative in their suggestions for improvement. The lobster fishers deserve praise for their willingness to support the measures. You can never be sure that you have chosen the right measures. You can never be sure that the timing is exactly right. It is an educated guess, and there will always be some dissent. I do take comfort from Senator's Robichaud's kind remarks, however.
Senator Stewart: You mentioned "steps" but you specified only one -- the carapace size. Do the other steps include trap size limits and exits for the small lobsters? Could you explain?
Mr. Anderson: You are quite correct. I have emphasized the one that was the most controversial and unusual. We did have V-notching of females, so that females would be marked and put back. That has been experimented with and used.
We also have a limit on the trapping of large-size lobsters. The large lobsters are generally female, and, because of their size, produce the largest number of eggs. We have a limit, so that no large lobsters -- the most productive group -- can be harvested.
Changes have been made to trap design. If a trap gets lost, metal that corrodes quickly allows the door to fall off, and the lobsters will escape. This is an important conservation measure, because lobsters are not left in lost traps to starve to death on the ocean bottom.
There have been many measures of that type, but by far the most important and controversial one was the issue of changing carapace size to increase the number of young lobsters that actually spawn. For example, only about 10 per cent of the females with a carapace size of 2.5 inches will spawn. If lobsters are taken at that size, 90 per cent of the females will never spawn. If you increase that size even fractionally -- by fractions of an inch -- you will get that 10 per cent number up to 20 per cent quite quickly.
Senator Stewart: When I was in the House of Commons, my constituency was Antigonish--Guysborough. Antigonish County is on the gulf side of the mainland of Nova Scotia, and Guysborough County is on the Atlantic side. When I first started going into Guysborough County in my role as a politician, there were small ports with 15, 16, and up to 20 lobster fishermen. Now, the number of lobster fishermen in that particular area of Guysborough County is much lower.
One explanation given to me at that time was that the causeway to Cape Breton Island, which is a solid causeway except for a lock area, had stopped the flow of larvae from the relatively warm waters of the Gulf down into the colder water of the Atlantic. A few weeks ago, a scientist who appeared before us said that the information seemed to support that wharf wisdom. Have your department and Transport Canada given any consideration to installing a fishway into the Canso Causeway? I know that that particular issue also came up in the context of the Prince Edward Island crossing.
Mr. Anderson: On the general point of wharf wisdom, I have tried in the department to break down the barriers between the scientists and the fishermen. There is a tremendous amount of wharf wisdom, of knowledge, and of observation. Most fishers are excellent naturalists. They are keen observers of nature, and they have the time and the interest to do some very interesting theorizing, and to provide some very helpful commentary. There have been two solitudes between science and fishers. We tried to break that down, because what is science except the generalization of observation? We are having some success there, and there is much more confidence between the two groups. I appreciate the opportunity to comment in that regard.
With respect to the fishway proposal that you have made I will ask Jacque Robichaud, who would know the history of that proposal.
Mr. Jacque Robichaud, Director General, Resource Management Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: I believe that the issue was raised by the senator when I appeared with a scientist from the department. I remember the issue was the impact of the Canso Causeway. The scientist commented on the habitat's importance for the egg production, the larvae, and also the flow. I do not believe that the direct impact had been ascertained at that time. I would not know, however, if means and ways to work with the department to work out some form of fishway have been explored.
Mr. Anderson: I guarantee that we will research that, and I promise you a letter in very short order.
Senator Stewart: The effect on the fisheries was a concern when the Prince Edward Island crossing was being planned, and I would hope that the same consideration would be given to northeastern Nova Scotia.
Senator Robertson: My questions will concentrate more particularly on the work that we have been doing for the last few months. I shall try not to stray from that, although I would like to comment on your statement that the value of the fishery is up. We are all grateful for that, of course, and we realize that it is due to the diversification. In particular, the shellfish fishery, mainly off the northern shore of Labrador has improved, and lobster catches have been good. We are grateful for those figures, but the issue that concerns us, I guess, is something else.
I shall try to be precise, because I think that it is easier to respond to precise questions. On page 4 of your opening remarks, you describe your vision for the fishery of the future, and I do wish you well. It reads as follows:
a fishery that provides a good living for independent, professional owner-operators and employees, and employs supports economically healthy coastal communities.
Putting this element of your vision into practice is the focus of my question.
The committee has heard the concerns of those who fear that transferable quotas will only lead to the concentration of licences in the hands of a few privileged individuals or corporations. They are also concerned that this will lead to the demise of local coastal communities where fish quotas and the processing of catches are transferred across coastal areas. You will see references to that in our report when it comes out in December.
Witnesses have told us that a better way of managing fish stock and protecting local climate and local coastal communities is through community-based management and through community quotas. I realize that the community-based model is not as well defined or as well developed as the individual quota model of fisheries management, and we referred to that in our report as well. The committee heard rather convincing evidence that the community quota model is the best way to go in protecting jobs jobs and ensuring the survival of coastal communities.
Where does community-based management fit in your vision of a fishery that supports economically healthy coastal communities?
Mr. Anderson: Community management can be a very effective tool, but it is not always supported by fishers. On the West Coast of Canada, a buyback program for licences was put in place in June, and is now being implemented. I did a survey of the licence holders on the West Coast. I asked whether I should take into account the concern over community and over the economic impact when carrying out the buyback program. Eighty per cent of the fishers said no -- a very resounding rejection of that. This is not to say that they are right or wrong; it is simply an expression of opinion by the fleet.
Fishers tend to believe that they are able to make their own decisions as to whether they sell or maintain a quota. They are reluctant to believe that government knows better when it comes to whether they should or should not have the right to sell quotas.
We are quite willing to have community quotas. If the licence holders support the concept, we will adopt it. Particularly with First Nations, we have had some success in this regard. We do not believe that the ITQs lead to corporate concentration per se. After all, in any exchange there is a buyer and a seller. If it is of value, the small fishers will likely hold on to it.
I have frequently heard, particularly from union representatives, that corporations want to buy licences. Time after time, companies have shown that they are unwilling to buy licences, and some of them have expressed that to me both verbally and in writing. They ask why they should do so. They want a steady supply of fish, and they do not want to be involved with the licensing process -- owning licences, running boats, and hiring fishermen to do it. It is unnecessary, expensive and difficult. It leads to labour problems and capital expenditures. Corporations themselves are not instinctively interested in that type of concentration.
It does not mean to say that it could not happen. It might happen. We have to look at these things on the basis of experience. It is quite easy to put in restrictions for owner-operators, if that is desired. The fishers themselves, however, quite frequently object to that approach.
Senator Robertson: I will come back to my question regarding a fishery "that supports economically healthy coastal communities." I suppose that you are looking at something besides fishing, if they are not going to conserve what they have traditionally done. Does the department have a policy regarding community quotas?
Mr. Anderson: We do not, of course, have the departmental responsibility for coastal communities. We work closely with Human Resources Development Canada, and in particular with the provincial governments who have the primary responsibility, for example for fish plants. Thanks to a Privy Council decision back in 1929, we do not have the power to regulate the fish plants, and the provinces do.
We want to see the coastal communities flourish. Coastal communities do not flourish simply because you maintain populations of near-indigent fishermen. We think that, in fact, is not at all the way to succeed. Our concern is generally related to critical mass.
For example, if a community shrinks to too small a size, there cannot be a fish plant. I spoke yesterday to fishermen from the lower North Shore of Quebec who fish from the Labrador border down to about Anticosti Island. They told me that their fishing industry will cease to be viable if the population shrinks too much and they cannot process the fish.
We have major concerns. As Canadians and as politicians in both the Senate and the House of Commons, we want to see that these coastal communities survive. However, we have this critical problem sometimes where the industry requires some concentration and a reduction in numbers. On the other hand, we have communities saying that they simply want to maintain their populations. Under those circumstances it is a situation where an irresistible force meets an immovable object, and we simply say that it is a decision that the fishers themselves must make. They must decide where they want to live.
It becomes a more complicated issue on the West Coast. The largest fishing port in British Columbia is Vancouver. In other words, fishers want to live in Vancouver. They may go to the west coast of Vancouver Island; they may go to the mid-coast or to the north; but a good number of them wish to live in Vancouver. We are constantly faced with communities who wish to put in restrictions. We must force them to live in the area where they fish.
Generally speaking, governments have never been involved in that to any great degree. I think this is an issue of freedom. The ideological point is that it is up to fishermen themselves to decide where they should be, and how they should carry out their lives.
Senator Robertson: I cannot argue with that.
I will not speak about the West Coast -- I will speak about the Atlantic fishery. The coastal communities in that area of the country will shrink. If the fishers cannot fish, they will have to go someplace else. It is as simple as that. If they are forced out, communities will close. This is the treadmill we have been on for some time in Atlantic Canada. The witnesses who have appeared before us are very unhappy about this. Most people living in small coastal communities in Atlantic Canada do not want to move, but when their source of livelihood is removed because of policies or because of the degeneration of the fish stocks, they obviously have to move. Then we are left with smaller units that are perhaps not economically viable.
I will be watching to see how you effect this second bullet in your vision for the fisheries, because I think it is very important. We should not turn our backs on it.
Mr. Anderson: This is not a full answer, senator, but in our $730-million program on the East Coast and our $400-million program on the West Coast, we are including community development moneys. I believe it is $100 million on the East Coast, and it could be up to $30 million or $40 million on the West Coast. This would even be for occupations other than fishing. Even though it appears to be a fishing program, we are suggesting that there may be opportunities in tourism or in agriculture areas, for example. We are trying to encourage diversification.
You have clearly outlined the "rock and a hard place" problem that we have. In the effort to make the fishery viable, we definitely affect the communities. In the effort to maintain the community populations, we could destroy the effectiveness of the fishery. It is a constant question of trade-offs, and it is one where compassion and understanding, rather than the ideological approach, is the best response. I would be delighted to talk to you further on this.
The Chairman: We will be coming back to this issue later on. I should like now to move to a discussion of the West Coast fishery.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, while I admit to certain partisan prejudices, I think the minister has made a very positive statement before the committee today. It is heartening to hear such a statement, with so many "gloomsters" and "doomsters" out there talking in terms of a fishery that is dangerously depleted.
In some situations we have been informed that private quotas -- whether transferable or not -- have allowed millionaires to be created out of a sadly oversubscribed and, in many cases, badly depleted fishery resource. One issue that arises is whether to limit the incomes generated by individual quotas by charging quota holders resource rent for that rather exclusive privilege of fishing, or by recovering the costs of managing the fisheries. Does the department have a policy on cost recovery in quota-managed fisheries?
Mr. Anderson: We certainly understand the opportunity of recovering the economic rent from fisheries, and we have attempted to do that in a number of programs. This is a ballpark figure, but I think we collect around $50 million one way or another from the fisheries community for various fees and other charges, which essentially is to charge for the resource. That is a free resource given to them. Yes, we do that, and we are interested in it.
One of the problems we face is that sometimes when fishermen have gone through the exercise of creating a rational fleet, reducing its size and reducing capacity, then of course very substantial amounts of money can be made. There is a dilemma such that when they have gone through the agony of organization to make it a viable industry -- in fact, a very profitable industry -- they look on it with considerable unhappiness when governments say, "You are now profitable, so now we will take it away." They say, "What did we do it for in the first place? We would have been better off never listening to you about becoming more viable and doing a better job."
With respect to limits, yes, in both crab and northern shrimp, there is sharing after a certain limit. There is some effort to put in place what you have suggested.
With respect to corporate concentration, the issue often comes down to the notion that if you have too many fishermen overall, no one will make a dollar. They will all be making their costs. In fact, if you look at this issue worldwide, you discover that governments are subsidizing fishing to the tune of $50 billion a year. It is really important to at least give the incentive to those who do rationalize, and to make the sensible economic decisions to get around the problem that your committee has been facing. That is to say, that they are not instantly penalized by having that deducted.
For example, in 1989 before we had individual vessel quotas in British Columbia, 46 vessels harvested British Columbia sablefish. In 1990, we had only 30 vessels doing it. That is a reduction of one-third. The current figure is two-thirds of what it used to be. They are now making extremely large amounts of money. A sablefish licence on the British Columbia coast trades for $2 million. That has nothing to do with the government. That is private people saying that this is a valuable licence, but it would not be a valuable licence if we were allowed free entry.
By the way, that particular fish, for your information, winds up as Alaskan black cod on the menus of restaurants. They do not call it sablefish, but it is a very profitable fishery in British Columbia, probably one of the most profitable.
Senator Robichaud: Is that species endangered?
Mr. Anderson: Not at all. There are a limited number of people in the industry, and because they are doing well financially, they are just as concerned about conservation as anyone in our department, in the Government of Canada or in any political party. It is very interesting to see how, when they are in that situation, that latent concern over conservation that all fishers have is given an opportunity to express itself. When they are facing bills and mortgage payments, they say, "Wait a year or two. Gee, the stocks are not that bad." They tend to be less concerned about conservation. When we have an effective fishery, no one beats the fishers themselves for expressing conservation concerns.
Senator Perrault: A variety of views have been expressed to us by people who are almost fanatically supportive of the ITQ system, and others have suggested that to allow the extensive use of them will be the end of the fishery.
Most economists point to New Zealand as the model on which Canada should base its future fisheries. We heard testimony via satellite from New Zealand on that point. Canadians who helped define New Zealand's ITQ system tend to promote it in an extremely positive light. We were told that were extensive consultations with all those concerned before legislation was passed in 1986.
In Iceland -- and, again, we have done a satellite link with Iceland -- where comprehensive legislation in ITQs was enacted in 1990, extensive consultations were also said to have taken place. Here in Canada, an official of the DFO said that there probably had not been any public debate, but there certainly had been a great many workshops.
In the United States, few ITQ programs are in effect. Allegedly, however, there are serious concerns about quota licensing. When the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act was authorized in October of 1996, the U.S. put in place a moratorium on new ITQ fisheries until the year 2000, in order to study the implications. This is a rather interesting position taken by the United States. Would you welcome a parliamentary debate on whether to further extend individual quotas in Canada?
Mr. Anderson: I appreciate your remarks and your brief and effective summary of what you have heard.
With respect to New Zealand, you must remember that at that time New Zealand just about the hit the wall economically. They totally eliminated agricultural subsidies, which had been some of the highest such subsidies in the world.
Senator Perrault: They privatized a lot of them, too.
Mr. Anderson: That is right. Because of their situation, they did many things that were dramatic. In Canada, we have never had such a general, public consensus that things will be disastrous until radical changes are made. Despite concerns over such things as deficits, we have never had the degree of concern that there was in New Zealand. We have continued the voluntary efforts.
We believe that ITQs can be valuable, but in Canada we generally try to work things out through consensus. We do not have a unitary state like New Zealand, where they force these things through. We have tremendous numbers of checks and balances in the federal system.
Senator Perrault: Yes, including the Senate.
Mr. Anderson: I was about to add that the Senate is one of the most important bodies in our federal system.
Overall, we have had some success. About 50 per cent of our fisheries are under ITQ, IQ, or some variation thereof. We had the enterprise allocations that were introduced in the mid-eighties, as recommended, again, by Senator Kirby's report. He is another senator who has taken a close and important interest in the fisheries. We have had quite a substantial movement in this direction.
Your final question is appropriate, namely, would it be useful to have a sharp, political debate? I am not sure that sharp, political debates lead to consensus. Again, this may suggest that all wisdom does not come from politics. Sometimes it is best to have a lower key position rather than sharp, political debates. I believe that a good number of fishers are wary and suspicious, and they are circling the ITQ concept. It will take time for them to see ITQs succeed elsewhere.
Senator Perrault: We sense that as well -- that is to say, that they are not quite sure yet. Depending on the fishery, there may be certain circumstances where an ITQ is more appropriate.
Senator Butts: Thank you for coming here this morning, Mr. Anderson. I greatly appreciated the emphasis you placed on conservation at the beginning of your remarks. I like some parts of your vision, but I have some problems with others. I should like to return to the question of coastal communities.
In Cape Breton, we had coastal community quotas in the early 1970s. Some cooperatives were very successful, but they have disappeared. There are a couple now on the coast of Nova Scotia that, in the beginning, were called pilot projects. Has a study or an evaluation of them been done since they were called pilot projects?
Mr. Anderson: I will ask Mr. Robichaud to give the details of any study that he may know of in that regard. Again, however, I would reiterate that we are certainly not opposed to them. We think there is some value to them.
You must recognize that somehow transferring the political pressure to divide up the quota to a smaller or a more local level is not always the way to achieve the needed success. Sometimes political pressure cannot be resisted at the lower level any better than at the intermediate, the provincial, or the federal level.
We approved a quota of 750 tonnes of turbot for the town of Canso yesterday.
Senator Butts: That is just for processing.
Mr. Anderson: That is correct. The requirement was that it had to be landed in the community.
Senator Butts: Yes, and it has caused more controversy than anything else on the East Coast because turbot are now being caught by foreigners.
Mr. Anderson: It is certainly true that, in this particular instance, 40 per cent of the turbot for Canso will be caught by foreigners. However, the alternative -- which was put to us by a company and we checked it out to verify it -- is that the turbot would have to be left in the water. That is to say, if a foreign vessel did not catch these particular turbot between yesterday and the end of the year, they would have to be left in the water. That would result in the loss of 200 jobs in Canso.
I can only say on that controversy that the premier of the province supported the decision, as did both opposition parties in Nova Scotia. The Conservative Party and the NDP federally support the position taken by the government, and the union and the mayor also support the position taken by the government.
Senator Butts: I may accept all that, but the problem is coming from other maritime provinces that say that they could be catching that turbot.
Mr. Anderson: Yes, there is that controversy. That is why one cannot be totally ideological in the fishery and take a principle and force it through.
You must recognize that, in this particular instance, the principle of Canadianization needed an exception in order to protect the jobs of the coastal community of Canso. That position was put forth by the company, which said that they could not fish for turbot with a Canadian vessel because they could not find a Canadian vessel to undertake to do it. We then made an exception in this instance.
We are now subjected to criticism for so doing. That is legitimate -- in our society criticism is perfectly acceptable -- but this decision was made to protect not only the community, but also the jobs located in that community. It was not an ideological decision where we said, "The community should suffer because we are only trying to achieve Canadianization of the fleet."
Senator Butts: The reality is that there are harvesters in these communities as well as processors. This decision causes terrible divisions among people in these communities, which accentuates their problems.
Mr. Anderson: I should point out that Canadianization of the fleet has been very extensive. The figures are now down to about 2 to 3 per cent of foreign fishing from where they used to be. It is down to literally a few hundred tonnes, and it is only in situations where a Canadian fisherman does not want to take a species, and rejects fishing for that species. We are then required by international law to make it available to some other country.
I can ask Mr. Robichaud to identify the areas where we still have some foreign fishing on the East Coast, but it is down to less than 3 per cent of what it used to be.
Mr. Robichaud: I wish to comment on foreign fishing and on the turbot fishery. A point was raised about the transfer of the company to an allocation of 1,900 metric tonnes, which succeeded in getting smaller vessels to harvest throughout the year. This fishery is conducted up in the north, in the area off the point of Labrador. We made efforts to try to secure a Canadian vessel for the month but, in view of the weather conditions that are occurring there now, it was impossible to do so. Therefore, the minister approved this allocation. This will create 740 weeks of work for the community of Canso, instead of leaving those fish in the water.
Of the 5,500 metric tonnes that are fished in that area, only 750 tonnes will be fished by a foreign vessel this year. The other species on the East Coast that are allocated to foreign vessels include a very small amount of redfish in an area close to the 200-mile limit, and some silver hake. The purpose of this is to produce jobs.
The Chairman: We are straying very far from the subject matter of our study. This may be an interesting subject to study in the future, Senator Butts, but we are not currently studying foreign fishing.
Senator Butts: I was extremely surprised to hear about the great reception you said ITQs and IQs are receiving. In our hearings, we have learned that people who do have ITQs and IQs say they are great. The problem is with people who do not have them, or who have had to give up on them because there is nothing left in the inshore fishery after the bigger fishers have been there with their bigger boats. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that.
In the last bullet of your vision you talk about a fishery in which government and industry work together. In the industry, who is working with you?
Mr. Anderson: I believe that the industry includes everyone from the deckhands on the boats, to the shore workers in the plants, to the people who arrange sales for the company. I believe it includes even the seller of the Canadian product in the Boston and New York markets.
In addition, the industry includes a large number of people who rely upon foreign fish, which are processed in Canada at plants in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and, in turn, sold to the United States. Therefore, the industry also includes many hundreds of jobs that are dependent on a foreign raw material. My vision of the industry includes everyone.
When we talk about cooperation, in some cases it is mostly appropriate to talk about the fishers themselves. Other times, it would be appropriate to talk about working with a company. Sometimes it would be appropriate to talk about working with an association of either fishers or companies, as the case may be. I consider the industry to be across the entire spectrum.
Senator Butts: In theory it probably is, but we heard over and over again from fishers that no one listens to them, that they cannot get in touch with the department, that the department will not talk to them, and that they do not know what is going on. That is why I am wondering who does all this co-management, partnership and consultation.
Mr. Anderson: In response to that, I can only say that we are facing difficulties in the fishery which extend back some decades. If you can only allocate 90 per cent of the fish because you must have a quota reduction, 10 per cent of the fishers will complain. If everyone gets everything they want, we will not have that situation.
For so long, the industry has been considered a zero-sum game. The thinking is that what you get, I do not get, and therefore we must fight each other for it. Nothing is more vicious than the battles between provincial ministers of fisheries. The battles rage between provinces; between gear sectors; between offshore, midshore, and inshore fishers; between people who use nets and people who use hooks. All of these people have had a very long tradition of fighting one another to try to get the existing fish. It has been a zero-sum game.
I have sadly and reluctantly come to the conclusion that anyone who expects people to be happy with my decisions is fooling him or herself. We can expect a constant level of unhappiness because of this allocation issue. However, when we get into issues of principle, such as conservation, we start getting much more consensus. Unfortunately and unhappily, however, the industry has had too many people in it for too long, and it has therefore become very partisan and very political. It is very much an issue of doing in the other person to satisfy a given community or group.
This is my view after 18 months as minister, senator. I think I have to accept the fact that it is not possible to get that type of industry consensus among fishing groups and fishing communities, or even between provinces. The feeling is that what my neighbour gets is something that is taken away from me. It is a problem that will continue to exist as long as we are in the position of having to restrict fishing efforts, either because of too many fishermen or because of improvements in technology which lead to more intense fish killing power in the hands of fishermen.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Minister, I would be the first to admit that fisheries management is not an easy task. Any decision in this area is difficult for the person who has to make them, as well as for those affected. I want to commend you for the steps you have taken to protect lobster, particularly in our region. As far as I'm concerned, they have been needed for quite some time. So, I commend you on that and support your decision.
You referred to partnership in your opening statement and again, I want to commend you for your efforts along those lines. I could cite a number of examples where there has been cooperation in the area of scallop culture. In our region, a number of groups are working to develop scallop breeding in the marine environment. We have benefitted from cooperation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Human Resources Development. That is having an effect, and more cooperation is needed.
I would like to talk about small crab or common crab. A few years ago, exploratory licences were given to a number of fishers in the Northumberland Strait. It was determined that this fishery was feasible, based on fairly strict limits, given the available resource. It is a viable fishery.
Two years ago, however, this fishery was opened up to more fishers than the ones originally given exploratory licences. In one case, a community quota was given to a community of fishers located near the new Prince Edward Island crossing. Fishers got together and sent out two or three fishing boats -- because it was severely restricted -- which allowed them to make about $1,000 each -- a significant sum for them, since they only fish lobster. In that part of my region, the lobster fishing is not as good as it is further north. Fishers thought that this experiment would continue.
This year, after extended negotiations, we thought we might get a quota. They were given the privilege of fishing three traps. Once again, fishers got together on this, but it was hardly worth the effort, for the simple reason that they only received $500 each for three weeks of work. When you take that into account and the EI benefits for fishers, in some cases, they actually suffered a loss.
Why was not this project maintained in that community? We are seeking positive examples of partnership. And the efforts made to form a partnership with that community have yielded positive results. If your position is that we have to be concerned about conservation, I certainly agree with you. But there was clearly not a conservation issue involved here, since fishers who had been given exploratory licences received a higher quota at the end of the season. I do not understand why we did not take advantage of that opportunity to ensure that this additional effort would be directed at this particular community, where there certainly was a need, especially since the stock was in no way threatened. It would have been signalled to them that a partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is possible, and that it can work. I can tell you that people are really questioning whether such a thing is possible.
Mr. Anderson: Problems always arise when you have exploratory fisheries for new species and you try to diversify. Once it is determined that that fishery is viable, the people who were there first start saying that they were the ones that did the exploration and took the risks, that they should be given higher quotas and that the others should not be allowed in. That sort of problem always arises.
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, Senator Robichaud raises an interesting point. The senator referred earlier to the expansion of exploratory fisheries. The department is indeed trying to diversify into other species, as well as share exploratory type species, wherever possible.
The common crab exploratory fishery is one that has been slowly expanded over the past fifteen years. Almost 150 exploratory licences have been shared: 50 in Prince Edward Island, 50 in New Brunswick, and 50 in Nova Scotia.
Lobster fishers take whatever common crab that is part of their incidental catch, break it up and use it as bait. So there is that amount we are unable to quantify and the exploratory fishery. Among the people involved in the exploratory fishery were fishers from Murray's Corner. They had a whole series of discussions and consultations in the southern gulf with both representatives of associations in Prince Edward Island and with the MFU in order to obtain regular permits. To go any further, better data were needed. There was discussion of dockside monitoring, ship books, and so forth. All of this monitoring and additional follow-up caused some agitation in certain quarters. In the end, we decided to move ahead slowly with the regular exploratory transfer.
How many licences are there currently in the area Senator Robichaud refers to? Well, I could not say with any accuracy. But we are certainly trying to get a clear idea of exactly what the situation is with respect to incidental catches and regular fishing. We are also trying to move forward, but with specific controls in place so as to possibly meet Senator Robichaud's goal. I will be in a position to provide further information at a later date.
Senator Robichaud: It is a question of how the resource is distributed. That is the object of our study, whether quotas are transferable are not. I understand perfectly what you are saying. We have to move ahead cautiously. We especially have to avoid any overfishing, because we will pay for it in the long run. But in this specific case, there was an additional effort made after the regular fishing season; fishers with exploratory licences went out to fish as part of the licences they had been given at the beginning of the season. My problem is not the quotas per se, but rather, the way in which they were distributed.
You probably remember what happened with snow crab. I still do not agree with the decisions that were made in that case. It was decided that the fishery would be kept at a certain level to ensure that it would be profitable. But what I cannot accept is that the level was kept too high for these people. We could use this opportunity to give a bit more to other fishers who have to be satisfied with crumbs. Here I am referring to the lobster fishers. Just compare that to the situation of these lobster fishers who are not doing that well and are barely managing to eke out a living. As for the snow crab fishers, the situation is absolutely disastrous. That decision was made regionally. You probably were not aware of it, but some DFO managers in the regions are not taking advantage -- that is the nice way of putting it -- of opportunities to prove the merits of partnership and of working closely with the community.
Mr. Anderson: In this particular case, the quotas are allocated by the fishers' associations. That decision was not made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Moncton. The fishers themselves suggested it. That is one of the problems with decentralization and co-management. Sometimes you just have to accept the results. It is rather difficult to engage in political discussion because it is after the fact and it does not have the same significance it would if I were making the decision.
[English]
Senator Adams: Mr. Minister, congratulations on your trip up North to Iqaluit and Pangnertung. I want to ask some questions about species and quotas.
We do not have all that much of a fishery in Nunavut, although we do have a fish processing plant in Pangnertung that handles turbot. Perhaps you could explain to me what the future will be like in that area. Will Pangnertung be the only place where we will be able to catch anything, or will there be another area?
Mr. Anderson: I was in Pangnertung immediately before going to New York, and I was delayed for a while at the airport by the snowstorm. I was very pleased with my visit to the fish processing plant at Pangnertung. It is the most northerly plant. They are doing a very effective job at marketing, and they are creating what is so important in fisheries, namely, the cachet of the northern fish, which is being accepted by southern restaurants as being of the highest quality. That allows them to overcome certain cost difficulties that they have. It is really a case of hats off to the local people, who created this particular system with relatively little in the way of government subsidy and support.
It is clearly what we must continue to do, not only in the North, but also elsewhere in Canada. We must try for the high value niche markets, because it is value that puts dollars in the pockets of fishermen. I believe the years of considering only the tonnage of fish are over. We want to ensure we have value for fish.
Pangnertung is a good example of how they are doing that by advertising the cachet of fish from well north of the Arctic Circle. I was pleased to be there.
Senator, the other aspect that you raised had to do with the question of quota. We have switched the quota. This is a very clear switch from one part of Canada to another -- a regional shift of quota in areas 0 and 1.
We now have more than 25 per cent going to local fishermen in that part of the world, and that will continue. I know that both you and the member of Parliament for the area have been watching this situation closely. It has gone from 8 per cent to 28 per cent, I believe, at the present time, and that will continue.
Obviously, this disrupts the people in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia who had previously been fishing in this area. It is an inter-regional issue that I must face, and I must make tough decisions on it.
We would like to do more scientific work with respect to marine mammals in the North. That would include walrus, narwhal, beluga and bowhead whale. These are particularly important for people who believe in subsistence hunting and fishing and for those who believe in living on country food. We do not have adequate science on this. We do not know the mixing of the populations between Greenland and Nunavut. In the Western Arctic, we do not know about the mixing between Siberian populations and Mackenzie Basin populations. We have to do more work and, until then, we must be cautious.
It should be again recognized that a population increase is taking place in your part of the world, in northern Quebec and Nunavut -- indeed, in the entire Arctic. Many young people are very interested in incorporating traditional lifestyles into their existing ways of life. This means there will be increasing pressure on northern resources. Thus, we will have to have a better handle on the science and knowledge of the resource, if we are to accommodate the people who wish to utilize the resource.
I have to tell you, senator, that we have not done enough on science in the North. We have not done enough on the fisheries side, as well as the oceanographic side. I would like to do much more.
I am happy to say that I was there to greet the Des Grosseilliers when it returned from its 14-month freeze-up in the Arctic. It was the first ship to do that deliberately since Nansen's ship in 1904. We have a long way to go before we have adequate knowledge.
I trust that you will again be a supporter in that quest for a better knowledge base so that we can make better management decisions.
Senator Adams: This committee has heard from B.C. native fishermen who appeared as witnesses. They told us about the little bit of trouble they are having on the West Coast. They had room for everyone in the community, including aboriginal and recreational fishermen. My concern is that some, like anyone else, had quotas but could not fish. In the meantime, they came to us. You stopped the fishing in June. I think you have problems with some of the fishermen who cannot go fishing. People are being told that nothing has happened yet.
Why would you stop all the sports fishing at the same time as you stopped the salmon fishing? Those people in the communities have fishing camps for tourists. Now, like everyone else, the fishers have no business.
It is with regard to those two questions that I would like to know what you see happening in the future, minister.
Mr. Anderson: We have had difficulties on the West Coast. Nevertheless, the policy is absolutely clear. The first fishing that takes place at all will be aboriginal fishing for food, ceremonial and social purposes. That is to say, once we have made conservation decisions to protect the fish, we will then allow that type of fishing.
In addition, where we have aboriginal pilot sales programs, they will take place at the same time as commercial fisheries openings. They will have that opportunity there as well.
With respect to the recreational fishery upon which you touched, sometimes it is forgotten that the commercial fleet or native communities catch over 97 per cent of the fish caught in British Columbia. Less than 3 per cent are caught by the local recreational fishers, both native and non-native, as well as by foreigners who come as sports fishermen. Sometimes these problems are somewhat exaggerated.
Having said that, I will quickly say that complications exist when you break out the five species of fish. I believe that, even for Chinook, the number of fish caught is substantially lower on the recreational side than on the commercial side. If I could persuade the Alaskans to cut it down a little further, I would be happier. The problem has not been a transfer of fish to recreational fishermen.
I am a bit bedevilled in British Columbia by what I describe as "ideological fisheries politics." There are many people who object to the aboriginal fisheries strategy on the grounds that it is "a race-based fishery." I think this is unfair and improper. As well, it ignores history. My personal understanding of the early history of contact with the Europeans, the Boston men, King George's men and people like Alexander Mackenzie, was they did not fish. They bought fish from the Indian fishermen. In that sense, there was a commercial fishery at the very beginning.
It would be improper and unwise to forget about that when we now talk about this historic position being of no importance or value in our considerations today. There is that aspect.
We must also consider that some aboriginal fishermen are within the commercial fleet. They object to the aboriginal fisheries strategy because they make a lot of money in the commercial fleet. Thus, there are counter-currents. You do not have all of the aboriginal fishermen singing from the same hymn book.
The issue is particularly complicated because of the growth of the recreational fishery over the last 20 years. It is worth more to the economy of British Columbia today than the traditional commercial fishery is. Arguments can be made both ways, but fundamentally, there is no argument on that score.
Now that British Columbia is the one province in Canada in recession, we have to start considering the economic impact of the 3 per cent of the fish that have as much value as the other 97 per cent. We have difficulties in trying to establish how we promote our tourism in British Columbia.
All I can say to you, senator, is that, in the end, I believe we must continue to honour our obligations to the aboriginal fishing strategy. I believe it is based upon an historic situation. I do not think that we should eliminate it as is so often proposed in British Columbia.
Senator Adams: Could you explain the issue of compensation for native fishermen?
Mr. Anderson: Yes. There have been a number of compensation programs to take displaced fishermen and have them work on the streamside rehabilitation of spawning grounds and things of that nature. We have spent at least $30 million in the regard over the last few years.
There have been special programs with respect to retraining. However, on the British Columbia coast most of our coastal community fisheries come third after other economic occupations, such as logging. Yet, in the aboriginal communities, it is often first.
We have not succeeded everywhere in doing a perfect job of keeping everyone happy, given the downturn in the fishery. We are trying very hard to accomplish more in combination with Human Resources and, naturally, with DIAND.
Senator Forrestall: Minister, it is a little difficult for a Nova Scotian to imagine a minister from British Columbia saying "We are now the only province in recession." It may well be true; I do not know.
Mr. Anderson: Sadly, it is.
Senator Forrestall: I have several question that our colleague Senator Pat Carney has asked me to put forward regarding conservation, the compensation package that you have on the West Coast, the memorandum of understanding, and the dichotomy that seems to have developed because of that.
Are contingency plans in place to make funds available to the communities until such time as the program works its way through and funds become available? I understand that approximately $100 million has gone out in the buyback program, including for the varying size of vessels and for the licenses. This has to do with assisting the people in those communities that are dependent on the fishery.
Second, what steps will the government take to bring back some credibility to the memorandum of understanding? Has the government adopted a policy that perhaps the MOU should drift, and not be particularly important in your ongoing work?
The area of conservation measures has become questionable when so many fish are being destroyed, which has a severe consequence for people in the coastal communities. Senator Carney's question comes down to when fisheries management become fisheries mismanagement, in the context of the impact on the coastal communities.
Do you have a word or two on that that you would say to people in British Columbia and elsewhere? You have been very broad in your remarks this morning, and you have touched on many areas. Are there any concrete plans to maintain the coastal communities as stewards of the resources? Hand in hand with that is: How do we assure or protect the rights of access to that resource by the appropriate peoples?
I would make one observation about the unavailability of adequate capacity to look at the northern fishery. I find that very difficult. My daughter is in the northern shrimp business, and she tells me quite a different story.
Mr. Anderson: I assume that you are referring to British Columbia with respect to the distribution of funds. We have had a steady expenditure of funds in very large amounts. We have worked out partnerships with other organizations. In fact, the majority of funds went to organizations either directly or indirectly controlled by or associated with the United Fishermen Allied Workers Union. That was the practice over the last two or three years. HRDC has given out $8 million to $10 million this year.
On the buyback side, that is a Fisheries and Oceans responsibility. On the other side, due to the constitutional limitation and to government divisions, it is the responsibility of HRDC or DIAND. Nonetheless, we have had a steady amount of money coming out.
I have had some difficulty in hearing Union representatives -- who have received $14.7 million in government funding over two years to work out programs for displaced fishermen-- saying that only $2 million have been spent in this area. They themselves have been given the management of $14.7 million of the initial $30 million that we put out. We have to recognize that there is sometimes is a vested interest in criticism. More can always be done, but a great deal was done. Some of those who in charge of doing it turned around later to complain that it was not done or, ironically, that it was done badly.
The MOU with the province of British Columbia is important. When we refer to salmon, we are speaking about an anadromous fish, and habitat protection is the most critical factor in protecting anadromous fish. If you do not have adequate water, appropriate temperature, and sufficient streamside vegetation, salmon will be unable to reproduce. If you allow siltation because of logging practices, salmon will be unable to reproduce.
In British Columbia, it is tremendously important to have a working relationship with the province. We have not had such a relationship in the past, and I look to the memorandum of understanding signed two years ago as a major opportunity.
I have been disappointed by the confrontational attitude displayed by the province. The MOU is not being used effectively as a vehicle for cooperation. That is changing, mainly because the polls dramatically show the people of British Columbia's rejection of of that confrontational approach. We now have a better working relationship.
It is tremendously important for the province of British Columbia to have a ministry of fisheries, because that ministry will then argue within the provincial government on issues such as the protection of streams and logging practices.
We are not letting the MOU drift off. We wish to expand it, but it takes two to tango. We want to cooperate, and if this is simply to be used as a confrontational tool for fed-bashing, it is a waste of money and time -- both federal and provincial -- and it certainly does not help the fish.
I have tried and tried to introduce cooperative approaches with the province of British Columbia, as I have with every province that has the same fisheries problem. Even in Quebec we have less trouble than we have in British Columbia. The fisheries issue has been used for highly partisan purposes, which has not helped either fishermen or the resource. I think that is changing. I certainly look forward to change, and I am ready at any time to meet and cooperate with the province of British Columbia on conservation and fisheries issues.
When does fisheries management become mismanagement? Generally I would say that it happens when you become so political in your decisions that you ignore the science and the resource. It happens when you so favour the many clamouring and competing groups that request fishing opportunities that you forget that your primary duty is to protect the resource. You cannot forget that you are a steward of the resource; you are not a person simply allocating resource exploitation opportunities. That is when management would become mismanagement, and I think that is clear on both coasts.
With respect to concrete plans for communities, we as the department, of course, are somewhat limited. As I explained earlier, we do not have the regional development responsibility. We do not have the HRDC responsibility, nor do we have the responsibility of DIAND. We will cooperate with them fully. Given that the fishers are constituents who frequently live in these small communities, we fully understand their importance.
It is no favour to a coastal community to allow a major industry in a community to wither and die. That is particularly true if it dies because you have been unable to take the appropriate measures, either to protect the resource, or to allow those who remain in it to get a decent income.
A fisher at subsistence levels in a small community has his kids in school. He definitely needs the roads and the services of the community -- yet, because of his lack of income, he may not be contributing to that community. That is a dilemma. We try to work with others on it, but our primary responsibility is obviously to the resource itself.
Senator Forrestall: Mr. Minister, with all due respect, when you allocated $400 million in April or May, surely had you a plan. Seven or eight months later, nothing seems to be working. Did you allocate the money without a plan, and are you trying to develop the plan as you go along? Are there major roadblocks? Why is the money not out in the community?
Mr. Anderson: There are no major roadblocks. There is a plan, and the money is being spent effectively. This is not simply an allocation in my department for this year. This is probably the last time ever we will see such a chunk of money devoted to such a purpose. I do not expect to see that kind of money again on the West Coast. We have never seen that kind of money on the West Coast prior to this year.
Senator Forrestall, you have much more experience than in politics than I do, but you and I do go back 30 years to our elections in 1968 and 1972, when we were both members of the House of Commons fisheries committee. I have never seen this before, nor have you. We do not intend to be forced to spend this quickly; we want to spend it well.
The money is being spent. We are currently in the first round of licence buybacks. We have had around 600 proposals come forward for licence buybacks. We have training programs in place for displaced fishermen. Money is being spent on rehabilitation and habitat. We have approximately $18 million for community development, separate from the fisheries. If someone has a proposal for a tourism project, we have money available for that. We also have money available to assist diversification. Those who claim that nothing is happening and who come before you as witnesses are essentially saying that they themselves have not taken the time to find out what is happening.
I will make sure you have the information on that money. However, I assure you that I do not to spend this money in a 12-month period. Some of this money will be spent over three years. If we find we have difficulty getting the number of licences we would like, some of this money will be delayed beyond three years. We cannot simply give the impression that there is a big chunk of federal money, and that we are keen to get rid of it for political purposes so that people stop complaining. We want to spend this money intelligently, frugally and wisely. To do that, we need appropriate mechanisms, and people must understand the objectives.
Senator Mahovlich: The lobster fishery is doing well. My wife and I often go out for dinner, and she prefers lobster to western steak. Why does it cost so much?
Mr. Anderson: With due respect to your pocketbook and paying the bill at the end of the meal, we feel it is a good thing that you pay a high price for lobster. It is in international demand. The French like it, as do other Europeans. The Americans love it. I keep running into the buyer for the Red Lobster chain in the United States. I believe they have 3,200 restaurants in that chain. Canadian seafood is of the highest quality, and around the world we are recognized to have the highest of inspection levels. That money goes right back into coastal communities and the pockets of fishermen.
Lobster is a great success story, but you are quite right -- the customer in a restaurant does have to put an extra dollar or two on the plate because of the price.
Senator Mahovlich: A couple of weeks ago I was down in the Miramichi area. Last year there were problems there. A friend of mine -- Ted Williams -- has a cottage down there, and he does a lot of fishing. Could you tell me how much was spent to clear the problem up? I went down there a few weeks ago, and they told me there was no longer a problem.
Mr. Anderson: Globally, we are spending $160 million.
Senator Mahovlich: One hundred and sixty million dollars globally?
Mr. Anderson: Overall. This is broken down over 10 or 15 years.
Senator Mahovlich: I am just talking about the Miramichi.
Mr. Anderson: I gather you are referring to the buyback and stream measures as well.
Is that specifically related to the Miramichi, Mr. Robichaud?
Mr. Robichaud: That is throughout the whole Atlantic in order to conserve the Atlantic salmon.
Senator Mahovlich: Is it true that there is no problem there? The people I was asking were pulp and paper people, and they were the ones polluting the river. Is that problem cleared up?
Mr. Anderson: Senator, in relation to this specific river, I can get the information to you by letter. Perhaps we could meet for lunch if you have any questions on the letter when I get it to you.
Senator Mahovlich: Very well.
Mr. Anderson: We are spending a substantial amount on salmon in Atlantic Canada. We have had to make some very tough decisions, including the decision this year to end any commercial netting on both Quebec's lower North Shore and on the Labrador coast. We have persuaded the Danes and Greenlanders to do the same. For the first time in some centuries, there will now be nor commercial netting of salmon in the northwest Atlantic. This allows for specific river-by-river management, because the only fishing is done in the river itself, and you can adjust your pressure to suit abundance.
As both you and your friend Mr. Williams recognize, we have a "red, amber, green" system in place, depending on the water temperature. We vary the regulations -- virtually day by day, where necessary -- to change local conditions. I believe there is good hope for the Atlantic salmon.
We face ocean survival conditions that are different from what we previously experienced. This goes back to Senator Adams' question with respect to northern research. If we do not study adequately what is happening on the Arctic ice cap, we will not know enough about changing ocean temperatures. This could affect both Pacific salmon, and in particular, Atlantic salmon.
We are seeing a decrease in temperatures, in particular of the lower strata of water in Atlantic, and this is impeding populations of Atlantic salmon, as well as other species. It does go back in a global sense to ocean-wide issues -- not just Atlantic issues, but also Arctic issues.
Senator Mahovlich, I promise to get you information on that. I will be happy to have lunch with you and Mr. Williams, if he is in town, to discuss it further.
The Chairman: I read in your opening comments that the fishery is currently being subsidized, and I saw the word "subsidize." If it is being subsidized, can you specify who and what are being subsidized?
Mr. Anderson: Some $50 billion goes into subsidizing fisheries worldwide. That is in addition to the $80 billion value of global fisheries. In Canada, our value is generally estimated at $3 billion of exports. Eighty per cent of our product is exported, for a total of $4 billion. In our department, we spend about $1.1 billion, but not all of it is on fisheries.
The nature of the resource means that the government spends substantially more on this industry than it does on most others. It is hard to say precisely what is subsidized. This morning, we have discussed the importance of protecting communities. Sometimes a subsidy is not just in direct dollar payment; it is in the way you go about something which foregoes a profit or a dollar-return.
There is no question that the fishery in Canada is heavily dependent upon government support at the present time. I do not have a clear global figure for Canada for subsidies, however.
The Chairman: I was just simply surprised that a minister of the Crown would be using the word "subsidy," given the very sensitive nature of that word today in international trade. The word "subsidy" is sometimes used indiscriminately by journalists, but I was somewhat surprised to hear a minister use it.
You note in your opening comments that IQ programs have been perceived -- and I emphasize that word -- to increase the incidence of unwanted fish being discarded. Is it the minister's position that this practice is a perception, rather something which has any foundation in reality?
Mr. Anderson: No, the issue of discarding is a major one, and it occurs throughout the fishery. We are trying to overcome it by having on-board monitoring as well as dockside monitoring. We have had some success.
The most successful tool is the ethic within the fleet that says this is a highly improper thing to do. That is developing. If fishers on a vessel wish to be dishonourable and dishonest, you can never prevent them from throwing the smaller fish overboard. You sometimes can compare vessels to others that are fishing in the same area. By doing so, you can quickly discover if one has a higher average size of fish than another does. If that is found to be the case, one of two things generally happens. Either peer pressure will force them to be responsible, or the clear indication that someone is cheating and making money at it forces the others to be less responsible.
We think we are moving in the proper and correct direction. With IQs there is a proprietary feeling of responsibility, which is helping to eliminate the problem of high-grading, and of throwing the less valuable or smaller fish overboard.
The Chairman: In your opening remarks, you made reference to comprehensive reviews of IQs conducted by DFO since 1990. Those reviews have shown that IQs benefit both fishery management and fishers, and are more effective than previous management regimes in promoting conservation and economic objectives.
I do not necessarily need this to be tabled today but I would like the minister to make those two IQ studies or comprehensive reviews available to this committee. We want to look at them. We certainly have not seen such documents ourselves.
We would also like the department to describe to us what is meant by "economic objectives," the objectives that they and you are trying to reach. We do not need those responses this morning, but they would be extremely useful to us.
My final question deals with transfer of licences and concentration. Are your officials telling you that the concentration limits that you mention in your opening statements are now being applied?
We have heard contradictory evidence from people involved in the industry. As well, we have on file a letter from 1996 the deputy minister of the day, and it says, in fact, that the rules on concentration were not being applied. Are you saying that your officials are now telling you that such concentration is not happening?
Mr. Anderson: We will provide the analysis of the individual quotas for you. At the same time, we will provide you with a covering letter on the issue of economic objectives, if it is not fully covered in those two reports.
With respect to the concentration, under most of the IQ programs in Canada we have anti-concentration rules of various sorts. I will check to make sure the statement that you referred to is updated, and it will be provided to you. It has been, and always will be, a matter of concern and something to watch.
The issue is whether the concern is, in fact, justified. That distinction is sometimes not made. We will want to make sure that we do provide you with the analysis, so that you can compare it to the concerns you have heard from witnesses.
Senator Stewart: We have not spent much time on the committee's reference -- the individual transferable quotas.
The minister has referred again and again to "the industry," and that conjures up a certain model -- a model of corporate enterprise. This is an age in which the merger of corporate enterprises seems to be very much in style.
We heard this morning about a possible merger of Exxon and Mobil. Grocery stores are concentrating. Banks are trying to concentrate. The very word "industry" in relation to fisheries suggests that here, too, there will be concentration as per the industry model.
Perhaps the explanation is found in something the minister said. He talked about divided responsibility. He is in charge of "the industry." Then there are the Departments of Regional Development and Human Resources. Do you believe the problem could be dealt with more effectively if the three departments were looking at the problem of community quotas and all the implications for schools, et cetera, that you mentioned, rather than leaving things divided as they now are?
Mr. Anderson: Senator, we do our very best to achieve the closest coordination with the other two departments, and also with the provincial departments that are involved. This sometimes means cooperating with regional governments.
You have very perceptively put your finger on a problem that will never be totally resolved. However, by following your suggestion of cooperation and collaboration, we will try hard to achieve that result.
Senator Cook: I came to this table, Mr. Minister, partway through a process. I must try to separate the emotional reactions from the issue. There is no doubt that we need to do things differently, because past systems were not working. I cannot escape the feeling that conservation will be for naught, while foreign overfishing, real or imagined, is a factor.
For the last 15 or 20 minutes, I have heard the word "global," and that encourages me. The detail of how and why we must do things differently has been much debated. I think that will be all for naught if we do not address the greater issue of the resource that swims in the oceans around the globe. We must form partnerships at a greater level to conserve that resource for all humanity. We have looked at models in Iceland and New Zealand. We have been in pursuit of how to manage globally, and I implore you not to leave that out of your equation when you make your decisions.
Mr. Anderson: I thank you for a very precise injunction, which I take fully to heart. I agree that there are things that we can do domestically, and we must do them with fish that are more static and residential. We must do everything we can within our own waters. However, we are dealing with an ocean system. Fish such as the bluefin tuna swim tens of thousands kilometres a year. You find fish crossing whole oceans, and you cannot deal with the migratory fish on the basis of national borders or 200-mile limits, even if those limits are extended.
Global cooperation is something that I take very much to heart. I think that you have expressed its importance as well as I could. Let me say that I believe that this will be the most important issue of the next century. In this century, an ethic for the land has developed, and the next century, hopefully an ethic for the sea will develop as well. Currently, 70 per cent of the earth's surface is covered with water, and if we do not develop that ethic, that part of the earth's surface will become a desert from the point of view of living organisms and of supporting human life. If we do not have that concept of partnering, sharing, and cooperating, obviously we will never achieve the duty that is upon us, not just as politicians for a temporary period, but also for future generations.
Senator Cook: As an aside, 500 years ago my people crossed an ocean in pursuit of a lifestyle. That lifestyle is being threatened because of the way that we are doing things, and this must change.
Senator Robertson: Could the department provide us with a cost-benefit analysis of the various fisheries management models, including community quotas?
Is the minister concerned about the perception that the department is losing its image as an honest broker in the development of the future fishery? There is a perception that the ITQ model is promoted by supporters within DFO, and heavily promoted by the corporate sector.
Mr. Anderson: Whenever there is an effort to paint whole departments as having ulterior objectives and hidden agendas, it does affect credibility. This is an area where you have the most highly charged debate, because you are dealing directly with human lives.
Consider my position compared to the position of the industry minister. The people who work in a particular company do not expect to deal directly with the minister. In fisheries, however, it is direct, and it is a very different situation. This issue of perception is tremendously important.
On the fisheries issue, I am hoping that we have learned something from our mistakes. Perhaps we have learned that the highly charged regional, partisan, orzero-sum game approach has not succeeded in helping Canada as a whole, the community as a whole, the fishers as a group, and certainly not the fishers as individuals.
I hope that we will be able to get beyond that, and have more discussion between scientists and fishers to break down those barriers. I would like to see more openness with respect to the public. I have said, for example, that my scientists may say what they wish in terms of the scientific opinions that they honestly hold. There is no attempt to control them.
On the other hand, people must recognize that that does not mean that you can just cherry-pick sentences from a particular scientist, and then declare that the department as a whole is ignoring scientists' advice, when 95 per cent of other scientists have different views. I think that it is important for all of us -- and for the press as well -- to recognize that it is a very difficult issue. A common property resource is the most difficult resource to manage. I agree entirely with your approach.
Senator Perrault: You stated, Mr. Minister, that the state of the world's oceans is a matter for grave concern. You have always been a great environmentalist, and I hope that you can come back and discuss that with the committee at some point. If valuable fish species are in decline all over the world because of an environmental factor, does it really matter if we have one type of quota or another kind of quota? We may lose the fish entirely due to a warming of the world's oceans. Is there not something that threatens the whole existence of life in the sea?
Mr. Anderson: You are correct. To use a British Columbia analogy, we cannot focus too much on the trees and ignore the forest. If we do so, we will, in fact, be following the rather foolish course that you have outlined. We have to start considering these things in the proper context. We cannot consider only one species. We must consider the food web in which species operate. We must consider the ecosystem. With respect to oceans, we must understand that we are reaching a point where technology and pressure are so enormous that the situation is totally different from anything experienced prior to World War II or even, in fact, prior to the 1970s. We must have that international cooperation and understanding.
Senator Perrault: You said that the nations of the world are moving together. Are they aware of the crisis?
Mr. Anderson: We are moving in the right direction. However, we have a very, very long way to go. We have only taken the first step in a long journey.
Senator Robichaud: In discussing quotas and the establishment of such systems, we have heard that the part of fishing industry that was doing best was the one where DFO officials moved into the private sector after having prepared their bids. This is a very negative thing to say about DFO officials, because I to think that there are people in there who are doing a very good job. Is there some monitoring of this type of situation where officials leave, immediately go on to some associations, and earn a very good living? I just want to make sure that this sentiment is not out there, because it would destroy the credibility of your managers at the local level.
Mr. Anderson: There is a perception that many of our former employees do well in private industry. It is a double-edged sword. If private industry is willing to pay them so much, they must be very good and very valuable. It certainly is true that we have excellent people, and no fisheries department in the world that has the technical competence of our own. I would say that some people also go on to work for organizations of fishers; they are the associations' directors or managing director. Others go on to work in universities. They scatter around the world.
I do not think that the problem is any more acute or of any more concern than the very fine people in our Armed Forces who leave the service at the end of their careers and go into private industry. It is the same with the very excellent people elsewhere in the civil service that go into the private sector. The perception problem, however, is there. It is important for us to point out that, just because somebody has left the department and is working for another organization, it does not mean that somehow or another that is bad.
For too long we have considered this to be a zero-sum game. That is to say, what someone else gets, I must lose. People see this change, and their instinctive reaction is: "If that person is not working for me, it must be to my detriment that he is working for someone else." That may not be the case. That perception is definitely there, however.
The Chairman: You have been more than generous with your time this morning, and the committee appreciates it.
You have outlined your vision for us, and you have been very clear and forthcoming about some of the areas that you think will be the future of the fishery. Some of us do not share your vision for the fishery, especially with regard to the lack of community involvement and you contention that the fishers do not want that involvement. There are other areas that cause me concern, and this stresses the need for further parliamentary debate on what is happening in the fishery.
Thank you for appearing before us.
Mr. Anderson: This is an area of great complexity. There is perhaps no body in Canada with the objectivity and basic knowledge of the Senate of Canada. I look forward to working with you in the future.
The committee adjourned.