Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 9 - Evidence, October 20, 2005
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 20, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 10:50 a.m. to examine and report on issues relating to the federal government's new and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This morning we welcome Mr. Paul Sprout of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Mr. Sprout is the Regional Director General of the Pacific region, and with him today is Mr. Kevin Stringer, Director General, Resource Management. These gentlemen will brief us prior to our trip to the West Coast, which will take place next week.
I have several comments before we begin this session. As you know, this committee has an interest in the impact of proposals on the communities on both the East Coast and West Coast of Canada, and especially the communities that have been historically dependent on fisheries resources.
We ask the question whether government has a responsibility to consider the impact of decisions and whether we should consider these communities as stakeholders, or should fisheries resources be the reserve of the licence holders.
Some of the questions we are asking are: Has privatization become the objective? Is there any consideration given to other means of quota distribution, such as community quotas? Have any models been articulated? Has there been any attempt to assess the social, distributional and environmental impact of ITQs and IQs on the Pacific fisheries — as well as impact on employment, communities, and property values et cetera? We are concerned also with the impact on vessel crews and shore-based workers. Will concentration on the West Coast be similar to what happened on the East Coast, where limits on quota holdings are not enforced?
In an announcement last week, Clearwater decided to process a Canadian resource in China where the labour costs are cheaper. This is an East Coast issue but we want to know if DFO considers this decision to be a future problem. Will we ship our resources to places that might not obey our labour and environmental laws? Will this procedure become part of our future?
The distribution of natural resources is a major policy decision and not a management decision and that is why parliamentarians are interested in getting involved.
In our view, it is important that we ask the questions and consider all of the decisions whatever they might be.
Paul Sprout, Regional Director General, Pacific Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you, senator. I understand that this committee will visit various communities and talk to organizations and individuals in B.C. In pulling together this presentation today, I thought that I should focus on a few of the issues that you might hear during that visit. I will also provide you with a perspective on the Pacific fisheries reform initiative.
I will go through the deck quickly, as I understand there may be questions. I will simply summarize most of the pages. In a couple of instances, I will quickly highlight and move on to the questions and answers, which I believe focus of our discussion this morning.
Page 2 of my presentation sets the context for three of the Pacific fisheries reforms. The first reform deals with the important conservation concerns affecting Pacific salmon, more specifically salmon located in the south coast areas.
We think this issue relates to environmental marine conditions, which include warming ocean conditions, exceptionally high river temperatures and low river flow. These conditions affect the survival of salmon in certain streams and systems and they affect and characterize the events of this year.
The second point is that we have 198 First Nations communities in B.C.; almost one third of all the First Nation communities in Canada reside in our province. Of those communities, the majority are on rivers or near coastal areas where salmon spawn. They have a significant concern for harvesting salmon for food, social and ceremonial purposes, as well as for commercial purposes. Therefore, First Nation issues and aspirations are part of the significant character of British Columbia.
The third point is that the commercial salmon fishery is going through some difficult times and its economic performance is very poor. Many fishermen are having difficulty even meeting the costs of fishing. This is a significant consideration in terms of the rest of the presentation that I will make.
There are important allocation conflicts between the commercial and sport sectors and between commercial and First Nation sectors. These are the contextual pieces I would like to outline at the beginning.
I would like to talk now a bit about fisheries reform to set the stage, and then I will speak about some of the issues that I believe you will hear when you tour B.C.
First, I want it to speak of two reports presented to the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada in early 2004: One was the Joint Task Group Report on Post-Treaty Fisheries better known as the Pearce- McRae report and entitled Treaties and Transition: Towards a Sustainable Fishery on Canada's Pacific Coast. The other is a First Nations Panel Report entitled Our Place at the Table: First Nations in the B.C. Fishery. These two reports asked the authors to consider the economic performance in the commercial fishery and to provide advice on a post- treaty era in terms of how to manage the fisheries in the future.
The reports produced a set of recommendations that form the basis of the announcement or response from the minister, which I will speak to in a minute.
On slide 4, I capture some of the First Nations and stakeholders views.
The consultations on the recommendations from these reports were held in the fall of 2004. Again, the reports produced their recommendations in the spring of 2004 and we then carried out a series of consultations with the various stakeholders — recreational, commercial, NGOs, and the general public, to determine the consensus surrounding the recommendations contained in the two reports.
I should point out that the two reports converge in a number of areas. For example, they both propose the increase in First Nations' access to the resources. They both propose increased co-management and better sharing of decision- making among the parties and the governments. However, they diverged in certain areas. For example, the Pearse- McRae report strongly endorses movement toward individual quota (IQ) management. The First Nations report did not necessarily reject this notion of quotas, but preferred to address or reconcile their interests in terms of access to the resource first before making changes with respect to movement toward IQs or quota management.
Slide 5 shows DFO's response. After considering the fall consultations based on the recommendations from the two reports, in April of this year, the minister announced a reform blueprint of the fisheries in British Columbia. This is a commitment to reform all fisheries, not just the salmon fisheries. I must note that the B.C. salmon fishery is the one that is really struggling, particularly the commercial fishery in terms of economic performance.
If you look at the list of issues and comments directed toward the department, you will find that almost 95 per cent of them relate to salmon. Even though we manage over 100 other fisheries — halibut, black cod, groundfish, shellfish and so forth — most of the commentary in British Columbia focuses on one species or one set of fisheries, which is the salmon fishery.
In 2005 the minister announced a plan to reform all fisheries with a focus on salmon. In that plan, he laid out a vision, a set of principles and a set of strategies that we refer to as ``the blueprint.'' Those strategies comprise four important thrusts. The first is conservation. The minister indicated the importance of developing and adopting a wild salmon policy. Second, we needed to increase First Nations access to the resource. Third, DFO programs needed to be augmented. Fourth, we needed to improve the economic performance of commercial fisheries.
I would like to elaborate briefly on this direction. I will not go through each of the points of the vision on slide 6 but it argues for a self-reliant, self-adjusting fishery capable of addressing its economic and social potential. It would be a fishery where the participants enjoy more stability and certainty and where the public has more confidence in its outcome.
On slide 7 and the following slides, I lay out some of the steps we have taken since the minister's blueprint announcement in April 2005. At that time, DFO adopted a wild salmon policy. I want to make the point that we had been trying to create a salmon conservation framework since 2000. We have finally secured a policy, which we released in June 2005, after significant public, government and First Nation consultation.
This policy provides a framework for the department to guide its thinking and decision-making in respect of developing fishing plans for salmon. When the minister announced his blueprint in April, he indicated that we would entertain ``demonstration fisheries.'' These fisheries were designed to look at opportunities to improve economic performance such that the fleets would come together and make recommendations on different ways of management.
For example, this could include looking at IQ management where the fleet was prepared to support that; at competitive fishing; at pool fishing; or at any other variation that would allow us to evaluate new ways to improve the economic performance of the fisheries. This was also applicable to all fisheries, including First Nations fisheries.
We also considered examples of demonstration projects or fisheries in First Nations fisheries. The objective was to see whether we could find a way to change the way we managed traditionally so that we could improve the economic efficiency of the fisheries and better address some of the concerns that the fishermen and the fishing organizations were bringing to our attention.
Slide 8 speaks briefly to the strengthening of the DFO programs. I mentioned earlier that one of the important thrusts of the minister's blueprint announcement was that DFO needed to augment its programs. In part, this was related to criticism directed at the department in the previous year after a review of the 2004 salmon season in which former Judge Williams indicated that the department had fallen short in certain areas, particularly enforcement, catch monitoring, and some aspects of stock assessment.
The minister announced in 2005 increased resources provided to the Pacific Region directed at enforcement, catch monitoring and stock assessment. In 2005, we increased our enforcement profile, our surveillance, our catch monitoring programs and specific stock assessment programs to address the gap identified by former Judge Williams and his committee. That was the second strategy the minister mentioned in his blueprint that we responded to and put into place in 2005.
I will speak briefly to an issue before we move on to the next slide. When senators tour B.C. you are bound to hear, ``That is what happened to sockeye populations in British Columbia.'' In 2005, from Washington north to the border of Alaska, the expected sockeye population returning to British Columbia and Washington were down by as much as half and, in some cases, as much as 75 per cent to 80 per cent. In all cases, there were fewer salmon than expected.
Our scientists believe that the principal reason for this less-than-expected return is warming ocean conditions that cause young fish to suffer significant mortality rates resulting in the poor adult returns in 2005. I mention this because the lack of returns in 2005 meant that we had to adjust all of our fisheries to try to achieve our conservation objectives.
I have referred to the wild salmon policy guidelines and they presented our department and the industries with many challenges especially concerning the very limited fishing of sockeye salmon during this year. In other salmon species, the question is mixed; we had strong pink and coho returns in various parts of British Columbia. The marine effects appear to be uneven in that they appear to affect some species and locations. The southern area fishermen were particularly affected by our 2005 requirement to conserve sockeye stocks threatened by marine conditions.
Slide 9 speaks to current events in terms of spawning escapements. We are in the process of counting the salmon on the spawning grounds. In some cases, we have finished for the earliest timing stocks but the other populations, for example chum salmon, are still entering into the freshwater to spawn.
As you tour B.C, we will be conducting surveys on streams to count chum salmon and other species. We have not concluded what the spawning will look like for 2005. Thus far, it looks like this: Up to this time, we have done a fairly good job of meeting our escapement requirements for most of our sockeye populations, particularly the most productive ones. Mixed in with those is what we call our ``weak'' or ``less productive'' stocks. These populations may represent a few hundred or a few thousand animals in comparison with the most productive, which could represent hundreds of thousands of animals. In British Columbia, as in most salmon fisheries, they mix. When they swim back to the streams to spawn and you try to capture them, they are all mixed together. They are extremely difficult to separate; in fact, you cannot separate them.
The challenge is how to protect these small, weak populations, which are important genetically but which do not contribute much in terms of production. We have to answer this question because they could contribute more in the future, given warming conditions and so forth.
We are doing a good job with the main populations in the sockeye spawning escapements but the smaller populations continue to trouble us. We have to continue to pay attention to these small populations if we want to achieve the objectives of genetic diversity.
Slide 10 deals briefly with the progress of our First Nation economic access. As I mentioned, one of the strategic thrusts of the minister's blueprint announcement was to increase their access. This decision emerged from the recommendations of both reports I referred to earlier — the Pearse-McRae report and the First Nation panel report — that we increase the First Nation access to the resource through the voluntary retirement of licences and the transfer of those licences to First Nation people.
To consider this option, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is working with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to develop a memorandum to cabinet, which will provide for increased access along the lines that I have described.
That memorandum is in the system, and we will have to see how they consider it along with the other memoranda. I remain hopeful that we will see some positive results. We might be able to take steps toward that objective as well.
I mentioned that we are conducting public open house and multi-stakeholder forums. The minister has four strategic thrusts as part of his response to these reports and at the same time, he wants to undertake these demonstration projects.
We are in the process of meeting with all of the stakeholders to tell them what we did in 2005, the reasons, the results and the possibility of moving forward in terms of longer-term change. We have prepared a discussion document that lays out our direction and sets the stage for effective discussions with all the involved parties.
We are in the process of meeting various communities to discuss the issues and to talk about the blueprint and its direction and then consider the thoughts and views of the participants. Although the minister has laid out a vision and principles, he realizes that we need more input before finalizing the strategies to reform our fisheries. We are trying to close the loop with the present consultations.
Slide 11 deals briefly with the next steps that I have covered. We have a discussion document that is the source of the public discussions. I think honourable senators would find this document useful and I will have it forwarded to you after this presentation.
Slide 12 is a technical slide, which I will not spend much effort on unless you want to have a technical update. This slide illustrates that we have eight fishing areas: two seine areas, three troll areas and three gillnet areas. We are finalizing a decision whether to renew those areas. I will not go any further on that technical slide.
Slide 13 deals with our wild salmon policy. This provides a bit more detail on the elements of the policy, and unless you would like, I will not go through that either.
Senator Watt: Can you come back to it later?
Mr. Sprout: Yes. I will come back to whatever you wish.
I will spend a moment on slide 14 because I think you may hear about this subject while you are in B.C. I recollect that you discussed the salmon enhancement program in other deliberations. It is a program in British Columbia where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans enhances Pacific salmon through processes in hatcheries using natural and semi-natural means. This is a very important program in B.C. It is a program that has become a symbol and it transcends the program. We are struggling to make sure the program continues. It is in place. We continue to try to stabilize its funding but I mention it because probably you will hear about it when you travel in B.C.
I also want to speak to the West Coast of Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board, which is on slide 15. I believe that you have met with some members of this group, and I will explain briefly, what this is about and where it is going.
This body was set up four years ago under a pilot project. This multi-stakeholder group is comprised of people who live on the west coast of Vancouver Island and work with the department and provincial governments to provide advice and views on a broad range of areas. It began as a three-year pilot project and we have extended it for another year. In this fourth year, we are reviewing the terms of reference of the aquatic board, which are very broad. The board is outside of the mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in some instances and inside in others. It is involved in issues that affect people all over British Columbia, not just people from that local area.
We are trying to streamline the terms of reference and trying to find a steadier ongoing long-term source of funding. This board was set up for three years. We do not have the funding to continue this board. Its primary function is to pilot and examine some of the concepts. We are looking for a different mechanism that could secure the continuation of this board over the long-term. We are meeting with members of the board to talk about the terms of reference and to talk about funding strategies so that the positive elements of this group can continue.
Finally, I will mention the Oceans Action Plan. Senators are aware that the department received new monies to implement phase one of the Oceans Action Plan. In B.C., this comes down to several things but an important area is the large ocean management areas. The area selected is the Queen Charlotte Island basin, which covers the central and north coast. Everything north of Vancouver Island is in this large ocean management area, and we will be testing out some of the governance concepts, the integrated management approach, and working with stakeholders as we advance some of the elements and the principles identified in the plan.
In conclusion, I have three summary comments. You will encounter a number of key issues when you tour British Columbia. Your visit will coincide with the shoulder or the end of the salmon season when conservation concerns will be foremost in everyone's mind. We had a challenging season in 2005, based on the remarks that I have noted. Marine conditions affecting sockeye survival particularly caused the department to restrict commercial fisheries so there were very limited opportunities on sockeye. The picture on the other species is more mixed.
We continue to have significant concerns for small sockeye populations that are mixed with these large populations. The challenge is how to tease them apart and still have access to these bigger populations while at the same time protecting the genetic diversity of the population. This is a very challenging resource management issue.
I have mentioned the issue of DFO reform, which is a backdrop for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We need to make reforms in the fisheries. We need to respond to these conservation concerns. We need to try to improve the economic performance of the commercial fisheries in particular. We need to get at the issues of stability and predictability and so forth. I have laid out some of the background around this as you reflect on the issues and points of views that you are bound to hear in the various communities in B.C.
Finally, we have a consultation process where we will go back to the very groups we have already spoken with before the minister made his announcement to talk about what transpired in 2005, and get ourselves ready for 2006 and further.
The Chairman: You have made an extremely complex and difficult subject seem less complex. You have given us a well-prepared brief.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much, Mr. Sprout, for the update from your department. It will be important to us as we go forward on our tour of the West Coast fisheries.
You mentioned many of the stakeholders today: the commercial fishery, the sports fishery and the First Nation fishery. Do you have a priority for the fishers? Who should and should not have access to that fishery?
Is there sympathy for the communities that are involved, and have historically been involved, in the fishery?
Do you consider the community in your approach to conservation?
Mr. Sprout: Perhaps I can start, and this may be one answer where Mr. Stringer and I toss the ball back and forth, depending on whether you require a national or a local response.
As the senators are aware, traditionally we have dealt exclusively with the licence holders who have direct access to the resources. I would describe this as the traditional model. Increasingly, if you look at how the department behaves and interacts, you will see that we interact with licence holders, quota sharers, and the groups interested and affected by the fisheries.
It is difficult to pin down the definition of a ``community.'' It can be a village, town, city, organization, public group, an NGO, and so forth. The fact is that our consultations are public consultations. I have referred to our West Coast consultations. We are also having sector consultations; for example, five years ago we would have had sector consultations, which were principally with the licence holders and not with other parties. In 2005, that changed.
Our consultations are broad-based because we are interested in knowing how people are affected. In the end, we recognize that the resource is a Canadian resource owned by all Canadians, not only those who have access to the resource through a licence. Our response is that we need to have input into the process and understand the implications of the fishing plans as we think about designing new plans.
If you want to have accountability, you need to attach accountability to someone who has access to the resource. You need to have influence on how you determine that access and how you determine the fishing plans around that access. If you want to have accountability and responsibility on how that individual or organization or community behaves, the access to the resource is an important link to draw.
People have discussed the notion of community quotas, which may be technically possible. Other communities have had success with community quotas whereby they establish a share system so there is an accountability responsibility that draws back to that entity. That system guarantees accountability for the management of the resource and guarantees that the entity behaves in a certain way. It is a mechanism to correct behaviour if it is not according itself with sustainable utilization, conservation and other objectives. We are looking at community input into our processes in terms of public input, and modifying and reflecting that in terms of our goals, objectives and fishing plans.
Senator Hubley: I am looking for assurances. I am more familiar with the East Coast than the West Coast and look forward to learning more about the West Coast while we are out there with this committee.
I wonder if the community-based group involved in the fishery has a voice and if so are the aspirations of that group addressed in the mechanisms within this overall and broad vision we have for our fisheries. Do we understand their economic and social needs? Are these groups included in the bigger picture?
There is a good voice for the sports fishery and for the large fishery, but I wonder if the smaller communities who have always depended on their fishery have good representation. Do they have a priority in the scheme of things or is it something that they will have to prove? Do they have a positive right to have that fishery for their community?
In many cases, if their livelihood is jeopardized, by the whole scheme of things, we have to go back and look at it, to assure everybody in those communities that the fishery will be there for them.
Mr. Stringer: Our department has a responsibility to manage the fishery and we are always aware that we are affecting the surrounding communities. We need to be aware that the fishery, particularly in Atlantic Canada and in some communities on the West Coast, is the lifeblood of those communities.
Our approach to fisheries management renewal and to more stability in the fisheries will ensure that the people in the fishery will be there for the long term. They have a genuine stake in the management of the fishery. This is a way to provide community stability and lead to better conservation outcomes and a better focus on value. If people understand that they are in it for the long term they can see themselves in the future and we will see better results for the communities. In that way they will be able to work with us in terms of co-management, and shared stewardship
The department does deal with this and you will likely hear about the process while you are on the West Coast. Mr. Sprout outlined a six-community tour and a number of smaller communities you will visit. This will be a unique event and may set the standard for future work. They are setting up two-day sessions that will include local fishers, local First Nation groups, environmental group representatives and community leaders. In Prince Rupert, stakeholders and communities that are included as stakeholders are coming together for two days to talk about fisheries issues in that area. That may be a standard for the future and something we acknowledge we need to keep in mind as we go forward.
Senator Adams: Mr. Sprout, we settled a land claim in 1993 and started policy four or five years ago on fishing in Nunavut. We have a little difficulty with the minister, especially quotas on turbot and shrimp in the Arctic. We have been there for thousands of years. We know that up to 200 miles off shore belongs to Canadians. They regulate up to 12 miles; we do not even know what is in the 12 miles and between the 12 miles and the shore. There has been research on the type of fish and how much fish the community is able to catch.
Now we have OA and OB in the Arctic and OA has 4,000 metric tonnes. According to some of the organizations, we need vessels up to 200 feet. The only way to go there is to fish. Every year, between now and February, the minister gives out the quota numbers. Two areas have 4,000 metric tonnes; for OB, it is 1,500 tonnes. OB had another 2,500 with the cold-water shrimp. Right now, we have the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, NWMB that make requests for quotas to the minister here in Ottawa. The Baffin Coalition, a fishery association, has 11 Inuit directors from the Baffin community in its association. The quotas related to some of the fish that are caught are not going into the community, except for three communities, namely, Broughton Island, Clyde River and Pond Inlet. That expired this year.
About 330 tonnes went back to Baffin Island. They do not know if they will get their same quota back. The fishery has been operating there for the past four or five years. Yet, somehow, they do not have equipment but they have a contract with Clearwater for 330 tonnes. They got the contract money with the company for about $110,000 per year. That is the only income coming into the community. It is great to do it again this year. Now, however, we have no access to it from OA and OB from the quotas.
How does the system work? Those organizations should work to bring it in through the foreigners. Those fish are not even Canadian. We settled a land claim. We want to control the economy in the community but now we cannot even do that. Some of the policy should change. According to the land claim clause, it should be between the minister and the Nunavut government board to decide how to control the system. It is not working now and I have difficulty with that.
I worked on this for over three years. We finally got one committee started, and now we cannot even get the quotas that we were supposed to get from the minister.
Mr. Stringer: When you talk about the community being dependent on the fisheries and not having a lot of other things to make them economically viable, certainly Nunavut is a good example.
I understand your three questions. One question is on the land claim and the access that is provided to Nunavut compared to other interests. The second is on the unique nature of Nunavut and the government's ability to recognize that apart from the land claim. The third is on the role of the NWMB, NTI, BFC, and where the fisheries' benefits end up.
In terms of the issue of access to Nunavut interests overall, the land claim was signed in the early 1990s. Special consideration should be given in offshore areas to Nunavut interests, taking into account adjacency and economic independence. It then says that this should be balanced against other Canadian interests.
Since 1991, Nunavut had about 8.8 per cent of the shrimp fishery. As increases have gone up, Nunavut has received the majority share of the increases to where they are at 31.4 per cent in the areas adjacent to Nunavut. Nunavut interest tell us that percentage is not nearly enough. Other interests in the south that we are supposed to be balancing against say that is way too much. Our view is that we have met the spirit and intent of the land claim.
On turbot, it is now 60 per cent in OA and OB. There is then the matter about who will get that benefit. If it goes to Nunavut interests, what are Nunavut interests and who gets that benefit?
Senator Adams: I thought it was 65 per cent.
Mr. Stringer: I understand it was 60 per cent. It is the majority share now, and that is substantial. There are increases expected, particularly within OA, and we need to deal with that this year.
The second point is on the unique nature of Nunavut and the fishery. I was in Nunavut about three weeks ago meeting, with NTI, NWMB, the government and other folks. We talked about the unique nature of the developing fishery in Nunavut. The department's programs are built to address some of the other issues addressed today which is a fishery that is developed. We no longer have training programs. We do not build small craft harbours; we are largely divesting ourselves of that program.
In terms of the fishery, some communities were really a growing an effective fishery. Unfortunately, our department is not set up to deal with those as a natural thing. We are finding ways to address those things in any case. We have the study on small craft harbours and the stuff we have done in terms of access. We acknowledge that there are unique challenges in Nunavut for which we need to come up with unique solutions.
In terms of the role of the NWMB and BFC, that has been a challenge over the last number of years. In particular, in terms of our approach to shared stewardship and co-management, we see it as a regulatory partner and we see NWMB as a group with which we want to work. My understanding is that they are currently undertaking a study on the whole issue of offshore versus inshore. We will continue to work with NWMB as well as with NTI and the Government of Nunavut on these issues.
Senator Adams: I understand it is very difficult; however, some of the people in the community are pulling out of BFC. The organization in Nunavut and the BFC was set up in 2002. One share was given to each HTO in the community. Some people already had the quotas, but they did not have voting shares. What can you a person do with one share? If they did not like what BFC was doing to the community, they did not get a voting share. The system set up the shares, and if they did not like the way the board was working, they had to write to them.
I do not know how the organization works with that system. I just had a meeting with the directors yesterday at the fish plant in Pangnirtung. I asked, ``What are you guys doing here? You do not have a clue what is going on.'' Those are the guys who are directing us. It is very difficult for people to get into business. I am looking into that. I would hate for my own people to say, ``You guys do not understand.''
We have been living up there for a thousand years. The only thing is that it is not easy to get into business. You are talking about millions of dollars worth of equipment. We do not even know if there will be access for those communities to ask for the quotas in the OB and OA in the future. They may give it to someone else, which is very typical.
Mr. Stringer: I would like to point out that the minister was in Pangnirtung in April and during that visit heard many of these views. During his visit, he also met with the MWMB and the Government of Nunavut.
Senator Adams: I know he did.
Mr. Stringer: He is well aware of those issues.
We see the MWMB as a partner. We understand and support the work that is underway in terms of trying to deal with the study, which will begin this fall. There is no question that there is huge potential in the Nunavut fishery and the people there will be the beneficiaries in the long term.
Senator Cowan: Tell me a little bit about the life cycle of B.C. salmon. I come from the East Coast and I know something about the life cycle of East Coast salmon. The reason I ask that question is because you talk about low returns. Are you able to judge things based on one year or do you need to have three or four years in order to get a proper appreciation of the long-term effects on stock?
Mr. Sprout: There is a difference between Atlantic and Pacific salmon. There are principally five species we manage on the West Coast: sockeye, pink, chum, coho and chinook. The sockeye are the ones that the commercial fishery and First Nations are most interested in. That is probably the most valuable species to them. Chinook and coho are the species in which the recreational fishery is most interested.
Pacific salmon spawn in fresh water and die, in contrast to Atlantic salmon, where a high proportion can survive to spawn several times. Pacific salmon are incubated in fresh water and then emerge as young fish. Depending on the species, they either leave the fresh water as soon as they hatch and move out into the ocean and return in one to three years time, or they can stay in fresh water for two or three years, then go to the ocean where they spend another two or more years before coming back. That is the general life cycle.
The point is that they die after they spawn. They spend various periods of time in fresh water. It varies between species. They also spend various periods of time in the marine environment and it is in that environment that we have noticed considerable changes. What we took to be a stable environment turns out not to be stable.
Senator Cowan: Do you mean in terms of temperature?
Mr. Sprout: Yes. In terms of temperature and conditions under which they were exposed, the ability to find food, the salinity, a whole series of things we assumed to be relatively constant are not that constant at all. In fact, the conditions are changing. For some of the species it creates worse conditions.
The number of fish returning from the ocean is declining. The returns are uneven compared to previous years. It is hard to say that it is the case for all the salmon species but in 2005, the sockeye returns were much lower than in other years.
Senator Cowan: The second issue deals with poaching or illegal fishing, which is a problem on the East Coast. You did not mention that when you were talking about problems we might hear about on the West Coast. Is that an issue, either from DFO's point of view or that of the licensed fishers?
Mr. Sprout: Poaching is an issue. The minister asked judge Williams to look at this problem in relation to the Fraser River. His conclusion was that part of the problem related to illegal fishing and poaching. The department's response in 2005 was to increase its resources to enhance the number of fisheries officers and the number of patrols to try to address the problem observed by former judge Williams.
Yes, as in the East Coast, poaching or illegal fishing is a problem. It is more problematic in some areas than others and with some species at some times. It is not necessarily constant across all of the fisheries. In fact, you will hear some of this when you tour British Columbia. People will argue that all of the problems of Pacific salmon are because people are catching them illegally. You will hear that view from some.
The reality is that there is some illegal fishing, yes; that is true. The department has responded. I have talked a bit about that in terms of the augmented resources we received this year, but I would confirm that you will hear some of this criticism when you tour B.C.
Senator Cowan: The third point had to do with aquaculture and its impact on these fisheries.
Mr. Sprout: That is another caldron. Aquaculture is a very important fishery in British Columbia. It has gone from very modest levels to being a significant contributor. We land a great deal of fish produced in aquaculture operations and they contribute significant employment to the very communities to which you will be going, the remote, isolated communities. In many cases they cannot depend on the forest industry or other natural resource industries that are in decline or not showing growth. Therefore, aquaculture is a very important source of employment.
That being said, it is very controversial. We have groups that believe aquaculture provides a valuable product and employment and can be done in a sustainable way. We have others that argue that it is creating a source of disease and other problems for wild salmon.
The department believes that aquaculture use is a legitimate use of the resource, but that it needs to adhere to standards to be a sustainable industry. We need to ensure that those standards are respected. If respected, then we believe it is a legitimate use that can contribute to employment and can be done in a way that is harmonized with wild utilization and wild fisheries.
Senator Watt: Listening to your presentation, I am encouraged to hear that there is openness and willingness to explore alternative ways of dealing with the questions of conservation and management.
Why did you not discuss the topic of wild salmon in your presentation? Why are you only willing to discuss this subject at the question stage?
Mr. Sprout: It was only because of time, senator.
Senator Watt: I understand.
We need to be sensitive to the survival of the wild salmon. There is a possibility that wild salmon could be overlooked or not considered a priority or important any more because of the farming and the aquaculture aspects. The general public of Canada and the government look at it as the way to go because it provides stability, in a sense.
At the same time, we know that those same species farmed by us will be utilizing the same water. They will be let go and be expected to come back. That is happening now in British Columbia. Sometimes sufficient numbers come back and sometimes the numbers do not match expectation.
We are speaking in general terms. I would like to deal with specific issues based on my own personal experience. There are three salmon rivers in Nunavik. I fish for subsistence purposes. When I was a commercial fisherman, I was aware of the fact that the stocks in those rivers were not sustainable. We have always tried to ensure that conservation comes before anything else.
With that said, we have scientific research instruments at our disposal in the community of Kuujjuaq. Over the years, we have been taking care of the well-being of the fish in that river. This is taking place under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Since then, we have witnessed that Atlantic salmon are becoming extinct and during the entire salmon season, you might be lucky to harvest one or two Atlantic salmon.
In the Kuujjuaq River, the salmon does not travel the same way as the Atlantic salmon. They go back and forth into the river and along the coast. At one time we used to call them short salmon. Today, those short salmon are huge.
In the last five years, I have witnessed big changes. The short salmon seem to be taking over that river system. I cannot say this for sure because I do not have the scientific information as to what is happening in the Kangiqsualujjuaq River, but I know for sure it is happening in Kuujjuaq. If the Atlantic salmon is becoming extinct, we need to know why.
The fish that we used to call short salmon can grow up to 45 pounds. What makes them grow that large in such a short period of time? Is it warm water? Do they have more food to eat? I do not know. We need scientific information to find the answers to these questions.
Last summer, I contacted our research department this summer after I started catching these huge salmon. I told them that I wanted them to come down and take samples. It is their responsibility to measure the size of the salmon, look at their scales and determine their age. They do not do that anymore and I am not sure why. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has a collective responsibility to monitor what is happening in our river systems.
This important area should not be overlooked.
I would like to discuss two other areas in connection to questions from Senator Hubley about the community base.
I am going to be connecting the community base with IQ. Individual quota is not necessarily community bases. It can be an individual person that has a lot of money and a lot of influence in the community. The well-being of that community depends on those resources, which have direct and indirect impacts on having sufficient facilities like health and education. Many of those coastal communities have risen because of the fish and nothing else.
How do you reassure a community that an individual person that holds the quota, a stakeholder, will not turn around and take the plant somewhere else when he sees fit? It is not economically sound for him, but it might be economically sound for the community. How do you deal with that issue?
Mr. Sprout: My colleague may want to speak to some of your perspectives regarding Atlantic salmon.
First of all, in terms of the wild salmon approach and the policy that we adopted in April of this year, your perspective on this is exactly why we felt a wild salmon policy was necessary. The B.C. public demanded a wild salmon policy. It is the view that we need to preserve the genetic diversity of Pacific salmon in order to have wild salmon in the future.
The policy itself is broken down into strategies, objectives and a series of scientific activities. It also provides an assessment basis to measure how well we are achieving the objectives in the policy.
Ultimately, it is about preserving Pacific salmon because in B.C., salmon is iconic and supersedes any other natural resource. People care about salmon even if they do not use it for commercial purposes or to consume it, they just want to be satisfied that it is there.
As I said, when you are touring B.C., you are going to hear a lot about salmon.
With respect to the community issue, we believe that community input is important, and we have entered into public discussion and dialogue that will influence how we shape and manage fisheries.
That is a change. From my perspective, given my career in the department, I transcend the time where we did not do that. We do that today, and I anticipate it will continue to move forward over time. This is not something that is fixed; it will continue to evolve. It is a new process for us and we are committed to factor in the dialogue into our policies.
There is an issue about how to tie the community to access and to licences. That is a separate question for discussion. It gets into the issue of community quotas, which is another fertile field for conversation if not debate. That may be a way of getting to some of the points that you touched on toward the end of your remarks.
If you track the progress of this department in terms of its consultation mechanisms, there is no question that we have moved from where we had limited opportunity to hear other input to a more open public process, and that is a process that is still unfolding and transforming itself.
Mr. Stringer: Mr. Sprout commented on the wild Pacific salmon policy that we came out with in July. That was the first time that our department put out such a policy.
As Mr. Sprout pointed out, wild Pacific salmon is a hugely complex and important issue. This policy attempts to marry resource management, science, habitat management, and conservation and protection. It illustrates how we coordinate the priorities and deal with critical habitat and science, those types of things.
Over the last number of years, people realized similar issues between the salmon on both coasts. We did stop commercial fishing. We have taken a number of steps. We do as much conservation as we can. We do research into what is happening at-sea and what is happening with at-sea mortality, we are dealing with acid rain issues and what is happening in Greenland.
We are now undertaking work on a wild Atlantic salmon policy. It is in some ways more complex because we are dealing with five provinces instead and one territory.
Our cornerstone was the minister's February announcement of the Atlantic Salmon Endowment Fund, which addresses issues such as working with stream keepers, community and conservation groups on critical habitat, and other projects. We are trying to take steps to preserve and, indeed, bring back wild salmon on the East Coast.
The issue becomes more complex because of the issue around food and social and ceremonial salmon fisheries that have developed over the last number of years. It is a complex issue, but we are working on it, and specifically working on trying to get a handle along the lines of the Pacific process in a wild Atlantic salmon policy.
Senator Watt: What is happening in the field? Are we just talking, or will we be doing something? Fisheries and Oceans Canada is certainly out of the area. I have not seen anyone from that department in any of my areas.
Mr. Stringer: I can look into that, if you wish, but I cannot speak to the specific rivers you mention.
Senator Watt: I would also encourage you to get in touch with the research department of Makivik Corporation. They are the ones who are dealing with it. I would imagine that when they said they are no longer doing the scientific studies on it, it is probably because they are not receiving the money any more. I do not know whether that is the reason behind that. I did not ask the question. I would like to get some answers on that sometime later on.
Do you have a model for the community base? Have you worked on the model? You mentioned that it is ongoing and at the development stage. Do you have any alternative models that we can look at, or would you prefer to receive that as a proposal from wherever, whether the stakeholders or the committee?
Mr. Stringer: I would say there probably is not a ``one size fits all.'' We find that certainly with the West Coast versus the East Coast. There are different approaches on the West Coast and East Coast. Indeed, the process that Mr. Sprout was talking about is taking place on the West Coast right now, not on the East Coast. I do not know if there is a ``one size fits all.'' We have, and we can provide you with this, a sense of where we see fisheries management going in terms of stability, in terms of co-management, in terms of involving the folks currently in the fishery and giving them some sense that they will be in the fishery for a long term, and that is an overall model.
In terms of engaging communities in the fishery, Mr. Sprout is right. That is something that is developing, and we certainly are open to models on that subject.
Senator Watt: Would you see the committee as useful in that area, if we started focusing on having some direct dialogue with the communities?
Mr. Sprout: From our perspective, I think we would be interested in your thoughts on how we could interact effectively with our various constituencies, interests and First Nations. It is a challenge for the department.
Senator Watt: I am not only talking about the First Nations.
Mr. Sprout: I understand and I would add NGOs and so forth. It is a challenge for us to distribute limited resources across a number of different meetings and interactions with various groups. Thoughts in this area would be helpful as we inform ourselves as we move through this series of steps. As I said, the way we consult today will probably be different five years from now, and 10 years from now will be different from five years from now. It is an evolving process. At this point, I am laying out, in the Pacific, at least, how we have approached it at this time to address some of the points you have raised.
Very likely this will be transformed again over the next five years or so, so input in this would be useful.
The Chairman: With the permission of the last two members, I would like to ask my questions now, because I need to leave shortly. I have a few unrelated questions.
As we know, DFO has some perceptual problems. People perceive DFO with certain negative connotations, and it definitely needs improvement. It is the question of the hidden agenda. It almost sounds like the Conservative Party, with accusations of hidden agendas and so on. I will give an example.
The fact that the department had recommended Dr. Pearse be the author of the study or the visionary of the study immediately sent the message that there was a bias from the department. Imagine if Dr. Parcival Copes had been picked as the lead researcher for the study. Why did you pick Dr. Pearse and not someone who had less of a history on privatization?
Mr. Sprout: The provincial and federal governments sponsored the joint task group. We put forward Donald McRae and their choice was Peter Pearse, and that is how we arrived at the Pearse-McRae joint authorship.
The Chairman: That choice sent a signal that the study would be biased. I pass this on as a suggestion. It was possibly because of the bias of one of the two researchers. Mr. Pearse is a very well renowned researcher. However, he does have a bias.
Mr. Sprout: My response to that is that Dr. Pearse is an economist with a very high reputation. He has done a number of consultations on a number of reports for Canada across a number of different resources, not just fish. He is highly regarded on an international level as well. My own perspective is that whoever was selected would seem to be biased in one way or another.
What we should look at is the result, the product and the process followed, and then where we go from there in terms of the department's response.
The Chairman: I will leave that aside for the moment. I happen to disagree with you. There are economists out there who have less of a support for a certain model than Dr. Pearse. I am not placing judgment on his intellect and on his research capabilities and on the valuable work he has contributed in the past, but there are people with less of a bias towards a certain model.
Both the U.S. and the U.K. and to a certain extent New Zealand, have recognized that there will be impact of going to an ITQ system on communities that are highly dependent on adjacent resources. They have made public how they would go to committee quotas in certain areas in order to mitigate the impact of ITQs.
Canada has not used that approach or even signalled that it would contemplate using this approach. Why would we not follow both the U.S. and the U.K. on signalling that we do recognize that there will be impact on certain communities and therefore we will mitigate?
Mr. Stringer: We have not said that we do not recognize that there is impact on communities. The model that we are outlining in terms of going forward on fisheries management renewal does get there, although it might get there in a slightly different way. It is one where we consolidate the people in the fishery and provide them with the means to become involved with the management of the fishery. In that way, we engage the community and provide them with a foundation on which to build.
In addition to that, my colleague has spoken to the process that is taking place in B.C. in terms of engaging communities, which is a separate issue. In terms of going forward on fisheries management renewal, we think that the overall stability, predictability and transparency will be helpful for communities along the same lines. This is especially important on the East Coast, where we have policies that speak to owner-operator, fleet separation, and those types of things where you have communities built on the fishery.
The Chairman: I raised that point in my opening comments. Last week Clearwater announced that it would move its processing operations, resulting in 40 jobs lost in Cape Breton, in an area where the loss of 40 jobs will have a tremendous impact. In Grand Banks, Newfoundland another 26 jobs are moving to China because of cheap labour rates and probably because of environmental and labour laws that are more lax.
The company can do it. It is a corporate decision. It has the right to do it, because we handed a Canadian-owned resource to Clearwater and that resource now belongs to one company. Clearwater is able to make corporate decisions that can affect communities that need those jobs.
Have you considered that implementing an ITQ system might allow this to happen on the West Coast as well? Do you foresee any way to avoid a repetition of what is happening in Sydney and Grand Banks?
Mr. Sprout: I am not aware of IQ systems actually stimulating those who have access to their resource processing their product outside of where they would traditionally do it. In fact, I would say that it has been the opposite of that. We have seen more focus of trying to find value for products in the local area, particularly in the areas of Vancouver, Nanaimo, the west coast of Vancouver Island and places like that.
At this point, I am not aware of that particular option, where people come forward and suggest they will take their product somewhere else.
The Chairman: I have a dozen copies of the news release that I picked up from the newspaper. It is not being denied by Clearwater. They are actually saying it. I will get you a copy. Even though I am transposing an East Coast scenario on to the West Coast, I am trying to find out whether our experience on the East Coast might not be valuable with respect to the West Coast.
Clearwater is not denying it. It is in the paper: 40 jobs in North Sydney and 26 jobs in Grand Banks. They are moving for cheaper labour rates.
On that same topic, are you considering any means to limit the concentration of quotas to any one individual or company?
Mr. Sprout: In the process of consultations I referred to earlier, we are asking such questions as, if we were to move to these kinds of arrangements where fleets are proposing, for example, IQ management, are there other issues people want to bring forward in terms of accepting or embracing that direction, which could include looking at issues of concentration.
At this point we are open to people's thoughts and views on that approach, but we are trying to encourage the industry itself to come up with solutions that are consistent with the principles we have laid out: sustainable use, respecting conservation, not harming or affecting someone's interest outside of your own, that kind of thing. We would then look at the individual proposals and the considerations people might suggest. If there are issues around corporate concentration, that would be the mechanism we would use to consider whether there should be stipulations or constraints put on the transferability of these IQs, if that it was a preference.
The Chairman: I note you used the word ``industry.'' The industry will want whatever flexibility can be built into the system, obviously saying we have a right to change our mind whenever we want to. The industry decides at which point it wants to go to corporate concentration or not, without generally seeking the advice of its local community, as I think was raised by Senator Hubley.
The issue of concentration will be decided by the industry, will it not?
Mr. Sprout: There are two separate issues here. First, there is the issue of the type of industry. For example, if we are dealing with the salmon industry in British Columbia, the industry are seine boats, trawlers and gillnetters, and the small boat fisheries are the trawlers and gillnetters, which make up more than half the fleet. Each of the industries will make decisions or provide its views about how they would like to organize themselves and what type of fishery they would like to pursue. Additionally, as I have indicated, we have a public process where we are asking the public generally, the NGO community, leaders of communities and so forth, to provide their thoughts and views. Finally, we have things like the Aquatic Management Board and others that are multi-party processes where people have a further opportunity to provide perspective.
We think we have a robust approach to getting people's perspective and then comparing that with maybe more narrow interests, and then ultimately arriving at good public policy.
The Chairman: Again, applying the experience of the East Coast, several years ago I asked a question of the deputy minister at the time, regarding corporate concentration and the amount of quotas accumulated in groundfish. The response was 3 per cent. ``How are you monitoring this?'' ``We are not monitoring it. That is the policy, 3 per cent, but we do not monitor it because we are not policemen.''
We had a policy in place, but it was disregarded. It sounded good when you asked the first question, ``What is the amount of corporate concentration you can have in this fishery?'' Three per cent sounded good; but when you asked if the concentration was applied the answer was ``no.'' That is another reason why DFO is suspect, when you try to get answers to questions.
My last question would be on the Aquatic Management Board. It has proposed what it calls an aquatic trust, based on the experience in Alaska. We have not looked at it yet, but apparently the experience in Alaska on salmon has been quite positive.
Have you in the department looked at the Alaskan model to see whether this aquatic trust of the Aquatic Management Board might be a model?
Mr. Sprout: I have not from that perspective, Senator Comeau. We have looked at the Alaskan community quota system as a potential mechanism to be considered in B.C. where there is an interest to pursue it, but we have not looked at a trust system.
We look at the Aquatic Management Board as a mechanism to provide multi-stakeholder input around certain ideas and certain policies and strategies. Presently, the focus is trying to make the terms of reference more focused so that we get as much benefit as we can from the process.
The answer to your question is that we have not looked at it from a trust perspective. However, we have looked at the issue of the community quotas and the relevancy in B.C.
The Chairman: Hopefully, the Aquatic Management Board will continue to be in existence for a while yet. I do believe they have great potential, if there is any way for the department to help out. I think they are on the right track. They still have some way to go, but if there is any way we could continue to try to help them along it would be useful. They do have some good ideas and good potential.
Mr. Sprout: The multi-stakeholder concept is a good idea. The issue is how to fold that into everything else that is going on in B.C. while trying to find some long-term funding so that they are not anxious every year about whether or not they will continue.
Senator Merchant: I come from Saskatchewan. For that reason, I let all my colleagues who have more experience in the fisheries ask the questions.
When you have stakeholder consultations, you hear various points of view. Can you tell us the key issues that you cannot get agreement on when you hear from the different stakeholders?
Mr. Sprout: That is a good question. At a fundamental level, there is a significant area of dispute in B.C. between First Nations and non-natives on the commercial side. First Nations are very anxious to have increased access to the resource, across all species. Non-natives are concerned about their livelihood. We are trying to reconcile how we can move toward providing for more First Nations access but do so in a way that is respectful of other parties.
That is a big issue. You will hear that in B.C. You will hear, for example, that First Nations are allowed to fish and non-natives are not.
Senator Merchant: That is what we hear in the news.
Mr. Sprout: That is about two things. First, it is about the fact that First Nations have a right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes and there may be incorporation for First Nations to have commercial access. Depending on the nature of that access, they may have fished earlier than other parties or they may fish in a different way than other parties, or in a different area than other parties. That will come out as a frustration between one group versus the other.
Another issue that you will probably hear about is conservation. You will hear from the environmental community that the department needs to be even tougher than we have been about conservation. We need to restrict even further the fishery we restricted. On the other hand, when you go to Prince Rupert and you are sitting down in a fishing community, you will hear the reverse. You will hear, why did the department take these actions? Why did the department not allow for fishing?
You may hear habitat issues. You may hear issues around how certain developments can take place and at the same time protect salmon which would spawn in freshwater, and spend some of their lifetime in freshwater. That is a controversy.
The final points you will hear are issues around climatic change and marine conditions that I spoke to earlier. You will run into these and other issues while you tour B.C.
Senator Merchant: Do stakeholders support the minister's overall vision for the Pacific fishery reform that participants are self-reliant and able to self-adjust, and those who benefit from the harvest share that management costs.
Mr. Sprout: What this is getting at is our expectation that a commercial fishery can prosecute itself and largely be self-sustainable. It does not need a lot of support other than what we have a responsibility to do, which is do certain types of stock assessment, enforcement, and so forth.
We expect the fisheries to be profitable. We expect people to be able to make money and to meet or exceed their costs. That is where we would like to go. We are not there on salmon. We have a way to go, but we think that is a reasonable objective to have and to try to match ourselves against that objective.
In terms of sharing costs, we recognize that we have a public obligation to do certain kinds of things that we have a responsibility to invest in and pay for, for example, fundamental stock assessment programs, enforcement and monitoring. Sometimes the various commercial industries, or fleets, want us to do other things that we see as not really a public investment. We see it is in their interests. We are not opposed to that, but we think they should pay for it if that is the case. That is a struggle for us to figure out that balance. I admit it is a struggle. However, I cannot provide all the clarity I would like to provide. That is an ongoing challenge for us. That is what is meant by those principles.
Senator Merchant: Are there other models that you are following in this regard?
Mr. Sprout: That is a good question, senator. We are informed by other models. Senator Comeau spoke of the New Zealand/Australia model. We are familiar with the European models and other models in the United States. We inform ourselves of models around the world. What we have designed is a made-in-B.C. approach because of the traditions, cultures, histories, that are unique to this country and to various provinces. We have to do what is right for us. We do inform ourselves of other models.
The Deputy Chairman: Are there any further questions? I do not have anyone else wishing to ask questions. If that is the case, on behalf of the committee, I would like to express our thanks to you for your presentation and for answering our sometimes difficult questions. We are looking forward to our visit to the West Coast. You have been very helpful in setting that scene for us. Thank you again.
If I could ask the members to wait for a moment, we will suspend the hearing for a few until we clear the room. We then have a short in camera meeting.
The committee continued in camera.