Evidence of meeting #52 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fishery.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Member, Executive Director, Association des crabiers acadiens, Nova Scotia, Canadian Fisheries Working Group
No. The particular department cannot use the sale of quota to finance.... The department can charge a fee for a licence; it does that already. But it cannot use revenue from quota to pay for its activities.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
That's why I thought it was a bizarre decision, until I understood what you said previously: the department sometimes plays favourites, one against another, and uses that. Now I understand the rationale behind that decision.
I sort of liken it to fur management, and oil and gas exploration. For instance, I'm a registered trapper in Alberta, and they use the funds that I bring from fur and hunting to fund scientific data collection. It seems like a reasonable thing.
I'm not a regular committee member, but I'm interested in what was alluded to previously by Mr. MacDonald.
You talked about self-funding and self-management with regulatory oversight from the government. Do you see that as being an option that could be pursued in the future?
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Sablefish Association; Chair, Canadian Fisheries Working Group
I thank you for the question.
You've just provided probably the first glimpse of some sanity into how we can manage our fisheries on an ongoing basis. There are many models out there that are results-based, instead of rules-based.
I used to be in the forest sector in B.C. We had a rules-based model that sort of assumed that everybody who cut a tree was going to destroy the environment. So they papered you over with countless reams of regulations that ripped over a billion dollars out of the sector.
Or you can go with results-based, where you say that these are clearly the required outcomes, and you will manage towards those outcomes. You give rewards for proper outcomes, and you give heavy penalties. You make them more prescriptive, more rules-based for non-compliance.
There are models out there that I think you would have industry pay for. If industry were actually managing the resources to objectives set by governments in a clear matrix, with consequences, you would see the industry primarily stepping up to the plate.
There are good ones in New Zealand and Australia that you could look at.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My only question is, does anybody disagree with that model?
12:50 p.m.
Member, Executive Director, Association des crabiers acadiens, Nova Scotia, Canadian Fisheries Working Group
Certainly not.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Area A Crab Association; Chair, Canadian Fisheries Working Group
In area A, we pioneered electronic monitoring on our vessels. We have cameras on deck, hydraulic sensors to tell when they're pulling a pot, radio tags on the buoys, and GPS positioning. That costs our association about $300,000 a year, and this money comes out of the fishermen.
It hands clean data to DFO on the fishery, and it puts their enforcement cost to near zero, because the fleet is totally monitored, at the cost of the fishery. So we're already managing that fishery, spending a huge amount of money, and we're getting nothing back.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Area A Crab Association; Chair, Canadian Fisheries Working Group
We're getting nothing back from the Department of Fisheries.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Starting with Mr. Eidsvik, you had wanted to make a statement or respond to something but didn't get a chance. I'd like to give you the floor.
12:50 p.m.
Director, Salmon Gillnetters Association, Area E; Member, Canadian Fisheries Working Group
Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.
I wanted to respond to the question that because this has been going on for 15 years in salmon, and since 1997-98 in other fisheries, just because Larocque came down it was a big deal and we were just trying to accommodate ourselves. The reality is that it was a unanimous Federal Court of Appeal decision. Three of our senior judges in Canada said this was illegal. Despite that, the department authorized the harvest and sale of millions of dollars worth of fish in British Columbia. The fact that it was authorized pre-Larocque is really immaterial to when the fisheries took place. The fisheries took place after Larocque, in one case at least two months, in one case at least three months, and in the case of the herring money, the money was collected years ago.
We agreed to fund that fishery, $1 million worth of salmon. If we had not funded it, the department was saying you're not going to fish on $150 million worth of fish over here. Did we have a choice to catch $1 million worth of fish in return for a $150 million fishery? It's nice to call it voluntary, because we signed the papers, but tell me, did we really have a choice to sign the papers? The answer is no.
We have a lawyer working in our office, and every day he walked by the person who was administering that fishery and would ask how the illegal fishery was going. We all knew it was illegal. Everybody knew it was illegal. The department shouldn't have authorized it, but as fishermen we had no choice but to put up the money. I raise it today because we're still in the same box. The department is not doing the work necessary to rebuild this run. They're telling us this year our harvest rate is going to be very, very low because they don't have money to spend on it. Four years from now we're not going to have a fishery because they're going to let the fish spawn into the lake this year. It needs to be dealt with now, and I fully support what the other fishermen are saying.
We need the department to commit to all the science that was done pre-Larocque. It needs to be funded now.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much.
My next question is a large question. There's a lot of discussion around here about Bill C-45. Some people think it should be pushed right through.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
The problem we have is some of the problems you have brought forward. Obviously you're not against the co-management, but you're concerned about all the different deals right across the country.
Can you give us in capsule form what process should take place before Bill C-45 comes before the House again? All we want to do is put a bill in place that will be helpful to the fishery, not hurt the fishery. It's been referred to. Is it inappropriate? I just want their opinion. They're obviously involved in the fishery, and I want to know what to think.
12:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Sablefish Association; Chair, Canadian Fisheries Working Group
I think what you would need on Bill C-45—There are some good things in Bill C-45, as people in my industry have mentioned. I say by the time you get to the good things, you'll be dead. It's not a good feast when you can't eat it. The reality is that there needs to be broad consultation on the bill, which has not happened. It needs to happen before second reading is approved in Parliament, because we all know—I've been here, you are here—that the bill cannot be substantially amended after second reading. It's been approved in principle.
The amendments the fishermen want to put in that bill will be ruled out of order by Mr. Milliken, the Speaker. I know that. I've been here. Things haven't changed. Beauchesne is Beauchesne.
We need the government to get off this hobby horse. They have to push this bill through. They should refer it to a committee for study on a number of subject matters before it goes back for second reading. I don't understand why the government would not want to do that. If they want to pass the bill, they'll bear the consequences in fishing communities across Canada.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Raynald Blais
That will be the last comment. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for coming and helping us understand their concerns better.
I would also like to thank my colleagues for their good behaviour at this meeting. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.