Fisheries Committee on June 6th, 2006

[Paul Sprout]

We can't--

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Otherwise, there's tremendous economic loss, and the public should be responsible for that, frankly.

[Paul Sprout]

Fair enough. The policy is flexible enough that we can compensate outside of the immediate location, so there is opportunity within the policy to accommodate much of this. I don't know the specifics, but I have observed the eel grass issue that you've been talking about in Tofino. It's not just isolated to Tofino, as you know.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Sprout.

Mr. Kamp and then Mr. Cummins.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Someone said that the reduction of water flow was affected by the shutdown of the Seton generating station in March. I just want your comments about whether you think that was a factor. Did it reduce the water flows? My understanding is that it was a scheduled shutdown. And the second question would be if DFO and B.C. Hydro coordinated these efforts and if DFO knew that Seton was going to be shut down at that time, reducing the water flows, would they have taken that into account in authorizing this gravel extraction?

[Paul Sprout]

I don't know the details around that, but I think it's a good question. I'm going to ask if Mr. Wild could respond.

[Jim Wild]

Good question.

When you look at the larger picture, the amount that they shut down wouldn't be seen as that important. It was approximately 100 cubic metres per second. Unfortunately for us, when we first put the causeway in, we had good flow through the causeway at 900 cubic metres per second, a relatively high flow, and then it dropped quite quickly. When we saw it, it was fairly low as well.

That was a significant factor. It was roughly one-third of the drop in flow. We did not know at the time that this was going to happen, and very quickly B.C. Hydro got hold of us and let us know that they could adjust, help monitor, or do whatever. They had no intention of complicating an already difficult situation. But again, it would be something we would take into account in the future, just check with B.C. Hydro to see when they're scheduling and whether they could wait for a month.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

So that wasn't a normal part of your procedure.

[Jim Wild]

No. It's a good point, Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp, Mr. Wild.

I just would address the committee for one second, if you bear with me. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs is meeting in this room at eleven. So it is my intent to suspend this meeting at around 10:40, and that will allow us our 15 minutes for briefly going in camera. We have a few issues we have to discuss from our steering committee.

We will resume this with Ms. Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I just have one very quick question, which goes back to something from 2003. The DFO regional director, John Davis, had written a letter to Deputy Minister Larry Murray. In the letter he said that there was a general lack of analysis information that demonstrates that gravel removal has a role in reduced flood hazard. And since one of the underpinnings of the letter of agreement on the lower Fraser is around reduction of flood hazard, is there any new information since 2003, or has analysis been conducted that says that gravel removal actually does what Davis said it may or may not do?

[Paul Sprout]

As I indicated in my opening remarks, the issue of gravel removal on the Fraser River is contested. It is true, there are different perspectives on this within the science community, and obviously among different interest groups. That's why we supported a study that led to the framework I spoke of. That study was supported by the Fraser Basin Council, the province, and us, and it is the basis of the gravel plan that we have today.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

In your view, is it comprehensive enough? Clearly, if there is so much dispute over there, you haven't enough information that is persuading the opponents of this.

[Paul Sprout]

The issue, I think, from the view of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is that we understand that other agencies--in this case the Province of B.C., the municipalities, and so forth, but particularly the province--have certain views and expertise in this, and they are requesting that gravel be removed. From our perspective, as an authorization or a regulatory body, what we're saying is if the intent is to remove gravel, we want to do it in a way that minimizes the impact on fish. Where we come into the picture is in determining how we can do it in the safest way possible, understanding that there will always be risk.

You're asking for my professional views on gravel removal and whether it is sound or not. I'm saying that I know it's contested. I know there are diverse opinions on it. But I also know that we collectively came together with a study, and that the study suggested a certain approach, which became the basis of this framework. We're trying to adhere to that as well as we possibly can. From a departmental perspective, what we're concerned about is how we remove gravel in a way that is as safe as possible, recognizing that there is always risk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

Mr. Cummins, go ahead, please.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to ask a couple more questions, if I could, on the Cultus exploitation rate.

Is there a rate that the department is considering now, and if so, what is it?

[Paul Sprout]

We are in the process of evaluating a proposed 30% exploitation rate, which a subgroup of commercial fishermen and first nations are recommending to the department. That's under review at this time.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I find that comment unusual. Your exploitation rate should be based on science and on your management ability considerations, not on consultation necessarily or recommendations from someone else. What's the department's view of this?

[Paul Sprout]

In fact, our view is that we should consult on the exploitation rate, and here's why: because there are many different exploitation rates we can apply to Cultus. One is zero--we don't harvest them at all--and one is another level--very high, 50% or higher. From the department's perspective, we believe there is a level that we can't go below, but above that low level it's really up to society to provide advice or actually to come to a consensus on what those kinds of exploitation rates should be.

In the case of Cultus, we think that we should be consulting on what the exploitation rate should be, that we should get advice on that, and that we should analyze that advice against conservation objectives. But ideally if people can come together and have consensus on some of these very contentious issues, that's more desirable than the Department of Fisheries and Oceans trying to divide between positions. So we would seek the advice of groups; we would analyze that relative to our objectives before providing advice to the minister.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I appreciate your comment there. I guess I misstated my question. What I really should have asked or pointed out is that this is not an issue of consultation necessarily on what groups are recommending, but there was some arm twisting to the effect that we would consider 30% if the commercial industry would recognize the legitimacy of these economic opportunity fisheries for natives. It was put in those terms. That's the perception now that's out there. Of course, saying you agree to this and we'll allow that is not an acceptable way to be making decisions in departments. They should not be made in that manner. I think that's the problem.

The issue of enforcement on the Fraser has been a concern for a number of years, and we could review the history of it if we wanted. Most particularly, the department indicated last winter that there was going to be a cut in enforcement, or the numbers would be reduced through attrition or whatever. What's the status of enforcement numbers on the lower Fraser this year?

[Paul Sprout]

Can I deal with the first observation that you made, Mr. Cummins?

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Sure.

[Paul Sprout]

It's the perception that there's a linkage between what the Cultus exploitation rate might be in 2006 and the perception that the department was coercing or somehow forcing individuals to accept a higher exploitation rate for recognizing first nations fisheries. It's a false assertion; it is not correct.

As I've indicated, the fact is that the department would definitely like to see groups come together and agree on exploitation. We think it's a more desirable approach than the department simply trying to arbitrate. The department will analyze what the groups come up with relative to our objectives before providing advice to the minister. In no way was there any pressure, coercion, or direction provided to parties that we would agree to a certain level of exploitation rate only if they agreed to something in lieu of that.

In respect to the issue of attrition on the Fraser River, we have an attrition issue generally within the department and certainly in the Pacific region. Frankly, we're an aging public service and a number of people are retiring, fishery officers, scientists, and others.

Our challenge on the Fraser River is to meet the direction from our minister. The minister indicated that he would like to see our enforcement effort on the Fraser equivalent to what it was in 2005, which was augmented over 2004. At a time when we're still faced with the reality that in some cases we have an aging workforce, particularly scientists and fishery officers, some of those people are exiting, leaving, or retiring.

The challenge for us in 2006 is to maintain the same level of fishery officer effort on the Fraser River that we had in 2005, in the face of the demographics that we have. That is what we are planning to do and what we intend to do, but it will be a challenge.