Evidence of meeting #7 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 heiltsuk.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
Thank you very much.
I'd like to follow up on my colleague's comment on the Supreme Court. In the decision, it says as follows:
In the result, the appeal is allowed and a new trial directed on the issue of guilt or innocence and, with regards to the constitutionality of s. 20(3), on the issue of the justifiability of the government's allocation of herring.
At that point, at that Gladstone trial, the Heiltsuk Band had one licence. Is that correct?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
So two licences. The court didn't say whether that was enough or not enough. They just said to go back to trial and determine whether or not that's sufficient to acknowledge your aboriginal right or not.
Is that the way it was?
9:35 a.m.
Vice-President, Spawn on Kelp Operators Association
In the original, from the research I've done, which we can't use here for the simple reason that we'd be here all day, the quota was 16,000 pounds. Heiltsuk were issued one licence for 16,000 pounds. They had a retirement of six gillnet licences, of which they retired three for another licence for 16,000 pounds.
My understanding of the reason they went to court is that they were asking for five licences that, in my assumption, were based on 16,000 pounds per licence. That's what they were asking for when they started going to court. Hypothetically, then, they were short four.
9:35 a.m.
Representative, Spawn on Kelp Operators Association
To answer your question further, John, the courts in the Gladstone decision did not determine what was a fair, equitable transfer, or what was a fair commercial harvest, for Heiltsuk. DFO took it upon themselves to determine what that amount was.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
When the issue started, I think there was one licence, and then there was an additional licence given to them, or they bought it along the way.
I guess the point is that the court did not say whether the two licences held by the band were sufficient to recognize the section 35 right. The court also made another very important declaration in that it recognized that others had rights to the fishery as well. There had to be some balance struck. It suggested that the matter go back to court to decide what that balance should be, and DFO took it upon themselves not to go back.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
Way back in 1999, I asked order paper questions on whether there were economic studies done to determine what the impact would be. At that time there really wasn't very much done. They said that an economic market assessment regarding spawn-on-kelp was conducted in 1997, but they hadn't conducted a formal review.
Has the department ever filed a formal review with your association to determine what the impact of its actions would be?
9:40 a.m.
Vice-President, Spawn on Kelp Operators Association
If you go to the department's website and you look up spawn-on-kelp, you'll see there's a spawn-on-kelp marketing study. Numerous studies have been on this website for a number of years. I'll refer to 2006; they issued roe-on-kelp quota even though it says right on their website that they shouldn't be doing that.
9:40 a.m.
Representative, Spawn on Kelp Operators Association
That being said, John, in October 2001 there was a report provided by Seabridge Strategies and Blewett & Associates, commissioned by DFO. That report specifically says that any expansion of the production should be brought about very cautiously because of the fragile market in Japan.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
John Cummins Conservative Delta—Richmond East, BC
They had these two licences back in 1997, I guess it was, and then seven new licences were issued in, what, 1998?
9:40 a.m.
Representative, Spawn on Kelp Operators Association
In 1997 and 1998. But it wasn't as though they were issued licenses, John.
When I explained to this gentleman how roe-on-kelp was produced, I described to him one method, called the “closed pond” method. But there is a second method. When the herring spawn naturally, you take the logs, with no web in them, and put them into the same proximity where the herring are spawning. They'll assume that this is a natural spawning bed for them and they'll spawn naturally. In other words, you don't have to capture them. You take the capturing part out of it and you do everything naturally.
DFO has decided that if you use a closed pond, you need 100 tonnes of herring to accomplish your goal, whereas if you use an open pond, you need only 35 tonnes to accomplish your goal. That being said, the original roe-on-kelp licences of 144,000 pounds were all transferred from closed ponds to open ponds. That in effect gave them 240,000 pounds of roe-on-kelp, which helped flood the market.
Basically, it was just an internal bookkeeping thing rather than a market-driven decision. It's a mind perception thing of the DFO's--that this is a use of herring that works better for the process than it does for the market.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Excuse me, John. Could I get clarification on that point from our witness? I won't take it from your time.
You're saying that in a closed pond system, the individual with that licence has a herring quota?
9:40 a.m.
Representative, Spawn on Kelp Operators Association
An allocation, and a roe-on-kelp quota, yes.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
And that herring, obviously, is not killed, so it goes back into the ocean--
9:40 a.m.
Representative, Spawn on Kelp Operators Association
A percentage probably dies because of scaling and handling and whatever, but yes, ideally they all go back.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Can you explain how 35 tonnes of herring can be allowed for open ocean and 100 tonnes required for an enclosure? It doesn't make any sense.
9:40 a.m.
Representative, Spawn on Kelp Operators Association
If you put 100 tonnes in a pond, in the manner I described before, they spawn not just on the leaves you've strung; they spawn all over the web and everything else.
9:45 a.m.
Representative, Spawn on Kelp Operators Association
That being said, the recovery of that 100 tonnes is only marketable on the kelp that you harvest. In an open pond, there is no web for them to spawn on. The spawn that doesn't go on your kelp will be distributed among the rocks and the other seaweed that happen to be in the area. So there is no “waste”, shall I say, of eggs that are deposited on the web.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Thank you for that clarification.
Very quickly, does this come out of the herring quota from the seine fleet, or...?