Fisheries Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

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

It will be interesting to see that.

Mr. Allen, do you have anything?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

You have time for one quick question.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Following up on that, not having seen this advice to ministers, you indicated in there that you presented options and then the department's preferred approach as to how you would do that. With those presented options, do you do a risk analysis of each of those options? If the minister were to take a different decision, is there a risk analysis with each one of those options?

[David Bevan]

Often a risk analysis is associated with it. But again, in 2009 we didn't have the framework. We hadn't done enough of the work at that point to provide the minister with as clear recommendations as we did in 2010, regarding a precautionary approach and what the critical levels of population would be, where we'd be very concerned that we would have long-term damage to the stocks. That didn't exist in 2009; it does now.

We do provide some risk assessments. Where we have the capacity to do so, we provide that information. While obviously a higher TAC in a downward cycle is more inherently risky than a lower TAC, having said that, there are people who bear that risk, and that's the industry. They have very strong views, and we did not, in 2009, have a view that the decision would lead to an irreversible crash of the stock. That wasn't the case.

There was a decision to be taken by the minister. It had to be based on all the information, and the decision that was taken was not one that would lead to an irreversible crash of the stock. So it is a decision the minister must take, has very little time to take.

There was a question on timing. Those are the difficult decisions. The more divisive the views and the more difficult the decisions, the more the minister may have to consider a wide variety of views on which to make those decisions at the same time the season is fast approaching.

We do risk analysis, but I would say that there was no advice to the minister that any decision that would be taken in terms of those options that were available to the minister would lead to the inevitable collapse of the stock.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. MacAulay, we'll move to a five-minute round now.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bevan, it's good to see you. Congratulations. You're where you should be, and that's good.

First, in one of the statements you made you said the minister does not have the option to offload the decision. I can assure you that I never would agree that the minister should ever have the option to offload the decision. It's a decision for the minister and the minister alone. Would you agree?

[David Bevan]

That's the law.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

That's the law, and if you take it away, it takes the democracy away.

[David Bevan]

I believe that's a parliamentarian's—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Number one, when a minister makes a decision, the minister has to stand on the decision. If an offloaded group makes the decision, it's into your realm, but the fact is then we get no chance to deal with the people who made the decision.

You've talked about 63% reduction, I believe, since 2008. In 2009, it's certainly clear to me that the minister had pretty clear scientific information from the department. From your experience in this fishery--we're in a cycle in which there was a major decline--she made the decision to follow the views.... Whether you would call it a political decision, a decision that satisfied the industry over the view of science, looking at the situation that we knew she knew and the scientists knew we were in a major decline, she made the decision herself to go with the TAC in 2009 that in the end had a damaging effect on the biomass. Would you agree?

[David Bevan]

We've had these decisions taken by a variety of ministers every time we're on a downward cycle.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Yes, but I'm talking about this one. Not to be inconsiderate, Mr. Deputy, but this committee is trying to find out, we're trying to be in a position to give advice to the minister and to the government. And our understanding is that she was given the advice that the fishery was in a decline, it was in that cycle. But she made the decision at that time, over the advice of the scientists, to go with the advice of the fishery. And are you telling us, sir, that this fisheries advice and the industry advice were based on science?

[David Bevan]

It was based on their view of science. They had a critique that was based on their interpretation of the science. Yes, they had a view that was not just “I want to fish”.

I would point out, as you pointed out, that ministers have to make these decisions, and do make these decisions. On numerous downward cycles, we've seen ministers take decisions higher than the advice of the scientists. And in those cases they got away with it in terms of the following year; the predicted declines were less than what were anticipated. So that's the history. In this case, it didn't necessarily work out. But we have seen ministers having to take the advice of the department, the views of the industry, and the views of provinces into consideration, and they make a decision at the end of the day. We have had decisions that were above the advice provided by the department on previous downward cycles, and the consequences did not turn out to be as dire as had been predicted.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

The problem, of course, is that people involved in the fishery, people concerned about the fishery, or people concerned about the biomass are always going to think of what happened with the cod fishery. Do you not agree that she made the decision not based on conservation but rather on the highest level of the TAC she could allow to be taken?

[David Bevan]

The advice to the minister was that this level would not lead to an inevitable collapse of the stock.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You're telling me it wouldn't mean the stock would collapse but it would certainly hurt the biomass. Would I be understanding that correctly? Would the advice that science gave your department, gave to the minister, have indicated to her that this would have an effect on the biomass? That's all I'd like to know.

[David Bevan]

That was the advice. She had contrary views--

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you, sir. I just wanted to know that this was the advice, that it would affect the biomass. It's important for this committee to know that.

[David Bevan]

That was the advice at the time. But I would point out that this advice had been there in previous cycles, and ministers had taken the decision to go above that advice and it didn't lead to the predicted decreases. So it's happened in the past.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Not to be inconsiderate, but what you're telling us is when science gives advice to the minister, then it.... Knowing the cycle the fishery is in, understanding the fishery pretty well--there's lots of information--would you agree she did not make the decision on conservation; rather, she made a political decision in favour of the industry that was a threat to the biomass? Or would you say it was not a threat to the biomass?

[David Bevan]

I would say, as I pointed out earlier, it was absolutely clear to the minister that the decision would not lead to the collapse and eradication of that stock.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

But there's an awful difference between collapse and survival. And there are a few cod still swimming around. But we do not want to destroy the fisheries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Your time has expired.

[David Bevan]

The population will increase.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

He should answer that question.