Fisheries Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'll allow him to answer it.

[David Bevan]

The population of crab is predicted to increase again. It's not like the cod, where it went down and hasn't been able to recover in any reasonable timeframe. We anticipate the crab will increase.

We informed the minister that the decision of last year would not create a situation where there'd be a long-term and continuing collapse of that population.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Blais.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I will be very brief, before Mr. Blais raises his concerns with you.

I would like to congratulate you on your new duties and your promotion.

We will come back a little later to a species that may be less endangered: the beluga whale. Inuit in the north are going to have problems because of the new Nutrition North Program.

Thank you.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bevan, I want to come back to the seal issue. What is the department's budget in this area? What will the budget be next year?

[David Bevan]

It is hard to answer those questions, since we do not have budgets specific to one species or another. Of course, we can provide information on the costs connected with scientists and our studies of the seal population. I believe that we can provide that kind of information.

When it comes to conservation, protection and therefore fisheries officers, it is a little more difficult to say, because the officers do a lot of investigation and monitoring work as well.

Just for the seal harvest, it is possible, because they are [Inaudible—Editor].

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I would like to focus more on advocacy and promotion. Yes, studies have been done, and there is a cost for that. Yes, there are fisheries officers involved, which entails costs. We can identify and determine the educational and other work that needs to be done if we look at what the abolitionists are doing right now on the seal hunt.

Is there a budget set aside for an information campaign? Is there a budget to help with a travelling exhibit? Is there a budget to enable groups, in particular seal hunters, to travel again to the places they need to go? Is money being provided to organizations that can raise awareness and provide information through a website?

[David Bevan]

There are budgets for those sorts of activities, but it is just a small part of government spending on the seal harvest. Major costs are obviously incurred by having fisheries officers and managers, for example. It comes down to a choice. We need to focus our efforts on priority species. I can say that this is a major spending area for us. I need to look at the situation in order to find the information, since I don't have it with me today. I can ask—

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

You can provide this information to committee members?

I have a concern. I know very well that the abolitionists continue to be very active. We see them here and elsewhere. They are also advertising in certain specialty magazines, etc.

I wonder how you are responding and what budget the department has for this. How does it work? I support and acknowledge the effort being made, compared with what was done in the past, when there was practically nothing done. At least there is something happening today.

That said, I would like to know how much work is being carried out and what is planned for next year.

[David Bevan]

The seal harvest is a priority of the government, the department and the ministers. We are devoting a great deal of time, effort and activity to the seal harvest. Minister Hearn has spent a lot of time in other countries trying to avoid the problems in Europe, but he had no budget for that. He had only the minister's budget and the departmental budget. We have chosen to focus our efforts on major challenges related to the seal harvest.

I need to find the information to be able to answer your question, but I cannot promise that I will be able to provide you with an answer. Where have we chosen to focus our efforts? From time to time, there was a dedicated budget for this. The decision we need to make is where to spend our budgets. That is the current situation concerning the seal harvest. The problems with the markets were and still are a government priority.

I cannot say if I will be able to find how much money we have spent or how much we will spend in the future, but I can try to get you the information and, if it is available, I will provide it to the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Shory.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This fisheries committee is a new committee for me. As a matter of fact, fishing itself is new for me. I don't know much.

I guess Mr. Bevan is the kind of person with all the experience, who explained in layman's language today and helped me to understand this process, how it works in any decision-making matter. As I understood, the way it works, the minister has a science-based opinion, on the one hand, and the industry provided its critique of the science. At the same time, the minister had some recommendations from the department officials, but the minister is not bound to follow that recommendation in that given time.

Moreover, no specific advice was given to the minister that if you take this decision against the science-based opinion, then the industry will collapse.

Now, on top of that, I heard from you, Mr. Bevan, a few times that this was not the only time a decision was made against a recommendation. I'm interested to know a little bit if you can give some examples within the last ten or fifteen years, if you know. When were the times when a decision in this manner was made against the recommendation freely by a minister?

[David Bevan]

Certainly. On previous downward cycles there had been recommended TACs that were not taken or not followed, or the minister considered other points of view and took a decision to have slightly higher TACs in the past on downward cycles in the crab fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

That's been the case, and in those cases there were continued downward trends, but those were predicted, and the minister did not have to face the same kinds of choices as the minister had to face in 2010. We should also point out that the science advice is a synthesis of different views. It comes out of the RAP. The RAP doesn't mean that everybody in the room agrees with the absolute number and the advice. There is a range of views that boil down to a view that is best reflecting the collective view.

It doesn't mean everybody shares that. We've seen, for example, in some groundfish, where we're recommending a level, and an alternative science view comes forward from this credible scientist. It might be three times. I've seen as much as three times or more being the view coming from another scientific source.

We had it currently in the turbot stock in the NAFO regulatory area, where an alternative science view was considerably higher than that of the scientific council of the NAFO organization. It's not that science is absolute; it's not. It's a very difficult question put to the scientists and views come forward. It's a collective view, on the one hand, of a scientific council or a DFO science RAP process--the regional advisory process--that comes forward with a particular view. But it doesn't mean it's absolute and it doesn't mean it's perfect. It's the collective view, and ministers have to look at the broader picture. In the case of 2009, the minister was presented with a whole alternative interpretation of the surveys and strongly held views that the department was being far, far too conservative and had to make a decision in the face of that divergent and strongly held view.

We don't have all the answers in the department. We strive to have the best information we can, but often groups come forward with completely different interpretations and provide an alternative view that ministers have to look at, and accept, dismiss, not act on, or take into consideration, as the case may be.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Would you remember any examples? I'm just interested in knowing about previous years—2008, 2005, 2003, 2001.

[David Bevan]

It was on the previous downward cycle. I can't remember the specifics, but it was a couple of thousand tonnes more than had been recommended, that kind of scale. I'd have to go back into the records and memos to respond accurately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Shory.

Mr. Bevan, this wasn't asked today, but it has come up in some of our discussions on the snow crab report that the committee is undertaking. Was there a peer review of the recalculation protocol? The recalculation protocol has been a topic of much discussion throughout our hearings. Has there been a peer review of that recalculation?

[David Bevan]

I'm not sure I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

When we go back to the information that was provided by the department, the graph of the biomass, there was a significant jump in the biomass in....

[François Côté, Committee Researcher]

In 1993.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

In 1993 there was a significant jump in the biomass. Some scientists have attributed it to a recalculation done at that time. There seemed to be significant discussion about that recalculation. Has there ever been a peer review of it?

[David Bevan]

I know there's what's called retrospective analysis done on a variety of stocks. They look at the current data and then look back to see if they had it right when they were providing advice in the past. But I can't say whether they've done that for the snow crab stock since the analysis in 1993.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It's important for the committee to have a clear understanding of this. If the recalculation is correct, it shows a significant decline in the biomass. This could have a significant impact on the committee's work. I'm wondering if I could ask you to take it upon yourself to provide that information to us. It would have a noteworthy impact on what our report finally says.

Another question I'm asking for François has to do with the 40% exploitation rate dictated by the precautionary approach. Do you think that's too high?

[David Bevan]

I would remind the committee that the way the fisheries manage it, it targets only males of a certain size, so the population is protected by excluding the females and leaving enough large males to breed with them. So the exploitation rate is a subset. It's only on the fishable biomass of large males. That strategy provides a significant safety net for the population.

I'd have to defer the question on whether it's too high. According to our scientific advice, this level of exploitation on that subset of the population will not lead to a problem for the population.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Bevan.

Mr. Bevan, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for appearing before us. As always, it's been very informative. Also, I want to congratulate you on your appointment. Thank you again, Mr. Bevan.

You had a point of order, Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

This has been referred to over the course of our discussions with Mr. Bevan. It has to do with the information and advice that was presented to the minister prior to making the decision. Could we ask the researcher to supply us with any exchanges of information that took place after the note was presented to the minister--that's to say, exchanges of information between industry and the minister with regard to an increase in the TAC? Is that possible?