Evidence of meeting #19 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was stock.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
No, you don't get a MacAulay minute. Thank you.
We'll move to Mr. MacAulay, on that note.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Mr. Dale. Mr. Snook and I met today in the lobby. Welcome here.
Your government.... I won't attempt it—Nunatsiavut, or whatever—because I'll butcher it badly. You say its allocation is 11% or it should be 11%. I'd like you to inform the committee a bit more on that.
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Torngat Joint Fisheries Board
Only to make a quick point, for us as the board, it's not our government, I should say. The appointees are made up by the three governments. The appointees are made up of some residents from the area, some ex-DFO management people, and so on. It's only a quick point.
I can reread the point of the land claim agreement, and this has been under dispute between—
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Torngat Joint Fisheries Board
It's 3.7%, and we've illustrated that in the map. While the area is roughly 30%—
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
There are no conservation concerns in 4 and 5. Did I read you properly?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Torngat Joint Fisheries Board
In area 4, certainly, we feel there's still less of a concern. I don't know if Aaron wants to comment on it.
5:20 p.m.
Policy Analyst, Torngat Joint Fisheries Board
I think there's cause for conservation concern in area 5, and that's reflected in DFO's decision this year to decrease the TAC—the total allowable catch—by 10%. I can't remember exactly what the decrease was in the fishable biomass estimate or the spawning stock biomass estimate, but I think it was in the order of 30-plus%, but I would have to check the exact numbers.
So there is cause for concern in SFA 5 this year, and we hadn't judged there to be any cause for conservation concern in area 5 previously.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
You also indicated in your presentation that there were missed opportunities when the stock was in sound shape.
Mr. Snook, could you elaborate on that? You indicated to the committee that there was some scientific research done that was paid for out of your allocation, if I understood correctly. Did I understand correctly?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Torngat Joint Fisheries Board
Yes, in part. Again, I'll just keep reiterating, because sometimes we get confused with the government itself, of the Nunatsiavut—
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Torngat Joint Fisheries Board
It is. But since 2008 the numbers I provided show there have been 4,650 metric tons of allocation, so that's a lot of opportunity when the resource is on the way up.
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Torngat Joint Fisheries Board
From the numbers that I provided, only 300 of that went to the Nunatsiavut government; 1,700 tonnes went toward the northern science research fund, and then the remaining was split 90:10 under existing sharing principles.
I don't know if you can figure out the math, but 300 tonnes out of 4,600 tonnes was a very small allocation to the Nunatsiavut government, with a land claim agreement and a treaty in place, and being adjacent. Still to this day, it's only holding 3.37% of the resource.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
What you're saying is that the governments are not standing up to the land claims agreements that they made.
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Torngat Joint Fisheries Board
Well, that's the area where they've disputed with the Nunatsiavut government. At minimum, you would expect them to be at 11% participation in the fishery. They're at 3.37%. The board's view is that they don't feel that the land claim agreement was intended to be in any way a limiting document, so that's why their recommendations have always been to allocate 75% to the Nunatsiavut government to increase their participation. The other thing about operating in the north is that in order for them to become self-sufficient and have a viable industry, they need to have access to a certain quota. Otherwise the fishery's not going to develop the way people would like it to.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you very much for coming.
Now, if I understand correctly, the northern shrimp fishery in your area has, I suppose, three groups that participate in some way. There's the inshore fleet, the offshore fleet, and some special allocation holders.
Can you make it clear to us just where you fit in that? Isn't it true that the Nunatsiavut government has an offshore licence?