Fisheries Committee on May 5th, 2014

[David Bevan]

I think the IPAC group, the independent panel on access criteria, did come later after the 2000 integrated fisheries management plan was put together. But it did finally come out and say that we should look at dependency, adjacency, and the historical link to the fishery.

In the case of northern shrimp, all three have been important elements.

With respect to the offshore, there was the idea that they had historically developed that fishery and, therefore, that any addition would be based on allocations for need and allocations for adjacency, but they were given the guarantee that if it went down, their historical connection to the fishery would also be respected.

So all three elements were being contemplated on the way up, and indeed in many areas 90% of the increase went to the inshore, based on the fact that they were adjacent to it and needed to have some access to a fishery due to the collapse of other stocks.

The guarantee for the offshore was that they would be protected and that they would not lose their access on the way down, such that their original investments would be compromised.

As I said earlier, that was first and foremost based on access. So you had a temporary permit that would not be reissued in the event the stock went down below the threshold you had entered the fishery on. But when that was part of a suite of changes resulting from that huge consultation that took place in 2006-07, then they made it into a quota discussion so that you had a licence but your quota would go down in accordance with how you entered the fishery.

All of that of course was done at a time when we were still moving up, peaking in 2009, and now we've been going down since 2010. It was a deal, I suppose, that people entered the fishery taking 90% on the understanding that they had some obligation to exit it or to give up quota on the way down. But it's one thing in theory, and it's another in cold, hard fact, and it does impact on people. It impacts on a whole number of groups in this fishery. As I said, it's one thing in theory, and it's another in fact. But that was considered by the minister in all of the deliberations that were held this year and the result was announced in early April.

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

Thank you for that.

Clearly, these are difficult circumstances and difficult decisions for the minister.

I read with interest the Ernst & Young report that said they don't make recommendations, but provide advice. But they do say that:

the following considerations could be made in future decline situations: Increase transparency in the establishment of policies and principles....

and

...in the application and interpretation of policies and principles.

Do you think you've made the necessary progress in that? Slide 12 has a sustainable fisheries framework and the IFMP lays out for us how these decisions are made. Do you think there is still more to be done, similar to what is being advised here in the Ernst & Young report?

[David Bevan]

I think in most fisheries we've locked in stability of access and allocation. We have decision points that deal with what would trigger a change, so I think that most of the time it's fairly transparent. It's in the integrated fisheries management plan. It's been discussed with stakeholders, etc.

I think what we're facing right now is a pretty significant change. As you saw from science last week, temperatures, salinity, etc., have all changed quite dramatically, and that's creating a real change. Thus far we've been following the plans and following what was committed to on the way up. But I think we are going to be looking at a pretty dramatic suite of changes that we'll have to look at come the spring next year, and the minister will have to make the decisions at the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for taking the time to be here today. We certainly do appreciate your testimony and your answers to our questions. On behalf of the committee, I just want to say thank you once again.

There being no further business, this committee now stands adjourned.