Fisheries Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

That surprises me, considering that we have concerns about rockfish in particular for conservation, and considering that we're having all this trading because they do get caught inadvertently.

Having established that, I want to reflect concerns that I've heard from a number of my colleagues here about participation in the commercial fishery this year. Was there a change in the number of fishermen participating?

[Paul Sprout]

No. As I indicated in my opening remarks, one of the fears was that this integrated proposal would result in fishermen not being able to acquire bycatch and that they would not be able to fish as a consequence. The information that we have to date indicates that bycatch was available and that all those who wanted to fish could have fished. So far, then, the fear that was raised as a significant concern by some has not been realized, at least at this point in time.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

It has been mentioned by a couple of people here, but I have a particular concern that my colleague Mr. Kamp also raised, and that's about a fisherman saying his licence value has decreased by 30% and that family operations that have gone on for years are suddenly becoming complex. I wonder about the consequences of these changes. Just as Mr. Stoffer mentioned, I'm concerned that we'll end up with concentration, with the big guys basically muscling out the little guys, resulting in very minimal participation. I know we have a three-year pilot here, but we're very concerned about this kind of concentration.

[Paul Sprout]

As Mr. Stoffer indicated and as I responded, the point here is that the commercial industry itself recognizes that as a concern. It is a strongly held view in some camps more so than in others; nevertheless, it is a strongly held view. To try to address that in part, the constraints around the trading of allocation put limits on how much can be exchanged between different groups.

The second thing, as you have noted, is that it is a three-year pilot, not a long-term commitment. It is designed to be evaluated and to determine whether we get unintended effects, such as concentrations that are unreasonable, inappropriate, and not agreeable, such that adjustments need to be made.

The final point I would make on this is that the comparison with this pilot can't be with the past, because the past is not relevant any more for groundfish. The reality is that we had to take measures to address the bycatch problems. If we hadn't taken those measures, that would have put at risk the commercial groundfish fishery in B.C., at least in terms of how long that fishery would have been able to go in any particular year. If we hadn't made those adjustments, we would have had significant economic dislocation.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate that perspective.

We're going to quotas. As we've seen many of the fisheries go to quotas, there is a cynicism about windfalls happening in certain quarters and insiders who benefit.

In response to Mr. Kamp's questions about setting up a system for managing trading, there was a comment about using the trawl system as a model that the industry itself used. But I have a concern that has been raised by someone who was on one of the committees you mentioned—one of the committees involved in developing this plan—who makes this remark:

The radical new fisheries management plan has reduced the trading value of quotas for halibut and sablefish by more than $100 million. Other quotas, like rockfish, have increased substantially. Some members of the committee were conducting insider trading throughout the process, with knowledge that was not available to the general fishing public.

He goes on to say this:

With this inside information they were able to develop a quota trading program and bring it on stream the day the new groundfish integration plan was announced. No other trading business was allowed access to this information, so they had a quantum leap on all their competitors. They projected business would be in the tens of millions of dollars.

When DFO was involved and the industry came up with a plan, was there concern that information was actually being channelled to people on the inside to create a trading system that is going to create a windfall for certain elements at the expense of others who might be competitors?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Could you answer that very briefly?

[Paul Sprout]

Well, again, so far in the in-season process, which has both small boats and big boats, a cross-section of commercial interests, insider trading has not come forward as a prominent issue. In fact, I'm not aware of it as a prominent issue.

On the issue of halibut, the value of halibut actually went up this year. The price to the fishermen went up. So I would conclude by this that the points you've just raised, plus others, need to be investigated and should be investigated in the review that will take place after this year, before we get going on the second year of the pilot. These questions should be posed to the industry. They should grapple with them and provide their thoughts and views on how the pilot can be improved as appropriate.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a couple more questions. They're important, and I can make them short.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I appreciate that, Mr. Lunney, but we are out of time. It's an issue that everyone sees as an important one. I understand that, but we also have one more issue to discuss. I realize that all the members weren't here when we started; therefore, we started ten minutes late. If you have one more question, the last question will be yours.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you. How about two halves of one question?

The recreational fisheries got about 9%, I think, of the total allowable catch. Is there room for that fishery? Are their concerns being addressed? I think you mentioned that there would be consultations.

And finally, the NTC, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, is one of the groups of first nations that I represent. Are their concerns being addressed as to their part of the fishery?

[Paul Sprout]

Just to clarify, the recreational fishery is 12% of the halibut harvest, and there are some concerns that they may be approaching that level. Although there is doubt about that, there are concerns.

Their concern is that regardless of whether they're at that level or not, they want to have the potential to go past that level if their fishery increases. Well, there's only one way to make that happen, and that's to take away allocation from someone else. So that's going to be a challenge, and we're saying the integrated groundfish commercial pilot is not the mechanism in which to have that discussion. That discussion has to occur in a different forum with potentially a different mix of people.

With respect to first nations, we continue to work with them. Their views are that we didn't consult adequately prior to the integrated groundfish pilot being put into place. We continue to discuss with them. We believe that we made changes to accommodate their interests and that what we have now is reasonable for first nations. That said, that is also an ongoing discussion.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Lunney and Mr. Sprout.

I know there has been a fair amount of discussion here for the members and the witness. We've gone over time partially because we started late, so it's important to be here on time, gentlemen. But certainly if there are other questions that members have, there's no reason they can't put those questions in writing and we can send that on behalf of the committee or directly to Mr. Sprout and get those answers.

I have one very quick, very brief question for the benefit of the committee, Mr. Sprout, on the cost of the camera. It's not really understood what the actual cost is to a small-boat fisherman to put the camera on board.

[Paul Sprout]

The camera itself is several thousand dollars, and as I indicated, for some vessels that cost was bearable in terms of a one-time purchase. For others, individuals have come together and bought a camera, and then distributed it among several vessels. Others have rented to try to keep those costs down. So we have different arrangements, depending on the fishermen, to try to minimize those costs. That's how we've addressed the issue of the cameras.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much.

Before we move on, maybe we will just break long enough for members to get a cup of tea and we'll come back to the issue of the Fraser sockeye salmon fishery in 2006. I know this is an issue we've dealt with a number of times, so I'm hoping we'll have time for one round of questions and that will handle the majority of them, because I think everyone was interested in the other ones.

We'll just suspend for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I call our meeting back to order.

Thank you, gentlemen.

We've dealt with this issue a number of times at committee, gentlemen and ladies. I will ask our presenter to be as brief as possible to give committee members more time to ask questions.

Mr. Sprout.

[Paul Sprout]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be brief. It's a short deck called “Update on the Fraser River Sockeye Fishery for 2006”. I'm on page 2.

The committee is aware that in designing our fishing plan we work with various stakeholders and interests, the fishing plan sets objectives, and so forth. Finally, the fishing plan is approved by the minister. Essentially, those are the points on slide 2.

Slide 3 talks briefly about the 2006 season. I'm going to cover the highlights. The pre-season prediction was for 17 million Fraser River sockeye to return. In reality, about nine million fish came back.

In season, adjustments were made because we weren't getting as many fish back as predicted, and in some cases the run sizes were reduced after the fisheries were concluded. I can speak in detail to that, if you ask questions later.

Then, the final point I wanted to make is on the spawning ground surveys. The spawning ground surveys are in progress now. They are not complete, so I cannot give you final figures for what the escapements or spawning look like for 2006, but at this point we're not aware of any conservation concerns or major problems.

That being said, our harvest of Cultus Lake sockeye, which was an objective before the season, is higher than the pre-season target.

Slide 4 outlines the catches. I'll go through those quickly. In 2006, the Canadian commercial catch was roughly 3.3 million fish, or about 71% of the commercial harvest. The Canadian recreational catch was around 182,000, about 4%. The first nations FSC--or food, social, and ceremonial harvest--was about 675,000, or roughly 15%. The first nations economic opportunities on the lower Fraser were about 450,000, or about 10%.

Slide 5 divides the catch between Canada and the United States. Members are aware that a Canada-U.S. agreement accords allocations between the two parties for Fraser River fish. In 2006 Canada harvested about 4.6 million Fraser River sockeye in total, the United States about 700,000.

In terms of next steps, we're in the process of reviewing what we call the escapement numbers; those are the number of Fraser River adult sockeye salmon on the spawning grounds. We're in the process of counting those fish and determining how many came back to spawn.

We will be reviewing the 2006 season, both within Canada and between Canada and the United States. Then we'll be starting to get ready for next year's fishery and starting to get groups together in the late fall and early next year to plan for 2007.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

With that, we'll go quickly to our first questioner, Mr. Cuzner.

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

I'll be fairly short here, Mr. Chairman.

Were any or all of the recommendations provided by the committee in their report of 2005 acted upon? Give us your comments on how they turned out.

[Paul Sprout]

These are the recommendations of the standing committee?

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

Yes.

[Paul Sprout]

The standing committee made a number of recommendations in several different areas--catch monitoring, enforcement, and improved stock assessment.

In the case of catch monitoring, we did augment the number of fishery officers. The minister made a decision at the beginning of the year to increase the number of fishery officers. In response to the standing committee, we indicated we would maintain at least the levels we had in 2006 in comparison with 2005, and we did that.

We also indicated we would augment our catch monitoring programs in 2006, and that took place.

In response to your advice, we also put in place a study of drift gillnets on the Fraser River by first nations. That was in place in 2006.

Further, we entered into more comprehensive arrangements with the Cheam first nations in terms of an enforcement protocol that improved our enforcement activities in that particular area.

My short response to your question is that overall we tried to respond to the advice and recommendations of the standing committee through stock assessment adjustments, improved catch monitoring, and enhanced enforcement.

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

I have one last question.

In testimony given by DFO, they referred to a number of environmental factors that had an impact on the loss of the fish over the course of that year. There was a recommendation identifying more stringent guidelines on fishery closures with regard to environmental conditions prompting a closure. Have those new guidelines been struck? Has DFO moved on that recommendation?

[Paul Sprout]

We have. We've put in what we call a “management adjustment”. It takes into consideration the temperature conditions on the Fraser River. Based on the temperature conditions, we can hypothesize or speculate on what proportion of the fish that move into the Fraser River will probably die as a consequence of adverse conditions related to high temperatures.

We had a monitoring system set up in which we evaluated, throughout the Fraser River at various stations, the temperature profile. We used that information, in addition to assessments of samples of various Fraser River sockeye, to determine what we call the “management adjustment”.

The management adjustment was a safety margin, to try to take into consideration potential pre-spawning losses as a consequence of environmental circumstances. That was in place for 2006.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, that's fine.