Fisheries Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[Paul Sprout]

I think that's a good question. I have two responses to that.

The evidence we have is that because we've moved into a quota system, and because people can trade for quota, there isn't the need to rush out and catch fish as they had to, for example, under a competitive fishery. A small-boat operator can actually make better choices now about when to go fishing. You can decide not to go fishing under certain conditions. Before, that might have been more difficult, because you may have been forgoing opportunity. We thought from the beginning that this arrangement allowed small vessels particularly to choose their time to fish more appropriately.

The second point I would raise is that so far no safety issues have come to our attention in season. This is an issue we will want to talk about post-season to satisfy ourselves that this is the case. So far, we're not getting any indication that this has been a significant issue.

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

What kind of mechanism was set up to facilitate the buying and selling and trading of quota? Was DFO really involved in that, or did they leave it to somebody else?

[Paul Sprout]

The industry itself proposed a mechanism for the buying and selling and trading of groundfish, to ensure that everybody could acquire their bycatch. They modelled that on what was done earlier in the trawl fishery, which they had established. They expanded it considerably, because the new arrangements for the trawl fishery are much more complex than the previous ones. They then engaged private parties to design the actual program to trade groundfish.

We provided arm's-length support, and certainly we provided comments where we could. But this was largely an industry-driven initiative. We participated as appropriate, using knowledge from previous groundfish arrangements, particularly in the trawl fishery, to build what eventually became the program for allowing the trading among the six different fishery categories.

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

We've heard in this committee that perhaps the majority of groundfish fishermen don't like the integration plan, and we've been told specifically that small-boat operators have been hurt by this. I would like your comments on that.

Let me just read a couple of comments from letters. One is from the president of the North Pacific Halibut Fishermen's Association--only 15 members, as you know, of that small-boat group. He says:

The reduction of rockfish bycatch in DFO's forced integration has put almost all of my members out of their fishing livelihood. I haven't been able to contact all my members, but I believe there is only one that still fishes.

Another letter is from a captain--I won't give you his name unless you need it. He says:

There doesn't seem to be any place left for a mom and pop operation any more. I have 7,500 pounds of halibut quota on a 36-foot gillnetter. Until the new regulations, I used to make a pleasant trip to Rupert to fish salmon and catch my halibut on the way. It was very convenient. Even though I fish an area where the bycatch is minimal, the costs of cameras or observers are so onerous and the technical requirements so cumbersome, I need a lawyer for a deckhand instead of my kids. What a disgrace. My licence has devalued by 30% and my license now has no value compared to two years ago.

I'll skip a bit here.

Many of the licences went on to some small boats in native communities. Talking to some of them this summer, none of these people can fish any more under the present regulations. Tremendous hardships have been created in the small boat fleet, but especially in northern native communities. It is a sad ending to a recently vibrant fishery. My father and grandfather would roll over in their respective graves.

How much of that are you hearing?

On my other question, earlier in the summer a survey was conducted by one of the associations that concluded, after polling their members, both halibut and sablefish fishermen, that 73% of the respondents oppose this groundfish integration plan. Do you agree with these comments? How do we take these?

[Paul Sprout]

I think we take them in a couple of ways. To put it into context, the commercial industry advisory committee, which is comprised of all the six fishery groupings I spoke of earlier--halibut, ling cod, groundfish trawl, rockfish, and dogfish--is involved in the commercial industry committee, which ultimately made the recommendation that the minister approved with conditions. Those organizations supported this. Are we saying there aren't individual members within those organizations that have other views? No. Are we saying there's 100% consensus on the integrated groundfish? No.

We're saying we think that most of the commercial industry is supportive of this change. We're saying that if we did not make this change, the alternative was much worse. We're saying there is still flexibility and will continue to be flexibility to make adjustments to try to make this pilot work even better than it does today. But this pilot holds the promise of allowing the groundfish fishery in B.C. to continue. The alternative was to put at risk the ability of the groundfish fishery to continue in the form it was.

Yes, there are challenges. Yes, there's resistance in some locations. And yes, we need to continue to make refinements to improve the groundfish pilot. But we have a basis now of looking out the front-view mirror rather than looking in the rear-view mirror for a change. That's what this pilot's about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Sprout.

We have a second issue that we want to deal with, and members still have some questions. There are five minutes left, so if members have very quick questions they want to ask, we can finish this up and move on to the next.

Mr. Cuzner.

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

I'd like to welcome our new clerk and wish her all the best going forward. The chairman's hard on clerks, but you look like you're made from good stuff.

Mr. Sprout, sorry we weren't here for your presentation. We had to speak in the House.

Could you make a comment on compliance? Are there some comparative numbers on it? I don't know if you addressed that in your presentation. Are we seeing an increase in illegal activity because of better measures taken, or are we seeing a decrease because fishermen are now recognizing the importance of the compliance?

[Paul Sprout]

I could make a comment on that.

First, on the issue of catch monitoring and compliance, it's our view that catch monitoring, documentation, and accounting have significantly improved relative to the previous arrangements. The reason is clear: you have either an observer or a camera on board. Either of those two mechanisms allows us to determine what you've caught or validate what you've said you've caught, and the compliance is very good.

We are using some flexibility here because we know this is a complicated program. We know we're in year one and we know that even the people who want to embrace this are still trying to understand it. So we're using some flexibility as we move through this system.

I think my short response to your question is that the compliance so far on the accounting side, the catch documentation, is quite good.

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

Okay, thank you.

Are there controls on the back end? Does DFO have a relationship with Revenue Canada on the back end?

We hear the stories about catches that go unreported or incomplete catches being reported. If a processor buys $10 million worth of a resource and sells $40 million worth, the yield isn't that great. So obviously they're having access to unreported catch or unreported resources.

Are there controls on the back end?

[Paul Sprout]

That gets into issues of auditing and so forth. We do have—

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

Mr. Chairman, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Would you like a little order in the room?

Excuse me, gentlemen.

Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

[Paul Sprout]

That gets into the issue of auditing, and we work with fishery officers. First, we're monitoring the fish on the vessels, and we're also monitoring the fish when they come into the dock and into the plants. So obviously we're looking for continuity. We're looking for the same amount here being the same amount there and the same amount there. If we see discrepancies, then those get flagged for reviews or investigations.

Now we are putting most of our effort into the front end. We're saying the front end is where we should put it for now, because we should try to make sure we minimize the number of fish that shouldn't be caught in the first place. So let's try to make sure we do that, because once they're caught, it's too late. We're putting most of the effort into that in terms of catch monitoring, documentation, and accountability.

We are also mindful of the fact that we have to have a full circle, which means that we have to trace the fish from the fishermen, through to the plant, then through to the buyer to ensure there's continuity all the way through that chain, which I think is the point you're raising.

So we are putting most of our effort in the front end at this point in time. We have work underway on the other areas, but over time we may want to make an adjustment based on our experience. At this point, we are putting it mostly in the area I described.

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

I think sometimes the processors fear Revenue Canada more than the DFO. So on the back end there may be merit in some kind of mechanism or coordination with DFO for that. It seems we continue to put the onus on the fishermen, but some of the major players here are the processors and buyers. I think this shouldn't escape scrutiny on the back end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

You have 30 seconds left, Mr. Cuzner.

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

Okay.

I want a quick comment on the situation with our officers with habitat management. We understand that over the last number of years, the number of officers is down from the 2002 level, when we had 120, to about 90.

We know that there's attrition and what have you, but I understand there's a plan to go down to 75 officers over the next two years. Could you please address this? The Auditor General has been reminding us on a regular basis that the mandate has to be habitat protection and preservation. Could you please comment on that as well?

[Paul Sprout]

I would like to separate two things. In British Columbia, we have habitat biologists and technicians, and we have fishery officers. They're two different groups.

With respect to the fishery officers in B.C., there will be no reduction in their numbers. The minister announced at the beginning of the summer that the reductions that had been planned would not take place, and that there would actually be an augmentation. So we're going from about 149 fishery officers in 2005-06 to about 173. It will take a short while to do this, because we have to recruit them. But that's where we're going with the fishery officers.

With respect to the habitat biologists, we are going to be reducing staff. They will go down from the numbers you talked about. In part, this is offset by the increase in the number of fishery officers. Fishery officers in B.C. will continue to have, certainly in the transition, habitat responsibilities at a certain level. The second thing is that we adopted environmental process modernization. We have changed our approach to managing habitat, putting more emphasis on higher-risk activity. But there will be an adjustment in the numbers of habitat staff. We expect to arrive at somewhere around the amount you indicated.

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

In every aspect of the fishery over the last number of years, all our recommendations have been science-based. Reinvestment has to take place in science. Are you the least bit concerned about a loss of scientific capability?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Excuse me, Mr. Cuzner, but you're totally out of time, and have been for some while now.

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

Mr. Chairman, you were involved in yet another meeting. As I did my questioning here, there were half a dozen meetings going on in the room.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Cuzner, with respect, there was one brief meeting, which was brought under control. It was not half a dozen. If you have a question of the chair, you're welcome to bring that up to the committee. If there is something in the process that you're uncomfortable with or that you consider inadequate, just bring it up.

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

No, Mr. Chairman. We owe it to our witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

But in the meantime, we'll go to the next questioner.

Monsieur Gaudet.