Evidence of meeting #3 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was companies.
Liberal
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
You talked as well about a harvest ceiling, I think, and a fixed percentage. Do you want to expand on that a bit for me, as to what you meant?
President, Gulf Trollers Association
You have a pie of a total number of allowable catch, and in that pie there are a number of user groups. What we're proposing is that each user group be assigned a fixed percentage of that pie, and it raises and drops from year to year, depending on the size of the run. Within that fixed pie, there are also stocks of concern. What we're saying is that each user group should also be assigned a ceiling that they can catch of those stocks that are of concern. Once you do that, then every user group has not only responsibility and accountability, but they also have a desire to make the thing work.
But the key to it is validation. The key to it is counting the fish that each group catches. We're getting to the point now in the halibut fleet where they have a camera on every vessel or an independent observer. They've told us that's going to come to the salmon fleet. Well, that's fine, but I think there's minimal cheating in the commercial fleet because it's fairly well monitored. If they applied similar monitoring to the other user groups, I wouldn't be sitting here.
Liberal
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Can you tell me why they're reluctant or refusing to do that? On our coast, we have the same type of observer program and monitoring as you have. There are some who try to beat the system, no doubt. Why is there resistance to deal with it? Can you tell me that?
President, Gulf Trollers Association
I think there are two reasons. The first reason is cost, and they say they don't have very much money and, gosh gee whiz, the commercial fishermen pay for their own monitoring, so it doesn't cost them to monitor the commercial fleet. You've probably seen on TV what happens when they try to monitor the native fleet. It can be a pretty ugly process.
The natives in British Columbia are a reality, and we have to deal with that situation in some way, shape, or form in a reasonable and fair manner. But what has to be remembered is that 30% of our fishermen are native fishermen and these people are being violated to the same extent as we are. This a phenomenal resource that everyone can share in if it's properly managed.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you.
Again, I apologize to our witnesses for coming and going like that, but duty calls.
You talked about sport fishing. This committee has been looking at this issue in terms of our various reports on the west coast, and we notice that there is a tremendous growth in the sports fishing industry. We suspect that much of that is because of provincial and federal buy-in to that, with the excuse that a sport-caught fish does more for the economy than a commercially caught fish. Many commercial fishermen doubt that, of course. They say that's wrong. I was wondering if you can put on the record what you consider the value of a commercially caught fish as compared to a sport-caught fish.
Director, Gulf Trollers Association
There was a report a number of years ago that DFO commissioned, the ARA consultants' report. It postulated that a sport-caught fish was basically valued based on the spinoff effects of the sport-caught fish, which included every outboard and every set of oarlocks that were sold in British Columbia. Our commercially caught fish were valued on the landed value, the money paid to the fishermen, and that's all. It was comparative. Our fish were only valued at what the fishermen got for the fish.
We think it's unfair to compare apples to apples. The commercially caught fish are worth maybe three to four times that price. There is all kinds of value added before it's shipped to Japan: there's processing; there are repairs; there are industries associated with our fleet; and there are a number of spinoffs.
In the sport fishery, we estimate that about 25% of the people who go sport fishing are from outside the country, and those people create export dollars. Some of the lodges are owned by Americans, and the profits go outside the country too.
For commercial fish, especially our fish in the west coast and the Queen Charlotte Islands, 75% is exported, and it's new money coming into Canada. Compare the fact that 75% of our commercially caught fish is exported, bringing money in, versus 25% for the money the sport sector brings in.
We think the ARA consultants' report did not value our fishery the way it should have been valued.
President, Gulf Trollers Association
Having said all that, we don't have a problem with the commercial sport industry staying in business; we don't have a problem at all. Assign them a share, hold them accountable, and count the fish. We'll all live together.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Gentlemen, you indicated that you wanted to come to some arrangement with the upper river aboriginal groups, even though it probably took a lot of soul-searching to be able to do that. You've indicated to them that if we're going to allow some commercial activity on fish they're catching, in many ways they already have commercial activity, only it's not, as we would say, properly monitored or, in some ways, legal.
What is their response when you say that we can all fish by the same rules, count every fish, and have it managed by DFO, etc.? What's their response when you indicate that to them?
President, Gulf Trollers Association
There are some bands that fish responsibly and there are other bands that don't, and they aren't particularly interested in having a dialogue with us. They think all the fish belong to them, and that's how they operate. But there are lots of natives, as I said, in the commercial fishery and there are native bands up and down the coast that want to see this fishery survive.
Unfortunately, in the Fraser River area you have 97 bands, and they don't necessarily get along with each other either. There has been an attitude in the past that I've heard, where if you let this fish go by, the guy up the river is going to get it, so you might as well take it. We've had years when the upper river bands don't get any fish because they've been cleaned out downriver.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. Of course, we've had other conversations as well.
I wanted to follow up a little on the allocation issues that you raised, within the commercial sector rather than between sectors. I think I understand your position on the difficulty of using sockeye equivalents as some kind of basis for that allocation.
In one document, you suggest that we should entrench each gear type's overall share at 22% for trawl, 38% for gillnet, and 40% for seine. Is that based only on historical figures? How did you come up with that? Why is that fair, in your opinion?
President, Gulf Trollers Association
About 12 or 14 years ago there was a gentleman by the name of Kelleher who was given the task of sorting out allocation; he brought down the Kelleher report. That's basically what was recommended in that report. It's basically how the allocation has happened since that period of time. Each year we get into a room and fight with each other, but the overall objective is to balance the catch between 22%, 38% and 40% using sockeye equivalents.
When he struck his report, there was a coast-wide fishery. Shortly after his report was struck and shortly after we agreed to it, they broke the fishery into eight areas. There are three areas for trollers, three areas for gillnetters, and two areas for seiners. We used to have Fraser River sockeye as the commodity to deal off to each other and equally share. We cannot do that any longer because we're broken into physical areas, and those fish aren't available to the different areas, if you can follow me in the process.
So that allocation process is really broken, and it can't be fixed under the present structure. Everybody agrees it's broken—DFO, all the commercial sectors, outside people looking at it. It's broken, boys; it won't work. So last year the CSAB was, along with Fisheries, charged with correcting it. One of the things Fisheries brought into the room was what they called a gaming exercise. It was really an exercise to value our licences for sale back to the natives to settle land claims.
It's fine to buy my licence, but what's it worth? What are you buying? Right now, all I have is an opportunity to go fishing; I don't own anything.
So we had to put some value on these licences. One of the ways we put value on the licence is to take all of the estimated runs and put them in a pie; then we break it up into individual licence holders, and we all have a piece of that pie. For instance, there are 538 trollers, and they get 22% of the overall catch, so you'd divide that catch by 538 and you'd get my share, and if a native buys my licence, that's in fact what he's buying.
Now, if a Fraser River native buys my licence, he doesn't want the Skeena River sockeye; he doesn't want, necessarily, the spring salmon in the Charlottes. So what we were proposing is that we set up a trading bank, such that the excess fish that cannot be accessed by that particular band is put into the bank for bands that can access it, and that there be a trading process. What we're proposing here has some concerns, but we can't see a better system.
But that's not what we're really doing here today. That's a task the CSAB has to do. They have to sort out what the best method is to allocate the stocks. What we're asking this committee for is basically financial and technical support to the CSAB so that we can have proper negotiations to make this happen, but above and beyond all, a finite date, whatever--by the end of December, you guys resolve this, or we're going to resolve it with binding arbitration. And I don't think there are too many fishermen...I know I don't want to see it go to binding arbitration; I want to resolve it.
Director, Gulf Trollers Association
Mr. Keddy, may I comment, please, very quickly?
Just one bizarre outcome of sockeye equivalents is that this year, because in the north they did fairly well—they did something last year—and we're all lumped in together, sockeye are going to be taken away from gulf trollers in the gulf. This is bizarre. It's not fair at all, but it's an outcome of this sockeye equivalent trading process.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
No, John. We're out of time, and I have two questions I want to ask, or actually three.
From discussions with you gentlemen yesterday and after listening to you this morning, I just want to zero in on the three main points you want our committee members to take away from this meeting. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
The first point I'm looking at is that allocation based on value isn't working for your fleet but has actually caused a diminished TAC for your part of the industry over the last several years.
The second one is the issue with the Cultus Lake stock and the fact that you need an increased catch on the Cultus Lake stock this year.
But the third point has not been mentioned, and that's the fact that, as I believe you explained, you folks do the DNA testing for the Cultus Lake stock. Am I correct on that? Or does the commercial fleet do the DNA?
President, Gulf Trollers Association
No, the Pacific Salmon Commission does the testing on the DNA for sockeye.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
When that occurs, you end up having your quota cut on that run of fish--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
However, when you're not allowed to fish it, the recreational fishery continues to fish that stock.
President, Gulf Trollers Association
No, that's not correct. The recreational fishery is, in theory, held to 5% of the sockeye catch. In fact, they went over that last year because they're a growing group of people. They are shut down if we are shut down, usually. Last year was the first year I saw them open when we weren't. I don't know how that happened.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Just to return to this issue one more time, when you're out of the fishery, who determines what other gear sectors, whether it's recreational, trollers,or whoever, are allowed to fish the same stock of fish?
