Fisheries Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

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

Now, do all 46 pay this licence fee of $10,000, or do the first nations not?

[Paul Sprout]

The Heltsiuk don't, because of the rights issue. As for the other first nations communities, I'd have to verify that.

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

Okay. My understanding was that just the Heltsiuk didn't, and that also causes a bit of a.... You know, if we're working towards integrating single commercial fisheries as much as possible, and one set of licence holders pay $10,000 for the right to fish and another group doesn't pay anything, would you agree that could be a source of contention?

[Paul Sprout]

Well, it is a source of contention. The challenge, of course, is that in one instance we're dealing with a right—admittedly, it's not an exclusive right, it's one that we're trying to understand—and in the other it's not.

I do take the point on integration. That is an objective of this department, to try to have similar rules or identical rules as best as we possibly can, but also to try to respect the decisions of the court as we do that.

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

In terms of the 20 licences that are not held by first nations communities, that are held, I guess, by individuals, are any of those individuals also Heltsiuk band members?

[Paul Sprout]

There were two licences held by Heltsiuk prior to the decision, so those would have been individual licences.

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

And they continue to be held?

[Paul Sprout]

They continue to be held.

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

Are they treated the same? Do they pay the licence fee?

[Paul Sprout]

They would be treated in the same way they were prior to the decision.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I have a couple of quick questions, and then we'll ask if anyone else has a final question.

I'm not clear on the TAC for spawn on kelp prior to Gladstone in 1996. In 1995, what was the TAC for spawn on kelp? Was there an increase in the TAC—and that was the question the parliamentary secretary asked—after Gladstone?

[Paul Sprout]

The quota per licence prior to the decision was 16,000 pounds per licence. After the decision, the department negotiated an increased allocation for the Heltsiuk, which I described at the beginning of my presentation. The amount that we provided was still within the total allowable harvest of roe herring that had been determined by science.

So there were provisions or flexibility to increase the first nation access, because there was unharvested allocation, an unharvested amount of roe herring, but there was no change—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

There was an unharvested amount of roe herring, but there was an increase in the TAC for spawn on kelp after—

[Paul Sprout]

Yes, that's correct. There was an increase in the catch of spawn on kelp after the decision was made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I said so because in the reference to Marshall you made the comment that there were no reductions in the spawn-on-kelp fishery. That's not how Marshall is applied; Marshall is applied on the basis that there's no more effort in the fishery, which is similar, but a different thing altogether. In the case of the Marshall decision, specifically in the lobster industry, there was no additional TAC. They did not increase the overall amount to accommodate a new entity in the fishery, but bought existing licences. I think that's been the argument from some of the spawn-on-kelp operators, as I understand it.

[Paul Sprout]

There's a difference between the lobster fishery and the spawn-on-kelp fishery.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Of course there is.

[Paul Sprout]

The lobster fishery is an effort-based fishery. So licences are issued and there are trap limitations. The spawn-on-kelp fishery is a quota-based fishery, with a quota per licence. So there was no reduction in the quotas after the decision. Each licence holder before the Supreme Court decision had 16,000 pounds per licence; each licence holder after the decision still had 16,000 pounds per licence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I'm just looking at the argument made by the spawn-on-kelp fishermen, who said that the increased TAC, the increased players, the more spawn on kelp being produced and fact there was more product on the market—and I agree with your position on what happened with the economy, the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar, which are all issues as well—also drove down the price.

[Paul Sprout]

Again, if that is the logic, what's difficult to follow is why the price continued to decline from 2001 to 2005, when the total landings were actually declining or stable, yet the price still declined. The difficulty is that the market conditions, the Japanese market and so forth, seemed to suggest that other things are controlling or explaining the reasons for the price decline.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I appreciate that, and I am going to go to our next questioner here, but I just want to make the point that we're still looking at information in isolation. There's also an Alaskan spawn-on-kelp fishery, and we don't know how many tonnes they put out. There are other issues around. I don't know if quality was an issue. There are a number of other factors that could affect it, but certainly the amount of spawn on kelp on the market is a factor. If you want to drive the value of something down, produce more than the consumers are willing to buy and you will drive it down.

The question that's been asked is was the Department of Fisheries and Oceans complicit in that happening. That doesn't help the Heiltsuk and it doesn't help the spawn-on-kelp fishers, who are individuals; it doesn't help any of those people in that resource, if that occurred. I think that's the answer we're trying to find.

Anyway, I'll go to the final questioner, Ms. Bell.

Oh, Mr. Simms, sorry, I certainly didn't mean to bypass you.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Again today. It's because I'm carrying this BlackBerry, isn't it?

Mr. Sprout, I just have a quick question on emerging markets. We've been talking about Japan being the sole customer here. Are there any other markets outside of Japan?

[Paul Sprout]

No; the product is sold in Japan.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Period?