Fisheries Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

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

What is the extent of their involvement in this memorandum of understanding?

[Paul Sprout]

They were invited to participate in the memorandum of understanding in 2006. All the members were. Each individual licence holder was written to. The same approach was taken in 2007.

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

Would you consider them to be satisfied?

[Paul Sprout]

No. At least some members of the spawn-on-kelp organization are not.

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

Do they feel they're left out?

[Paul Sprout]

They felt they were left out. They disputed the memorandum of understanding. They feel that the allocation for the Heiltsuks disrupted the market, changed the price, and so forth. It is true that some do feel that.

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

As you are aware, on December 13 we tabled a new Fisheries Act. The proposed act that was tabled talks about a level of co-management with certain organizations. Under that paradigm, how does this whole memorandum of understanding fit? In other words, if DFO is to enter into an agreement with a particular organization, who exactly is the organization in this memorandum of understanding? Would the Heiltsuks represent one organization, followed by the spawn-on-kelp organization? I think you know what I'm saying.

[Paul Sprout]

I think the memorandum of understanding would accommodate the new Fisheries Act well. The Fisheries Act, as you know, is designed to recognize that co-management arrangements with the department ideally would be entered into by organizations. That would include members.

In this particular case, we would be working with the Heiltsuks, a particular group, which includes a group of licence holders who are part of that community. We would enter into an arrangement with the herring industry group itself, which is a group of multiple organizations--not just one but all of the roe herring users--and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I think both the memorandum of understanding that we entered into in 2006 and what might be envisioned in the Fisheries Act would be compatible.

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

Let's say a conflict arises between the Heiltsuk Nation and the other spawn-on-kelp organizations for the remaining 320,000 kilograms. If there's a conflict, how would there be a resolution?

[Paul Sprout]

Hypothetically, if there were a conflict we would know that on entering into the MOU. We would attempt to reconcile it as best as we possibly could.

In this particular instance, the central coast area is isolated. We have some spawn-on-kelp licence holders there that are mostly first nations, and we have a roe herring fishery. We can actually focus the discussion on that particular area, dealing with those interests within that area.

The second aspect of my response would be this. On entering into the MOU, the mechanism we would propose is that all spawn-on-kelp licence holders, through their organization, can sit down with us, the Heiltsuk, and the other roe herring industry members to talk about the MOU. If they have concerns on behalf of all of their membership, the concerns can be raised and, to the extent we can do so, sorted out before the MOU is entered into.

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

In the new Fisheries Act it also talks about the fact that you basically have to be a member of this organization if you are to get an allotment or some kind of quota. Would I be fair in assessing that?

[Paul Sprout]

I can't speak to the specifics of that. The intent is to enter into co-management arrangements, ideally with organizations that clarify responsibilities and sort out roles.

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

I only bring this up because I am somewhat concerned about people who fall through the cracks of these organizations. They feel kind of left out. I don't think there's much of a future for them, if they want to get involved in this fishery and get their own allotment, and they are not involved in a memorandum of understanding or they feel frozen out by the spawn-on-kelp fishers outside the Heiltsuk MOU.

[Paul Sprout]

I know in B.C. there are several avenues for people to pursue and bring their interests. For example, they can be part of an organization and interact directly with the department. They can interact directly with us on a bilateral basis. They don't have to be part of an organization to bring their views to our attention. Secondly, they can also participate as individuals in the organizations that meet as a roe herring group and they can make presentations.

We think, through a combination of those two mechanisms, either they're part of an organization or they're not. But there are mechanisms for them to be able to bring their concerns to others, including us.

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

I have no concern about the mechanisms to bring concerns to the table. I think my concern deals with mechanisms by which they would obtain an allotment or their own quota.

[Paul Sprout]

Maybe I should explain.

The spawn-on-kelp fishery has a fixed number of licence holders, and that doesn't change, notwithstanding another court decision. Each licence holder has the same allocation, and the pool of licence holders is fixed. If you're a licence holder now, you are a licence holder.

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

But the pool can be reduced by a transfer.

[Paul Sprout]

We have not reduced the pool by transfer. In other words, the spawn-on-kelp fishery has grown to 46 licence holders. At this point in time, no consideration is being given to reducing the number of licences.

The fishery is considered to be a reasonably small fishery in terms of the number of licences, of which there are 46. We have no intention, nor has the industry itself expressed an interest, at least at this point in time, of reducing the number of licence holders.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you for that, Mr. Sprout.

I know we will have great discussion and debate over the proposed new Fisheries Act. But this particular hearing today is on spawn-on-kelp under the act that's in existence, not something that could occur in the future. There are some questions around it that we should try to focus on.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

It is too bad you just stole my first question.

Mr. Chair, I will not refrain from asking questions on the past, the present, and the future.

I would like to understand what happened back in 2006 and 2005. Obviously, there were problems in the years 2003-05, because you had to call in the RCMP. What is it that made a difference in 2006?

[Paul Sprout]

What happened was we tried to change the way we were interacting with the first nations. We brought in a third party to work with the first nations and us and the roe herring fishery. Before, we were trying to deal directly with the first nations--department to the first nations--and that created some challenges. By bringing in a third party we were able to all discuss the situation at a common table. That was an important departure from 2005.

The second thing we did was acknowledge there was an issue about the quantity of roe herring. The Heltsiuks felt the quantity they were harvesting was too low, but we also agreed there was another area that we could discuss, which was how we managed the roe herring fishery, and that there was a role there for the Heltsiuks to be more involved in it. We wanted to make sure the roe herring industry itself was comfortable with that involvement, so we changed the dynamic. We brought in a third party. We widened the discussion to include other issues on the table where we could actually make progress. We eventually entered into an MOU that allowed us to have a more flexible approach that gave a real role for the Heltsiuks in 2006 in terms of the management of the fishery, in terms of observers and being involved, and in a manner with which the roe herring industry itself was comfortable.

Those were the changes that allowed us to be successful in 2006.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

It is amazing that the mere fact that a third party was brought in to help the parties get together was enough to break the deadlock. I would like to understand better.

I figure in the years when the situation was not good, you tried to find all kinds of solutions, and that the final solution must had to be found that way. But were there other factors that helped break the impasse in 2006?

[Paul Sprout]

The answer is yes. Part of that is due to the fact that we started negotiating with the Heltsiuks in 1997, and over a period of a number of years the two of us were able to inform each other better of each other's views. Our relationship got better over time, just through the contact we had. We still have had differences and we still do have differences, but because we spent a lot of energy trying to sort those differences out, I think that also fostered a change.

Also, there is a sort of economic reality, as I noted in my presentation to the committee earlier today, with the change in the market and the reduction in the value. That really brought home to people the need to try to find a way of working together, and the roe herring industry itself also saw that it was important to see stability. They believed it was important to find some sort of relationship with the Heltsiuks that we could all live with.

There were a series of factors. There was the third party, which I mentioned, and looking at different arrangements in management, which I discussed, and there was just the relationship we had built year after year and the fact that everybody was trying to find a way of stabilizing this because the market was not very good. It was poor, and people wanted to stabilize the industry so that they would get the best value they could under the circumstances.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

The document deals very much with the MOU, but I do not have it here. Is it possible to get this MOU?

[Paul Sprout]

The MOU, yes, I believe that could be distributed. I will definitely look into that to see whether it could be provided.