Fisheries Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[Robert Haché]

I think that statement is correct. If, at some point, a group of fishers wanted to take money out of their own pocket to contribute to the costs of an activity in partnership with the government, whether scientific in nature or something else, in my opinion, this would not run counter to the judgment in the Larocque case. However, I do not think that is what we said here this morning.

Provided the contribution is voluntary—The problem arises when the contribution is forced or determined based on a quota. If it is called a voluntary contribution and the fishers are told that if they do not pay, they will lose 4,000 tonnes of quota, is that really a voluntary contribution? We have to understand the subtle distinctions.

I am not sure whether you understand what I mean.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Raynald Blais]

I'm going to ask Ms. Burridge to answer as well. Then we will go to Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering, from what date was the quote that you read?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Raynald Blais]

This document is in response to our correspondence in January or February 2007.

Ms. Burridge.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Of this year. Merci.

[Christina Burridge]

Strictly speaking, perhaps the department is correct; but practically speaking, they're wrong. And the reason for that is that the Larocque decision takes away the mechanism whereby people could contribute on a voluntary basis. If, for instance, we take the example of roe herring, which we were talking about earlier, you have 1,550 licence-holders and you have no practical or legal mechanism by which you could get those people to contribute. So we are at a complete impasse here. There is no short-term solution, because the mechanism has been lost to us.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Raynald Blais]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

It's the noble profession of a fisherman who would want to take money out of his own pocket to pay for his own activity. It's incredible.

But I want to get back to post-Larocque. You said on September 1 there was a million dollars from sable fish used to pay for science or management. Is that correct?

[Ron MacDonald]

Yes, that's correct, and through our JPA we have agreed to the use of fish to fund science.

I have talked to my members and I asked, “How did we get there?” And they said “If we didn't agree to it, DFO said they wouldn't do it, and if DFO didn't do it, they'd take a very conservative view of the stock size, which would lead to a smaller TAC, so we really didn't have a choice.”

They were satisfied with being able to get science done if that's what it meant to have an efficient economic management of the fishery. But the legal issue that comes out here is the department knew on June 23 that it did not have the power to do that. It continued to do it.

So I guess because I'm a former parliamentarian, I am not just looking at the practical or what we wanted or they wante; I am also saying that departments cannot act contrary to the laws of Canada. You can't do it.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Who on the west coast would you deal with in DFO?

[Ron MacDonald]

We would deal with starting with the groundfish manager up to the RDG, but those decisions are not made there. Those decisions are made in Ottawa. At the time there was an exchange of e-mails between the former executive director and the regional office, which said, “Are you sure we're still able to do this, because we had a legal opinion that says that this is not legal.”

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Who in DFO, sir?

[Ron MacDonald]

I'd have to check, Mr. Stoffer, to find out, but the individual who relayed that to us also said that it was not their decision, that it had been sent up the flag to Ottawa.

So somebody in Ottawa had looked at this and said it was business as usual, which was rather arrogant, and they continued through. So the point we've tried to make in exchanges to the minister is you simply have to stop this paternalistic approach to dealing with fisheries.

The issue of the allocation of quotas is one, but the bigger issue is the context or the milieu in which the department at a senior level out of Ottawa deals with the fishers of Canada. We're hoping that this alone would help us to change that, so that when you had co-management, it was real co-management to try to change the paradigm on the relationship.

I want to tell you something, Mr. Chair. One thing that my members would do, we'd pay for all the science in our fleet if they allowed us to manage our fleet. But to have to pay and leave management to other places is not what we're prepared to do. If the Government of Canada wants to play the major role in managing the fisheries, then they should pay a proportionate share or a proper share of the science to manage those species.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

Mike, you had talked about the $200,000 shortfall that will affect the industry. Can you just elaborate a bit more?

Mr. Eidsvik, you wanted 30 seconds to complete an answer for Mr. Manning, so please go right ahead.

Where do you think that money is going to come from, Mike, and how fast do you have to have it?

[Mike Featherstone]

They've clearly told us that if we don't have that money, there will be no stock assessment, there will be no reports, there will be no updating of the stock assessment model, and it will lead to a decrease in quotas.

So there is no way for an industry that has contributed millions over the last ten years for management and stock assessment—unless I went back to my members and said, “By the way, boys, everybody has to buck up”, even though 40 of them didn't even go fishing because the market has been destroyed by an IUU fishery, which is a global problem.

It just goes to show you how you can do everything right. Our industry has been recognized as one of the most sustainable urchin fisheries in the world. We've worked hard to maximize the economic value of that fishery. But you run into a problem in the market and all of a sudden you're left not being able to sustainably manage either from the conservation or economic point of view.

So really there is no method for us to gain that money back. And I think it is really unfortunate in our case that we've been involved in this co-management program for years and contributed millions of dollars. Now when we're in trouble, the government has basically told us, tough luck.

You've contributed millions for years, and every year, by the way, the department has asked for more and more money. It's not just what you agreed to when you first set up your fishery. It's every year there's an incremental increase, funding biologists, funding someone to follow us around where we go fishing every day. It's $600,000 a year out of a fishery, $5,500 a licence.

That's the red sea urchin fishery, but if you look at the geoduck fishery, we pay $50,000 a year for our licence to go fishing, to manage. We have three biologists, for example, who are on the payroll, who we pay for. This year, in spite of the fact that our industry was paying for them, they had to take them away from our industry and give them to the herring people because there were no resources for the herring people. So one fishery is paying for the biologists but then they have to go to herring fishery because there's no money to pay for them.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Raynald Blais]

Mr. Lunney.

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

Going back to right after Larocque, I think we have to say that DFO took steps to comply. You know a national working group has been set in place to review all existing use-of-fish arrangements and to develop policy on future arrangements.

In fairness, in some of the fisheries you discussed here that were done after Larocque, the arrangements were made pre-Larocque and were already in place with industry. Some members are raising alarm about the government doing illegal things, but we're in a transition zone here; agreements were made ahead of Larocque, and we all have to adjust to that, including the department. I think that needs to be said. Mr. Cue, the arrangements for the fishery that you were describing took place well in advance of the Larocque decision, if I'm correct on that.

We've described here that the agreements vary greatly from one sector to another. I heard Mr. MacDonald mention east and west, and I want to bring in the great east-west divide here. The fisheries are very complex. They're different from those on the coast, and the arrangements are complex that way as well.

Add to those complexities issues of climate change. There is going to be a tremendous demand for more science in the oceans if we're going to be able to reach goals of conservation and sustainability. We needn't pretend that this is not a complicated issue, and it's going to be even more so, I'm afraid.

Add to that competition from other people who don't respect the same rules. Then we have ocean water temperature changes; regardless of what's contributing to climate change, it's happening. Cold-blooded critters—the higher-order animals there, the fish—are affected by those ocean temperatures, particularly the migrating species. Then there are the crustaceans. You've got changes happening up the coast of California. You've dolphins and minke whales washing up because of changes in the plankton, toxins in the water, and stuff like that.

Let's understand that we have a change in paradigm that you talked about, and there's going to be a demand for more science. I appreciate, Christina, the way you've framed this, recognizing that we're going to have to find a way to enter into this, but complicated as it is, it's unreasonable to think it is going to happen instantly; we're in that process.

Let me ask you this question, then. Obviously there's a discussion going on in the department, which has taken the position that there's a difference between basic levels of science that are required for conservation and sustainability and a higher level of participation. Scientific activities are not absolutely necessary to meet those goals, but additional science has been undertaken that proves to be a direct and exclusive benefit to the groups—i.e., the industry and the fisheries, with all due respect to the complications of your urchin fishery. I certainly would like to follow up on this illegal participation from an illegal unreported fishery involving a Russian fleet. We need to take action on these issues to protect our stocks.

I want to suggest to you that this distinction exists. Do you accept and agree with this distinction? Why or why not? Would you comment, Geoff?

[Geoff Gould]

Well, in area A crab they tried to distinguish our charters away by saying it was a charter for the benefit of a limited number of fishermen. As I've told you, it isn't; it's a benefit to the economy and to the coffers of the federal government when we fish.

They just tried to dismiss our charters. They just said they have these fixed dates and conservation is looked after, but they completely ignored the economic benefits of our fishery to the area and to Canada.

In one letter they just dismissed us, saying the charters aren't important, yet they fully supported our having them for five years. They gleefully took the data from us and said it was valuable data. They trained our crew members to collect the data. It was all very important at the time, when it could be paid for out of the resource; as soon as it looked as though they might have to pay for it, all of a sudden it wasn't important. We say they just made that distinction up to avoid paying for it, period.

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

Might we say that the court decision has been inconvenient for everybody, because it's upset the whole apple cart in the way the arrangements were taking place?

[A voice]

Yes.

[Ron MacDonald]

Can I just respond to that? We do agree. We do agree, but it's the role of government, when unexpected things happen within their jurisdiction, to try to address them in a timely fashion and to mitigate against any negative consequences as a result of those actions. Fundamentally, there needs to be parity as well in the way they respond to those people who could be injured or to situations of potential injury. You mentioned that post-Larocque they were in a tizzy.

One of the reasons we pursued from the sablefish is that there's been an inconsistent response and policy. I'll quote from the same document, from the January briefing. It says, “The department has already undertaken to fund, through DFO A-base moneys, a number of science-related activities, which began in July 2006, including $2.2 million in post-season crab surveys.” They say that because of Larocque they had to fund the post-season crab surveys, but in our case they didn't have to.

All I'm seeking—because my background is public policy—is clarity, parity, transparency in public policy. The department's response in this interim period has not been that. And when you raise these things with the department they get angry with you, because they think you're pointing a finger. We're pointing out inconsistencies, hoping that we can work with them in order to resolve them.

On the issue of the interim while the department goes through this adjustment, what we need is clearly, Mr. Chair, a full allocation from Parliament to cover all of the science that would have been covered by an allocation of quota. Second, as Christina said clearly, we need a process undertaken to determine the base science that needs to be done, the fiduciary responsibility of the government, and the responsibility of industry—and we want a process that's transparent, so that we stop this one-offing within various sectors in our industry.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Raynald Blais]

Unfortunately, the time is up.

We have slightly less than 10 minutes remaining. I know that Mr. Jean would like to have the floor. If we follow the set order, we will not be able to give him the floor. So, with your permission, before we conclude, I will allow Mr. Jean to ask a question. Then, we can continue.

You have the floor, Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to run my seven questions into one, as closely as possible.

If I understand it properly, the Larocque decision is the only decision that currently causes so many problems—

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

There are two decisions.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

There are two decisions, okay. My understanding of the Larocque decision is that the government cannot charge money to issue licences to fund scientific data collection. Does that in essence sum it up?