Fisheries Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

A question each, Mr. Lunney and Mr. Calkins; five minutes between you.

Mr. Lunney.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was mentioned earlier by one of our colleagues, about streamkeepers and auxiliary, and the influence of volunteers. Particularly in our area, with habitat, we have a lot of people involved in the streamkeeper program and in stewardship programs. I hope we'll see everything done to support and maintain those budgets for these groups. They are concerned about cutbacks, or at least they're all worried about it, anyway.

The question I have picks up on what my colleague talked about, and I'm sure he wants to go there again. That was about sport fishing. Certainly in my riding it's a big, big industry, and I think they often feel under-represented.

The highest value, the Alberni Valley sockeye run, for example, had a huge sport fishery because of the proximity to a large urban area and access to marinas, and so on. But they often feel that they're low on the totem pole, if I can use that analogy. They're in competition with other fisheries in getting access to that resource.

Since they are high value, I would hope that we've recognized this. So I wonder, if we're going to have competition on the resource and we have a small number of seiners who come in and pretty well clean out the resource in a few days in a fishery like the Somass River fishery in the Alberni Inlet, why we wouldn't tip the scales. If you're going to buy people out to get them off the water, why wouldn't we get rid of the seiners, who scoop the entire resource, and allow the trollers and the sport industry, which really is the public access?

Most people access through the sport recreational fishery. That's the way the public accesses the fishery. Why wouldn't we tip the scales in that favour, that if we're going to buy somebody out, get rid of the seiners and allow the sports fishermen and the trollers, which support families and sustain communities, to get a greater emphasis in the fishery?

[Larry Murray]

I think that is a question that we in the department wrestled with when I was last here in 1998, and we did come out with a priority for chinook and coho. It is an ongoing discussion, and obviously it's a very sensitive area that requires everybody at the table to figure out where we go. I think that kind of dialogue does have to unfold, but the point you're making is valid, and as I say, I think on the east coast we really do underutilize the good living for people through that approach.

As the way ahead unfolds, on the Pacific salmon, and so on, those kinds of considerations are going to have to be brought to the table. But it always is, as you're well aware, that there are a whole bunch of interests, and the minister has to try to balance those interests as best he can.

In relation to the volunteer point—and I was going to make this point when we got the question the first time—we've done some anecdotal work, if you can call it that, in Newfoundland and Labrador. But the reality is that where we spend not very much money and we don't spend enough money is in support of streamkeepers and education and all that kind of stuff.

But in Newfoundland we recently spent some money, I think last year, supporting that. The impact of that investment on reducing poaching in particular rivers where we did that was much more significant than having enforcement. When people understand it, when they're engaged in it and take ownership of it, they don't poach, because they understand what the significance of it is. So it actually has an enforcement ramification.

In terms of our investments in this, though, you mentioned one example, that the minister did direct a $10-million investment over the next three years in the Fraser basin initiative, which is a coming together of all stakeholders and volunteers. It's led by Rick Hansen. It has the Fraser Basin Council involved in that. So we are trying, wherever opportunities arise within the art of the possible, to work with some of these really excellent groups.

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

Thank you, Mr. Murray.

I received some comfort and consolation from that sentiment, and I'm glad to hear it being expressed.

The last question I have is on ocean trawling. I think we're at a stage where we're starting to understand a little better the concerns about what happens to the seabed and ocean ecology. It's like plowing the seabed.

There was a recent documentary on television, with some of the new technology, showing these trawlers basically going like a grid pattern, plowing the entire ocean floor. Where are we at in dealing with this? Can we at least control this and say there would be designated areas? I know in our area some people are very concerned about unique species of glass sponges, for example.

If we are allowed to trawl just anywhere, we're going to wipe out an unknown quantity of habitat. Maybe there's a way we could restrict it to certain corridors, at least.

[Larry Murray]

This is an area of significant importance. In terms of the sponge reef, we already do have a no-fishing zone, and we expanded it recently. We probably need to do more. We're looking at marine protected areas or other vehicles on that.

There was a lot of controversy this spring at the UN and a sense that Canada wasn't leading the charge on a total ban. The reality was that a total ban was simply not going to happen. What was going to happen if we stayed in that is the UN resolution wouldn't have gone anywhere because there wouldn't have been a consensus. So Canada played a very constructive role at the minister's direction in moving this forward in a meaningful way.

We've also had the industry in the NAFO area work within NAFO to put certain areas out of bounds. We are working hard at rolling out a domestic policy that would bring reality to this. We've put a fair amount of science effort into this, and the reality is that the first impact does the damage, so we need to make sure that we're not starting to do damage in pristine areas. We're trying to focus on areas where we avoid that.

I would say the minister would be in a position in the next several months to roll out a domestic policy that's in line with what we've been trying to do internationally. We think the issue is destructive fishing gear, not just about bottom trawling, and certainly we don't think that total bans on bottom trawling that can't be enforced are necessarily the way to go. But we're absolutely seized of the issue. The minister's seized of the issue, and we're trying to make a difference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Murray, for that answer.

Mr. Calkins, did you have a final question?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I believe Mr. Stringer was in the middle of answering when he—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Yes, he was cut short.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I was just hoping he remembered the context of my question. I would appreciate providing him with an opportunity to continue with the answer.

Do you need a reminder of the question?

[Larry Murray]

I'll hand it off to Mr. Stringer, but in relation to that question I'd really like to make sure we give you the right numbers on this. We do have the numbers, and I just wouldn't want to be winging the numbers.

I'll ask Kevin to finish the answer, but I think this issue of the value of the sports fishery and all that.... We have those numbers, and I'd really like to send them to you, as opposed to winging it here.

Go ahead, Kevin.

[Kevin Stringer]

I'll finish winging it, and then we'll....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Stringer]

The number—industry will give you numbers, it depends on who you're talking to—they've generally landed on, and we'll get this to you, is about $600 million for the value of the industry on the west coast in marine areas. There are about 350,000 licence holders on the west coast. And that's not just British Columbians; there's a huge tourism industry associated with this.

In salmon, it's largely individual fishers. In halibut, which is a growing area, about 85% of it is lodges and that sort of thing.

As I said, we have the recreational fisheries survey, which is nearing completion. And we do this every five years in conjunction with the provinces, so we will have specific numbers across the country on the number. We get more than just the numbers; we get information on how much they spend in communities, those types of things. So it is a useful exercise.

I may take the opportunity, then, to respond to your question about.... It seems to me the question that was raised on this is very similar to the other one on recreational fishers feeling they're on the low end of the totem pole and that sort of thing. As we move towards more co-management engagement with fishers, that's a bigger and bigger issue, and the issue is largely about the nature of the recreational fishery. With 350,000 fishers in B.C., it's pretty tough for them to get organized and say “here's how I vote” and have elected representatives. With the 650 halibut fishermen or whatever the number is, they have an association.

So the recreational fishery comes across as an industry, because it's largely a tourism and lodge, etc., industry. It is a fisheries sector, because they have a certain percentage of the fishery as well, compared to commercial and aboriginal fishers. And then there's a sense that it's a rights-based fishery: everybody gets to fish as they will, and there shouldn't be a number. In any case, it's largely about how they're represented.

We've done a number of vision exercises for the west coast fishery and the east coast fishery, and we've now engaged with recreational fisheries interests on a vision exercise for how they want to see—working with us—the fishery develop on the west coast and where the recreational fisheries fit in. We have representatives from the industry, we have representatives from people who want to see a fish sector, we have representatives from all the groups, and we're working on that exercise.

It is specifically an attempt to make sure that view is appropriately recognized along with commercial fishermen, aboriginal groups, and first nations at the integrated harvest planning table. That exercise has been under way for about a year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

If I could--and I apologize to the committee, because I know we need to vote the estimates today--I have a very quick question on that point, Mr. Stringer. This will be the final question.

You mentioned the International Pacific Halibut Commission. That's actually an international body that establishes that TAC, if I'm correct. Canada's portion of that TAC is divided between the commercial fleet and the recreational fleet. This year, it is my understanding, the recreational fleet went over their TAC by 700,000 pounds. That's 350 tons. That's a lot of fish.

I realize that there's a big recreational sector, but somehow or other they're not being monitored closely enough. And for the Canadian TAC, next year that portion will come off everyone instead of just off the recreational sector. It comes off the commercial sector as well. It would seem to me that this is patently unfair.

[Larry Murray]

I'll have a quick go at this one.

There was a significant study done. The numbers were based on an assessment, kind of a norm, of what fish get caught.

It's my understanding that a detailed review of that assessment is under way to determine the most accurate number. I'm meeting with the halibut association this afternoon. I met with the recreational sector a few weeks ago. I don't have the results of that more detailed work to determine exactly the overage, the underage, or whatever. But certainly, as you're well aware, shares and whether it is everybody's right to throw a line in and catch a halibut is a very emotive issue.

However we square this, from our perspective, from the minister's perspective, there is 100% of fish, and we have to figure out how to manage that with everybody involved, including the recreational sector. At the moment, it's a challenge sorting that one out on all sides without taking sides.

The issue you raise of catch monitoring, for all the species on the west coast, is an issue we will be moving forward with this year much more dramatically than we have in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Murray, I appreciate that, but respectfully, if we put cameras on all our commercial boats, and we watch them very closely, and we don't have a monitoring system.... If the numbers are correct, and the recreational fishery went over by 350 tons, that's a lot. I mean, that's a huge amount of fish. It would only be correct, then, that the recreational sector should be the one to lose that from its quota, not the commercial sector, because the commercial sector didn't overfish. And I think that has to be taken into consideration somewhere.

I represent a lot of commercial fishermen in South Shore—St. Margaret's in southwest Nova Scotia. It's a different situation on the east coast from on the west coast. But if we're telling the commercial fleet, and regulating the commercial fleet, then somehow or other we can't allow this other group simply to come in and ignore the rules.

[Larry Murray]

I would say that the minister would agree with what you just said. The challenge is managing our way there in a manner that makes sense. I guess what I wouldn't mind doing would be coming back to the committee with our perspective on the final result of that halibut thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I would appreciate it.

[Larry Murray]

But I take the point, and it's a concern on all sides.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate Mr. Murray and DFO officials coming today. Thank you.

We'll move on to our estimates.

Mr. Lunney?

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

I'm staying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

That's good. You need to be in your chair to vote, though.

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

This is exercise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Under Fisheries and Oceans, shall votes 1, 5, and 10, less the amounts voted in interim supply, carry?

FISHERIES AND OCEANS

Fisheries and Oceans

Vote 1--Operating expenditures..........$1,129,800,000

Vote 5--Capital expenditures..........$232,054,000

Vote 10--Grants and contributions..........$55,130,000

(Votes 1, 5, and 10 agreed to)