Evidence of meeting #18 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was licences.
Coordinator, Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protective Association
Let me answer the question as well.
When we first found this out, that we had 50-50, I was at a meeting for groundfish when I was reading my e-mails, and it came out. Mike Eagles happened to be up on the fifth floor, so I left that meeting and went flying up there. I asked him what it meant, to explain it to me, to tell me what we really got, because--
Conservative
Coordinator, Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protective Association
Yes, when it came out, because I asked what it really meant. So he explained it to me, and I said “woohoo”. I went down, and Tim Martin, from the first nations, was at the groundfish meeting, so I came up behind him and said that we got it--not gloating, but very excited. I understood it was 50-50. So he asked if I got something. I said yes, that it had just come out. So needless to say, he was well aware that the announcement came out.
I saw him many times after that at meetings, and not once did he come up and say that we got screwed. There was no outrage. That was when there should have been outrage. If it were us and we were all unhappy that it was going to go 50-50, do you think I'd wait four years and then say we didn't understand it, it wasn't right, we didn't consult right? No, I would have been on the doorstep; I would have been at Mike Eagles right there and given him hell that same afternoon.
What I can tell you—and I can't verify this, since it's third or fourth or fifth hearsay or whatever—was that the natives, the first nations, were guaranteed by DFO it will never go above 9,700, don't worry. I was told this. So that could be the reason they didn't do this big “oh no”.
I would love that guarantee sometime. I would love to sit in their office and hear them say “Nellie, you're guaranteed to get 50-50, don't worry about it. It doesn't matter whatever else happens, you're getting that.”
So no, they're not happy. I'll tell you, it's only been the last few years at our advisory meetings, as our quotas have been going this direction, that all of a sudden it comes up. We're not sure what that panel report means.
A couple of years ago, I believe Gordon was the one in crab fishing area 23 who said we wanted the minister to clarify what this 50-50 means. So at our meeting it was said to us that they wanted to know. I said we wanted to know too. If anybody was unsure, we should get a clarification.
Then this last year, when we had our meeting—
President, Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protective Association
It wasn't on the agenda.
Coordinator, Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protective Association
—I brought it up. It wasn't on our agenda.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Was that in March 2010, the advisory board meeting?
Coordinator, Eastern Shore Fishermen's Protective Association
Yes. It wasn't on the agenda, but I brought it up because it was in the minutes that we were supposed to have had some correspondence from the minister as clarification. So I asked where it was. Mike Eagles was no longer the head of it, but he was sitting there. I asked Mike if he had sent that letter, and he said yes. I asked where the response was, and he said he never got any. So if you call that consultation, I'm sorry.
What I'm trying to tell you is that there was no outrage at the beginning. It was only as the quota got closer to 9,700 that we started hearing peeps from the traditional fleet that they thought it didn't mean what it meant and they wanted clarification.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you for that clarification.
Let's go back a year to the advisory board meeting in March 2009. Was it discussed there? Then between that and March 2010, I guess a decision had come from the minister about the equal licence-sharing or however that was described. Was it a contentious issue at the March 2010 advisory meeting?
President, Port Morien, False Bay Fishermen's Association
Can I answer that, please?
At our March 2009 an addendum was put on the agenda. Mr. MacDonald was there that morning. He put an addendum. He said he wanted to talk about the sharing formula. It was the last item on the agenda. He got up and said what he wanted to say. We didn't know anything was going to be on it. He talked about this equity in licence, equal licence: a licence is a licence. When Mr. MacDonald was done speaking, the meeting was adjourned. That's the extent to which it was brought up.
In June I got a fax from the minister stating what the TAC was going to be, and almost word for word what Mr. MacDonald said in the advisory board meeting was on the fax. That's all the discussion.
As an advisory board, our part of it had no idea it was even under discussion.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
What about this past one in March this year?
President, Port Morien, False Bay Fishermen's Association
On this past one, we were told the minister had made her decision and that was what it was going to be.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Were the majority of participants okay with that?
President, Port Morien, False Bay Fishermen's Association
No. They knew we weren't okay, but we weren't at the advisory meeting to argue sharing formula. We were at the advisory meeting to set our start dates and to set our trap limits and to set our TAC, but they knew we were fighting this.
Representative, Eastern Nova Scotia Crab Fishing Area 23, Multi-species Crab License Holders
Getting back to the March 2009 meeting, in the notes, on page 12 at the bottom, we were discussing exploitation rates, whether it should be 13%, 17%, or whatever. Option two was 20%, and here is Claire MacDonald, the senior advisor for snow crab at DFO:
It should be noted that the 20% ER will trigger the permanent 50%-50% Sharing Arrangement recommended by the Advisory Panel on Access and Allocation in 2005.
Then it goes on to say on the last page, as Bernie said, that Gordon MacDonald got up and spoke, and he opened the discussion on sharing formula. He noted that if the TAC exceeded 9,700 tonnes, this would trigger a permanent reallocation. They did not have any reason to not understand what the sharing formula said from 2005. They knew it perfectly, but as Nellie stated, they were guaranteed that it wasn't going to go over 9,700 tonnes. The only thing is that science one-upped everybody and did a fair analysis of the biomass out there and put out 10,800 tonnes for 2009, and it's over 13,000 tonnes for 2010.
But fast-forward to the March 2010 management board. Prior to the start of the meeting I brought it up with Paul Gentile. We had a heated conversation over it, but it was not to be spoken of at the general meeting that would be recorded because--in Paul's words--the minister had made her decision and it was the final decision and they were not there to discuss it. They basically told us that if we were going to bring it up, the meeting was going to be shut down.
On the consultation part, if they talk about consultation before their changing this, there was absolutely none with us—maybe with the members of the permanent fleet, but we weren't party to that. When we tried to find out what went on.... This is when they were throwing in that we were consulted. We were not consulted. We're still fighting today, on May 27, to find out what in the name of God went on to change all this. It is something we lived through and practically gave up our first-born to get, and here we are back to fighting, back to the old status quo of arguing and nobody really wants to talk to anybody and looking at everybody as if to say “You're ugly; we don't want to talk to you.”
This has to change. I'm hoping this panel will go back to the minister and say “Look, Ms. Minister, all the DFO documents—not documents that Nellie wrote or Josephine Kennedy wrote or Bernie MacDonald wrote—are DFO's documents, every bit of it, and that was paid for by the taxpayer of Canada and the permanent fleet knew exactly what was going on right from the get-go”.
As Bernie said, Gordon MacDonald said the only way would be to divide the TAC equally. Well, how come Mr. Gordon MacDonald's words can be carried off to the minister and change a complete plan, but anything that we're supposed to be co-managing doesn't even see the light of day? It's thrown in the garbage before we get out the door.
That has to change, and if there's anything going to happen within DFO, those people in Halifax, those policy advisors and those ones who write the briefing notes, have to be held accountable, which they are not. They are not. They hide behind the minister's skirt or the minister's suit, whoever happens to be there, and when they're on the hot seat, what do they come back with? “Well, it's the minister who has the final decision”. But the minister can only go by what they're telling her to do.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you very much, Ms. Kennedy.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much on behalf of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for coming to this meeting with us this morning and for taking time to offer your comments and to answer the questions of the members. We do really appreciate your time here today.
We'll take a short break while we set up for the next guests.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
I'll call the meeting back to order.
I want to thank you very much for joining us here today. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is, as I'm sure you're well aware, studying the snow crab industry in eastern Canada. We look forward to your comments today.
We try to limit the comments to approximately four minutes per individual in the interest of time and trying to get everyone in and to allow the members time to ask questions. The members have timeframes that they have to remain within while asking and enjoying the answers to their questions.
We'll start with you, Mr. MacDonald, if you have some opening comments you'd care to make.
Gordon MacDonald President and Managing Director, Area 23 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association
If I could just defer to Leonard, he'd like to start, actually.
Leonard Denny Chief Executive Officer, Crane Cove Seafoods, Eskasoni First Nation
I just want to make sure that you guys hear me, first of all, and do you guys see me as well? I'm first nation; are you able to see me?
Chief Executive Officer, Crane Cove Seafoods, Eskasoni First Nation
Great, because it doesn't seem as though all the parties want to acknowledge first nations participation in this, so I just want to make sure I'm seen, right?
First of all, I want to welcome you guys to Unama'ki, also sometimes known as Cape Breton.
My name is Leonard Denny. I am the chief executive officer for Crane Cove Seafoods, which is owned by Eskasoni First Nation.
In the last ten years or so we've been able to start participating in commercial fishing activities due to the Marshall court decision. I'm happy to say that we've been able to build really strong relationships with DFO. We're actively participating in the management of the resource and of the oceans as well. We're also building strong relationships with the non-native fishers, the non-native communities, and the buyers.
As a first nation we take a balanced approach to fishing. We always look at the economic side of it, and I'm happy to say that we manage our own fishery. We look at the environmental side of it. We're always trying to use environmentally friendly practices in fishing. There's also the conservation side. We've been talking about marine protected areas and we've kept an open mind on that.
Conservation, the environment, and economics are all key. I think there is a balance so that you can do all that and still be successful.
The one thing I want to make clear that is not being made clear is that you always talk about the two groups sharing 50-50. It's 50-50 for two groups or 60-40 for two groups. Well, I want to let you know there are three groups here, not two groups. It works out to the traditional having about 20 licences and the first nations having about 20 licences and the temporaries--now permanent--having about 20 licences. The thought of taking two groups and sharing half and giving the other half to one group again makes us invisible. That's how I read it, because there are three groups equally sharing the three sets of 20-some licences.
Eskasoni fishes mostly out of area 23. Right now each group holds approximately one-third of the licences, so if you want to talk about fairness, I think it's right on the nose right now. I think the minister in her wisdom saw that and adjusted accordingly.
I know these plans were developed years ago and I want to state for the record that we were never consulted on these management plans. We were never consulted. It was never explained to us. Due process and due diligence were never done on this. I want to explain that.
We were also not consulted when they issued a new licence in area 23. To me it's very irresponsible and very cowardly for an outgoing minister to make such a decision, leave, and not have to deal with the consequences or the outcry from it. It's very cowardly and very irresponsible. It makes other MPs look bad. I know you guys aren't all bad, but it is very irresponsible.
They also talk about traditional licences and how there is one owner. It's one owner. Then they tell us that with us, there are 350 owners. Well, with our licences there are 10,000 owners, okay? It's 10,000, not 350. There are 10,000 owners.
I'll tell you about the benefits that the crab and fishing activities have brought so far to first nations in Eskasoni specifically. There are five processors, plus two on the mainland.
I'm not going to speak for the others, but in Eskasoni, we currently employ 100 fishermen and about eight administrators or managers, whatever you want to call them. We also employ 25 processors who are all native. We have 25 processors who repackage frozen crab caught by the industry.
Is it all about us? It isn't. We also help employ more than 200 non-natives in Arichat with our snow crab. We also help employ non-natives with our shrimp. We land our shrimp in North Sydney. So it's not all about us. Again, we're trying to find a balance here.
The income generated from that, the profits, is shared among the community whether that is debt reduction or offsetting shortfalls with programs in Eskasoni. The biggest thing for us is that if this change did occur, if they got their way and it did occur—and we've had these conversations before and apparently we were forgotten about today when they had their say—it would have meant 400,000 pounds lost to Eskasoni. I'm sitting in my office and I'm telling 20 fishermen with families who are used to welfare, because we are on reserves, that they are going back onto welfare and won't get to fish this year. That's not something I ever want to have to do.
Eskasoni is a proud first nation, but it is also a struggling first nation. Our community is 70% unemployed, 70% plus. It's always like that. Let alone the high suicide rate, our unemployment rate is enormous. I know it is easy to sort of.... It's like watching TV showing third world children. Turn the channel and it will go away. It is easy to turn the channel on us and forget about it, but we're going to try to make a fuss about that.
Again, for the record, we were never consulted on any of this, and I don't like it being implied that there were some backroom dealings here. We've always been upfront. We always participate in management decisions. We respect the rules. We've been following the rules since we have participated, so all this conspiracy theory stuff is just a pile of.... I don't want to say. Let's get realistic. The minister was able to adjust, but politics doesn't always make the right decisions, and believe you me, there is enough blame to go around. But let's do it case by case. We can't always blame you guys. You can't always blame us. So we do it case by case.
What I would also like to let you guys know about is that in area 23 and area 24 I would like to say it's a little bit different. We've been taking the cuts. When science tells us to cut, we cut. We work together. We have made sacrifices over the years. Our stock is healthy. Ours went up this year. In other areas it went down. But we don't fight it. We don't argue. When we are told to cut, we cut, and we manage our resource. So we should never be punished for doing that. We are managing a healthy resource.
For now that's all I want to say.
Again, thank you, guys.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you very much, Mr. Denny.
I'm not sure who wants to go next.
Mr. MacDonald.
President and Managing Director, Area 23 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association
Excuse me as well. I'm not exactly at my best right now. We're in the middle of fishing season, and I've just spent three days on two different boats trying to harvest lobster and snow crab at the same time. I was up until two o'clock in the morning trying to write what I was going to say to you folks today.
I have a little bit of a benefit because I've probably been at this business longer than any DFO or other person. My uncle started fishing when the first permits were issued in 1978; I started in 1979, and I've been in this fishery for a very long time. I've been working with the executive of the association and leading it pretty well since 1996, through the growth and expansion, the collapses, and the regrowth.
My name is Gordon MacDonald. I've been well addressed in the earlier presentations. I'm the managing director of the Area 23 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association. We're a collective of the traditional fishermen who have been around since the fishery was started and the aboriginal fleets that have been part of us since their being made permanent in the fleet.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members, for coming to Cape Breton. That certainly makes it a lot easier. Welcome to our home.
We're here to discuss what's become one of Canada's most successfully managed fisheries, the eastern Nova Scotia snow crab fishery. This fishery's been active for over 30 years, and it has proven to have highly variable biomass levels, as have all snow crab fisheries throughout the world. In Alaska and the gulf there are high fluctuations. Biomass gets very high, and then it drops.
In area 23 this resource, as such, has proven to both require and respond to good management practices, the foundation of which is found through the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's fundamental reliance on conservation through the reliance on fishermen as owners of the fishery resource. Because they're most tied to it, they suffer most or benefit most from the decisions that are made. If you can put that in their hands and give them a long-term feel, then you will achieve greater success than any level of policing or upper-hand management can achieve.
The snow crab fishery has progressed from an effort-based competitive fishery to a fishery managed by quotas that were implemented to avoid a stock collapse of the kind that was experienced in the mid-1980s. Quotas were set at the behest of the fishermen. The value had gone up in the 1990s, the price was around $3 a pound, the effort was going high, and we'd just gone through the collapse in the mid-1980s; the fishermen said, “We're going to drive this right back into the ground, and it's worth something. We need to protect this, and quotas will take care of that.”
However, when DFO implemented the quotas, they used a ten-year average that also included the collapse period, so they were set at a relatively low level. If you average zero into your numbers, it gets to be that. With a relatively low quota, the science then came on board to advise what the biomass levels were. They used something called a Leslie analysis, which pretty well says that if your catch rates are high and drop off rapidly, the resource can't handle the pressure, so the stock is in decline.
The fishermen had very little need for effort, because the season was long enough and the quotas were low enough that it didn't really matter. One played into the other, and the net result was that the scientific recommendation was that the stock was in collapse. The fishermen were going, “You're crazy. It's easier to catch these things than it ever has been.”
That said, DFO offered the industry the opportunity to use this trawl survey that had been done in the gulf. They'd bring the survey, at a quarter-million dollar price, if we paid the money, which we did. It's one of the examples of a fishing industry that has led for a long time in the proper types of management, from the recognition of collapse to the need for quotas to the need to then bring more science. They put their own money where their mouth is.
When the trawl survey came, they discovered that in actual fact the fishermen were right: the biomass had been skyrocketing during the whole period of time that we had been allocated quotas at low levels and told that those quotas were declining.
The resource was initially treated as a built-up biomass. The total allowable catches were increased for the traditional fleet, but they set aside 65% of what had been 100% traditional fleet fishery and gave that 65% away to new temporary access, which was divided among new participants and aboriginal fleets.
The idea was that this was a built-up biomass; it was there. We'd just gone through a cod collapse, there was no money, the lobster fishery was poor in a lot of areas, and fishermen were starving. There was a need to help. This was a bonanza.
The problem, of course, if you recognize snow crab biomass problems, is that it can be very high and it will drop very low. The idea was that we would bring in temporary participants and share in times of abundance, but when the abundance went down, the temporary participants would then exit, and that would provide a level of stability for the existing participants.
In 2002, after the Marshall decision, the aboriginal communities were created as full participants. Their temporary access was converted to permanent access. They were key pieces. The snow crab licences were key pieces to the Marshall agreements, because it was the fishery that had the largest economic value. There were all kinds of other parts to it, but these were key pieces.
This expanded the traditional fleet by 54%, from 24 to 37 licences, and it met with no protests by the permanent fleet. We welcomed the aboriginal fleet. We recognized that with the size of the biomass, the expansion was available. There was no compensation by DFO or anything for the extra inclusion into our fleet.
By 2004, in area 23 there were over 300 temporary quota holders and only 37 traditional aboriginal licence holders, and politics began to interfere with the best management practices and science advice. As we, societally, have failed to learn from history as understood in the tragedy of the comments on the cod fishery, existing participants would do anything to remain as the biomass showed its first signs of reduction. We had lost recruitment levels coming in. There was no sign of a future, and the biomass was headed for a steady fall, based on the independent trawl survey.
At the threshold of the time, 90% of the quota increases would go to the temporary fleet, because we were sharing at the times of abundance when we were up at a particular level; however, if there was any reduction, 90% of the reduction would also come from the temporary fleet as the resource went down. There was a recommendation for a 10% reduction in the TAC in 2004, and 90% was to come from the temporary fleet. Further, with poor scientific prognosis, the effort to convert temporary access into permanent access was about as rampant as you can imagine.
Sharing in times of abundance and traditional fleet protection in times of low abundance was gone. In a strange bout of math, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans actually treated the aboriginal communities as if they were temporary in 2004--after providing permanent access in 2002--and assessed them a 90% share of the reduction and then blended that through the permanent fleet. The net drop of 10% should have been shared 10% by the permanent fleet and 90% by the temporary fleet, but it was actually 39% for the permanent fleet and 61% for the temporary fleet. It's interesting, because it will play as we go along.
Further, in 2005 the minister of the day tasked the panel to implement new permanent access. We have serious concerns of abuse with this type of tool and its independence. Still, a large number of recommendations were implemented, including the conversion of all temporary access into permanent access, again with no compensation for the founding fishermen who invested significantly to bring this fishery to its development. As in the story of the little red hen, when the bread was ready, everyone was hungry; prior to that, there was no interest in effort or participation.
I'm sorry; I'll go more quickly.
Conservative