Fisheries Committee on May 28th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Reid and gentlemen, for being here. I'll begin, and then if there's time I'll pass it over to my colleague from New Brunswick.

Let me follow up on the line of questioning we've heard so far. Obviously it is possible for us to dig out this information ourselves, but I think it would be helpful for us if you could tabulate for us the basic information, let's say going from the top of the cycle—say from 2005. If you could outline this for us—you've indicated that you can't do it here for us today—and provide it to us, I think it would be helpful to the committee. If you could provide a table that showed the commercial fishable biomass in that year, the scientific advice—the ranges and a brief summary of the risk assessment with that—and then the TAC that was set for that year, I think it would help us to understand the process a little bit more. If you're able to do it today, that would be great, but if not, providing it for us would be helpful.

[David Bevan]

We should probably provide it to you in writing, but I think some information is available right now.

[Dr. Mikio Moriyasu, Head, Snow Crab Section, Gulf Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

For the 1995 season we had a biomass of 154,000 tonnes.

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

What year are we talking about?

[Dr. Mikio Moriyasu]

That was for the year 1995.

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

I don't think we want to go back that far.

[Dr. Mikio Moriyasu]

Okay. In 2005, we had 85,000 tonnes.

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

That's the fishable biomass?

[Dr. Mikio Moriyasu]

Yes, it's fishable biomass.

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

That's the peak, then.

[Dr. Mikio Moriyasu]

Yes.

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

And what was the—

[Dr. Mikio Moriyasu]

The quota was 36,000 tonnes.

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

So that was the highest quota that we've had in this area 12 fishery?

[Dr. Mikio Moriyasu]

Yes. This is for the whole southern gulf, but 85% of the quota is usually allocated to area 12.

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

Are you able to help us with subsequent years?

[Dr. Mikio Moriyasu]

In 2006, the following year, the fishable biomass was 68,000 tonnes. The corresponding quota was 29,000 tonnes.

In 2007 it was 66,000 tonnes, and the quota was 27,000 tonnes.

In 2008 it was 57,000 tonnes available, and the quota was 25,000 tonnes.

In 2009 it was 48,000 tonnes available, and the quota was 24,000 metric tonnes.

Now, for this year, it is 26,000 tonnes available in the total southern gulf.

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

And the TAC is 7,700. So the notion that somehow there was—it's stated—this high level, sort of unjustifiable level, and then this drop of 63% is not quite accurate. It has been declining from the top all the way down. I think that is helpful, and if there's more detail there, that would be great.

Area 12 obviously is a large area. Is it considered a single stock or a single population, or are there pockets of abundance throughout the area? In other words, I know for management reasons we manage it as a single stock, but would it be possible to have areas where there was a larger exploitation rate than others within area 12, or is that not a possibility?

[David Bevan]

I think I'll refer to my science colleagues. It's one population, and should we have a higher level of exploitation on one portion of that, it has to be considered in terms of the overall exploitation rate on that population. There are, obviously, pockets of abundance. In the stock status reports there are maps looking at the distribution of the crab that's available, and that certainly drives fishing effort in the first days of the fishery. In other words, people would go to where they understood the fish were, at the time of the stock status report, and they've sat on those areas. But we consider it one population. I don't know if you want to add anything there.

[Dr. Mikio Moriyasu]

Yes. We did genetic studies, and, genetically speaking, southern gulf crab is one unit. Also we have been doing a tagging survey, and the crabs travel between the fishing grounds in the area.

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

I just have one final question and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Allen.

I guess it's kind of a question we've been wrestling with as we take a look at this. Some have suggested that the problem is exacerbated by the fact that there have been some new entrants—not so new; I think they've been around for a number or years, more like decades. How do you manage a stock that is cyclical, especially in terms of managing access, when it goes up and it goes down. Do you bring in new entrants when it's up? What do you do with them when it's down? Do you just pick a level where, when it's up, everyone makes a living, and then when it's down, everyone starves? Do you pick a middle ground? It's more a comment, perhaps, than a question, but how do you manage a cyclical stock like that?

[David Bevan]

That's been at the root of a lot of problems over the last number of years, going back decades, particularly when the groundfish level in the gulf started to go down significantly and basically became a mere shadow of its former levels. We had people coming into this issue and going out, and there was great debate over when they're in and when they're out, etc.

The decision was made back in 2003 to say that was it; we were not going to bring any more people in or take people out. Everybody was on for the ride. So on the good times cycle, they were all going to make money, and on the bad times—like we're in now—people should just ride it through and expect it to go back up again shortly. That's our expectation and certainly our hope. Let people stay with it and provide them with flexibility so that on the downward cycle they can cut their costs by combining quotas, partnering, etc. That's where we're currently at. The minister has made it clear that stability of access and allocation is the policy. It's been a policy, actually, since 2004. That is coupled with the fact that we're trying to stop the endless fight over access and allocation and start having people focus on value and how to manage their own affairs so that they can maximize their net income. That's what we're focusing on.

As to whether or not additional effort is contributing to the declines, I'd say it's contributing to the economic challenges but not to the biological ones. This is stock managed on, as I mentioned, TAC and quota—TAC being the key point there—as well as on targeting mature males. We're harvesting a particular percentage of the mature males and doing that in a way that we expect to minimize the risks to the stock in the long term. That doesn't contribute to the biological cycles. It certainly adds questions and challenges to the economic issues, but we're hopeful that by changing our policies and allowing more flexibility, we can allow the individual fishermen to make choices and to cut their costs and have the opportunity to ride this out.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Moriyasu, you indicated that the fishable biomass was 148,000 tonnes in 1995 and 85,000 tonnes in 2005. Have there been any changes in the process to establish the fishable biomass? When is that process done?

More importantly, it always intrigues me that the announcement of this TAC is always made hours before the season starts. Is it possible that a signal can be sent to the industry in the fall or wintertime on what the potential TAC would be so that the industry could plan for it?

[David Bevan]

Very briefly, this is clearly a very transparent process. The fall survey takes place. I think it's pretty transparent that people know what the trends are.

There's then the RAP, the assessment process and scientific process. It's transparently done in that we have a peer-reviewed process with the fishermen. Everybody knows the trends. They know where we're going. It's not as if there's secrecy or it's a big surprise.

Of course, we take that advice through the advisory process, where you have input from the harvesters, provinces, and so on, about how to interpret it and how to make a decision based on that advice. It then goes to the minister.

I would say nobody was expecting the status quo in 2010. Everybody knew what the trends were, starting in the fall and going through the process. The number that came out was perhaps more than they had expected. They were expecting a 40% or 50% cut, not 60%.

The number is based on the fact that we don't want to risk the future by taking short-term action now. Trying to mitigate the impacts on plant workers and fishermen this year by taking risks with the future is not the way to go. We've learned that through bitter experience.

I don't know if you want to add anything about the process. Has it changed since the 1990s?