Fisheries Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

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

Because of the cycle, we knew this would happen. We also knew how much was caught in 2007-2008. We had all that information. We also knew that we were playing a dangerous game. In other words, we were playing with fire. Indeed, sooner or later the normal cycle is complete, landings are extremely high, and when both coincide, based on the precautionary principle, if you continue that trend, you will have to make a draconian decision, that is, impose significant reductions, which are going to be very painful.

Why was this decision not taken sooner? If the biomass was healthy, well, so much the better! However, according to the basic precautionary principle, when everything goes well, you want it to go well for a long time; you do not want to wait for the elastic band to snap, and then be forced to impose a reduction of 63%.

[David Bevan]

It was only in 2010 that we set conservation limits to maintain the population at the necessary level and avoid major problems and crises. It was only in 2010 that we developed a preventive approach. Before then, there were indeed cycles, but we did not have the information we needed about limits and ways of helping the minister make more prudent decisions.

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

I just have a few seconds left. Let's talk about the grey seal. When will the harvest plan be announced?

[David Bevan]

We now know, according to the scientists—and there is consensus on this—that there is a big problem in the Gulf of St. Lawrence with respect to the grey seal and the groundfish population. We are going to have to find a way to fix that problem.

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

When, when?

[David Bevan]

We are in the process of looking for a solution. I hope that we will find it.

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

When, when?

[David Bevan]

I can't say, because we need to find the money to deal with this major challenge.

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

I can go on and on asking you this question: when will it be announced?

[David Bevan]

I can't tell you because I can't predict decisions by the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, David, for being here. Congratulations on the new appointment. It's well deserved. It's good to hear that you're enjoying it so far, but it's early days.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I might be sharing my time with Mr. Allen.

I think we would like to understand a little bit more just what your job entails and some of these key files you have, but let me just return to the snow crab issue, because that's what we've been thinking about in the last number of days. I appreciate the questions being asked by my colleagues about the process, because it's a bit difficult for us to understand.

When the science advice says there is a 46% probability that there will be a greater than 25% decline in the commercial biomass with a 20,000-tonne total allowable catch, how are we to understand that?

You said, and we've come to understand, that the stock is on a decline, a sort of natural decline. Do we understand that to mean that it's on the slope, this decline, and, as Ms. Murray said, that if we maintain the TAC at the same level as 2008, this decline could be steepened beyond the trajectory it was on?

If you chose that option, if the minister chose that option, or even if that was the recommended option—I'm not sure what was recommended by the managers and yourself—how do we see that as being within a precautionary approach? How does that fit in with the whole process?

[David Bevan]

Again, at the time of the decision in 2009, we didn't yet have the framework around the precautionary approach. That's an approach where you establish conservation limits, below which you have to be very cautious with the stock, and below which, if you hit the real limit, you must have a very cautious approach and very limited catches. That didn't exist in 2009 at the time of the decision.

And science isn't absolute. We come forward through the RAP process with a stock status report and an estimate of the biomass. And then there's an estimate of what the biomass can be and what the harvest rate can be. It's not absolute, and there were differing opinions that were relevant to the scientific work that formed the basis of the advice going to the minister in 2009, including of the fishers, who were of the opinion there were more fish than the scientists had found and there were some problems with the way the survey had been conducted.

Those views were taken into consideration during the whole process of the RAP. But at the end of the day, we went forward with advice to the minister, and the fishers then came forward and said that advice was not founded on the appropriate science and they presented an alternative view, and the minister had to make a decision.

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

So the fishers had this alternative view that they could maintain the 2008 TAC without it being a serious risk?

[David Bevan]

That's correct.

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

Did the department share that view?

[David Bevan]

No.

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

So the department thought it would be a risky thing—however we define that—to have a TAC as large as 20,900 tonnes.

[David Bevan]

The department provided advice for a lower TAC than that. The fishers had very strongly supported advice, by the way, with lots of technical work on their part, in coming forward with an alternative view, and the minister had to decide where to land on the issue.

This happens, and can happen, in many cases, especially when you don't have the precautionary approach and agreed upon decision rules for a particular fishery. Those now exist in this fishery, but in 2009 they didn't, and there were conflicting views—strongly held—by the fishers, and the minister had to take those into consideration.

That's the obligation and burden ministers face. They have no framework. They can't offload that decision to anybody else and they can't have a technocracy of views coming forward from a group that does not have accountability through Parliament and to the people of Canada. They have to make those decisions themselves. They don't always get consensus and they don't always get the same views, and they may not have hard lines drawn in the sand with respect to the science. So those are the cases the ministers often face and have faced in the past.

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

Well, that's interesting. I'm not sure this was as clearly known to us as you've stated here, that when industry made their case it wasn't simply that “We want to keep fishing because this is our livelihood”, but actually was based on the scientific evidence they had marshalled as well.

[David Bevan]

They marshalled a critique of the DFO science and pointed out what they felt were serious flaws in it. Unfortunately, in retrospect, it turns out that wasn't the case. Obviously, in retrospect, things were more accurately reflected by the science from DFO.

But having said that, the minister of the day has to make a decision with what's before him or her. In this case, there were alternative views and those were not just that “I want to keep fishing”, but that “We don't believe the advice provided to you is accurate, for the following specific reasons”.

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

Okay, that's interesting.

I guess my other question would be with respect to the status of the stock. This was a question that my colleague Mr. Shory was going to ask if he had the opportunity. If you're in 2009 and make a zero percent reduction in the current TAC from the previous year, and then we get to 2010 and make the 63% reduction from the 2008 TAC—and then I'm not sure where we're going in 2011.... But if the minister had made a 30% reduction in 2009 and then another 30% reduction in 2010, will we end up in the same place at the end of the declining part of the cycle? I guess that's my question.

[David Bevan]

I couldn't answer that. We'd have to ask the scientists. They do retrospective analyses to try to understand what happened so they can make better predictions in the future. It's not clear that we'd end up in the same spot in that kind of scenario, because there was going to be a decline regardless of the decision taken in 2009. There would have been a decline into 2010. The question is, what would have been different in 2009 from what we did? Would we have ended up with less of a dip or not? I think you'd have to ask the scientists and they might have to do some retrospective analysis.

We were going to go down, in our opinion, and we are probably going to stay down in 2011 in the same general vicinity. I'm speaking out of turn here, because the science advice is only now being analyzed. But that's the circumstance. Whether we would have hit the same level had we taken a lower TAC in 2009, I'd have to ask the scientists to make that kind of a call.