Evidence of meeting #41 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
I happened to fish the Campbell last summer and saw the estuary. I think you've done a terrific job there. The number of pink salmon I saw was truly remarkable.
When I asked you the question, here's what I wanted to get at, or what I meant. You're saying that we need to focus on habitat, and that's fine, but I want you to be a lot more specific. If you had x amount of money and you wanted to work on an estuary, what would you actually do in the estuary? I want you to be really specific.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Salmon Foundation
Well, being specific differs with every single estuary you turn to—
President and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Salmon Foundation
—but I'll tell you exactly what we're doing.
One of our main focuses on this sort of thing is the Cowichan estuary. What commonly happens in estuaries is that to get to deeper water we build causeways, or a port, or a mill or something. You can't fracture estuaries and maintain their productivity, because it's all about the connection of the flow from the fresh to the salt, the flats that contain the eelgrass, and then into the deeper water with the kelp. When you break that down and increase the silt load in the rivers, what has happened is that we've lost many of our eelgrass beds. We have about 40 community groups in the Strait of Georgia alone working to see if they can actively restore eelgrass.
In other areas, and in the Cowichan in particular, this year for the first time we got agreement to really open up one of these causeways, put in a bridge, and reconnect the entire estuary so that it now can flow naturally. It's still not natural because it still has the impediments, but there's a much greater flow. We have to look at the natural dynamics of these habitats when we're talking about estuaries.
The other thing we're really focused on is avoiding things like log-booming during smolt migration. In the Cowichan we have a very big problem, where seals use log-booming and prey directly on smolts going to sea. A very obvious response, if we can demonstrate the level of mortality, is to work with that one mill that's left and ask them to dryland sort for two months, not all year, but two months.
This could make a world of difference in production. It also will reduce the bark deposit on the bottom. In some estuaries, that has been there for 100 years, and we have a huge problem. We don't believe that you should even touch it. We think you should cap it, put rock on top, put the sand down, try to contain it, and then let the eelgrass restore itself.
For some of these estuaries, these are big issues.
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Yes, those are the kinds of things I'm particularly interested in, given that the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program is very project oriented. I know that's a difficult question to answer because we never have enough research, but I really appreciate those examples.
Mr. Martin, you made a comment on the angler conservation passion. You talked about how there's “capacity” waiting to be “energized”. I think that's what you said. What limits this pent-up demand for anglers and angling groups to do conservation work? Is it money? Is it time? What is it?
Director, Strategic Initiatives, B.C. Wildlife Federation
I think there are basically three things that limit it. You need to have the right people, in the right place, and the opportunities for funding. Dr. Riddell mentioned the Cowichan. The Cowichan Valley has a very active stewardship group. They work in partnership with the Cowichan First Nation, and they also have the technical expertise, a lot of which comes from retired DFO employees.
The Cowichan really is a success story that started high in the watershed, where they remediated silt input at smolt slides. The consequence was that formerly very low chum salmon escapements to the system rocketed up when you took the silt out. Dr. Riddell has said that there needs to be some work done on the estuary, and that's certainly being done with the recreational fisheries partnerships program in the estuary. There is other work going on, particularly in terms of maintaining flows in Cowichan Lake, and particularly in the summer through changes in the operations of the weir at the outlet of Cowichan Lake.
If you have the right people, in the right place, and opportunities for funding, such as the recreational fisheries partnerships program, good things will happen. In the Cowichan, those three stars aligned, and it's been very effective. There are other areas in the province that, given the opportunity, I think will coalesce around these issues, look at things on a watershed basis, and link individual projects into a larger community initiative.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you very much, Mr. Sopuck.
Thank you very much, Dr. Riddell. I certainly want to thank you on behalf of the committee for appearing today before us and sharing your thoughts with committee members and taking the time to answer our questions. We certainly do appreciate the time that you've given this committee as we pursue our study of the recreational fisheries in Canada.
We're going to suspend for just a couple of minutes to set up our next witness and then we will proceed right away.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
We'll call this meeting back to order.
I'd like to welcome Mr. Sporer to our committee today.
Thank you very much for taking the time to join us this afternoon. As you are probably well aware, Mr. Sporer, we're studying recreational fisheries in Canada and will certainly welcome your opening remarks. We try to limit them to about 10 minutes so we can get into questions and answers from members as well.
So whenever you're ready, Mr. Sporer, please, the floor is yours.
Chris Sporer Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia
Thank you.
As mentioned, my name is Chris Sporer. I'm executive manager of the Pacific Halibut Management Association of B.C., an organization representing commercial halibut vessel owners on Canada's Pacific coast. We're pleased to be able to make a presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans as part of its study on recreational fishing in Canada.
We're here to provide the perspective of the commercial fishery, in particular the commercial halibut fishery, because considering recreational fishing, at least on the Pacific coast, cannot be done without looking at the broader context that includes the commercial fisheries and how they provide food to Canada and the world. We are concerned that without understanding the broader context, the committee could come up with a report that is incomplete and unfair to the commercial fisheries and to the people on fishing vessels—the people who fish for food and the families they support.
PHMA would like to provide some background information about the commercial and recreational fisheries on Canada’s Pacific coast and then use our fishery to help illustrate the relationship between the two fisheries and how allocation disputes can be resolved. Given that Pacific halibut and most commercially harvested species on Canada’s west coast are caught in tidal waters, our comments are focused on the tidal water recreational fishery.
As mentioned, commercial fisheries are about providing food to Canada and the world. In fact, commercial fishing is the only way most Canadians can access fishery resources for food. It's the public fishery. There are two components to the commercial fishing industry, fish harvesting and seafood processing, but one part cannot exist without the other.
In contrast, recreational fishing is a leisure activity that, at least for the tidal water fishery on Canada's Pacific coast, is undertaken by a small number of Canadians whose numbers have declined in absolute terms and as a percentage of the population over the past 20 years. The recreational fishery is comprised of two sectors. There's the private fishery, where individual recreational harvesters fish on their own, without the services of a guide. Then there is the fishing lodge and charter vessel sector, or the commercial recreational sector as it's sometimes referred to. These are businesses that, like the commercial fishery, profit from the harvest of various fish species. The fishing lodge and charter vessel sector can account for a significant portion of the total recreational harvest of a fish species, 60% in the case of Pacific halibut.
Finding common metrics for measuring the economic contribution of the commercial and recreational fisheries can be difficult. We know that people often fire economic numbers at committee members that are not comprehensible or credible. Committee members have to be careful not to utilize metrics or reports that are flawed or make apples-to-oranges comparisons.
In 2004 the provincial government commissioned a report that looked at the economic contribution of the commercial fishing, tidal recreational fishing, and aquaculture industries on an equal footing using a methodology that was approved by all user groups. The report shows, and continues to show in updates provided by the principal author, that the commercial fishing industry contributes more in terms of GDP, revenue, employment, and wages and salaries than either tidal water recreational fishing or aquaculture.
The commercial halibut fishery is part of Canada’s Pacific commercial fishing industry. It has a landed value of approximately $43 million a year and a wholesale value of about $116 million. The fishery started in the late 1880s. Today there are fourth- and fifth-generation fishermen participating in the fishery. The fishery has played a vital role in British Columbia’s economy and has shaped its communities, culture, and cuisine. Commercial halibut fishermen have worked hard over the past 25 years to transform their fishery into what is now considered one of the best-managed fisheries in the world. As a result, the David Suzuki Foundation has described the fishery as “one of the high-bar examples in the world” of how a multi-species longline fishery should be conducted. The commercial halibut fishery was also the first in B.C. to receive the globally recognized Marine Stewardship Council eco-certification, which acknowledges the fishery’s catch accounting system as “one of the most rigorous in the world”.
Fisheries managers need to know how many fish have been caught if there is to be sustainable resource management. Fisheries management does not work without precise and accurate information on total removals. DFO has this information for the commercial fishery. The department does not have this information for the recreational fishery. Improving the management and the monitoring of the recreational fishery, particularly for the fishing lodge and charter vessel sector, is urgent. Given that it can take a significant portion of the total recreational harvest—60% in the case of Pacific halibut, as mentioned—the fishing lodge and charter vessel sector should be regulated in a manner similar to that of a commercial fishery.
There is presently no DFO licensing of fishing lodge and charter vessel businesses and they do not have mandatory catch reporting requirements. The recreational fishery, in particular, the fishing lodge and charter vessel sector, needs to be able to meet global standards with respect to catch monitoring and reporting. Recreational fisheries in developed countries increasingly look toward Marine Stewardship Council certification in order to demonstrate sustainability. As we know in the commercial fisheries, market forces are powerful and can transform fisheries management. These recreational fishing businesses should strive to get to the same standards as commercial fisheries, whereby they too could be certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.
There has been a commercial and recreational allocation framework in place for Pacific halibut. It was implemented in 2003 following substantial consultations with all fishing sectors. The framework provided stability and certainty for all participants and, as a result, commercial fishing families made investments not only in fishing vessels and gear and access privileges but also in conservation, in industry-funded monitoring programs and research surveys to collect the scientific information necessary to perform stock assessments.
In 2012, the long-standing allocation framework was changed and the recreational allocation was increased by 25%, from 12% of the total allowable catch to 15%. That decision took away business certainty and stability, eroded the investments of commercial fishing families and made people reluctant to reinvest in the fishery. Who is going to invest if their access to the critical component of their business can be taken away?
The recreational halibut fishery is dominated by fishing lodge and charter vessel businesses. It is patently unfair to take allocation from commercial fishing families who have invested in the fishery; to take from one group of Canadian family-owned businesses simply to give it to other businesses. It also makes little sense to take allocation from a well-managed and well-monitored fishery and give it to one that is poorly managed and monitored.
The 2012 decision was unnecessary. New management changes introduced into the recreational halibut fishery in 2013 have allowed it to remain open and the sector has not had to fully utilize its new, increased allocation. Halibut that could have been utilized in the commercial fishery went uncaught, resulting in millions in lost revenues and associated economic benefits and employment. There is a solution and there's a better way that addresses allocation disputes in a manner that is equitable and transparent.
Under a voluntary program for Pacific halibut, recreational stakeholders—recreational fishing businesses or individual recreational harvesters—can apply for a no-fee licence and acquire commercial halibut quota via the market. This allows them to fish for halibut beyond the limits of the standard recreational licence as well as ensure continued access to halibut in the event the sector attains its allocation and the fishery is closed. This gives recreational stakeholders greater certainty and stability, particularly for business planning purposes.
It allows for the transfer of allocation between the two business sectors of the halibut fisheries—between commercial fishermen and fishing lodge and charter vessel businesses—as well as between commercial fishermen and individual recreational harvesters. At the same time it does not impede those choosing to fish for halibut under the standard tidal water recreational fishing licence.
Fisheries allocation disputes are generally thought to be unsolvable. Fishing interests are continually arguing and lobbying for a larger share and government always finds itself in the middle, spending considerable time and resources trying to deal with these disputes. DFO, the commercial fishing sector, and the recreational fishing sector have come up with a solution in the Pacific halibut fisheries; a way to solve intractable allocation issues in a manner that is fair, equitable, and sustainable and requires little financial investment and involvement by government. In fact, it removes government from the middle of the process. We hope all parties would endorse this approach as a solution to an otherwise intractable problem.
It is important to note that PHMA members view recreational fishing as a legitimate user of the resource. In fact, many commercial fishermen also recreationally fish. We have a great resource on Canada’s Pacific coast that can provide food for Canada and the world and leisure activity as long as it is sustainably managed.
PHMA would like to leave the committee with three messages.
First, recreational fisheries, at least on the Pacific coast, cannot be considered in isolation; they cannot be considered without looking at the broader context that includes commercial fishing.
Second, market forces are increasingly bringing pressure for full catch accountability, one of the hallmarks of sound fisheries management. Recreational fisheries need to move in this direction sooner rather than later to ensure that B.C. does not get left behind and can instead realize a competitive advantage.
Third, there's a way to solve allocation disputes that can create a win-win situation for all parties rather than a situation where one party or the other always loses. It requires little involvement by government. In fact, it gets government out of the unenviable position of always having to be in the middle of these disputes.
We thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you very much, Mr. Sporer.
We'll start off with a seven-minute round, and we'll begin with Mr. Cleary.
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Sporer. I find all this information on British Columbia's recreational fishery fascinating. I find it fascinating from the perspective of a member of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador. My riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl has the largest fishing fleet in the province.
I have been a student of the fisheries for most of my life, but I learned things from this study that I had no idea of. For example, the recreational fisheries in B.C. are given an actual portion of the total allowable catch. As you stated in your notes, it has increased by 25%, from 12% to 15% in 2012.
With regard to the 12% of the TAC that was in existence until 2012, for how many years had that TAC for recreational fisheries been there, Mr. Sporer?
Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia
The allocation framework was implemented in 2003, when the recreational sector was provided the 12% catch ceiling allocation. There actually were years, in 2004 and 2005, when they didn't use their allocation and we actually leased that fish from them to use in the commercial fishery.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
This tug-of-war between commercial and recreational fisheries is not unique to B.C. We also have that on the east coast, for example.
A few of your remarks I found startling. One, if there's a TAC for recreational fisheries of 15% now, how can there be no mandatory catch reporting requirements? How do they keep track? How do they know when the 15% is caught?
Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia
It's basically based on an estimate using the available information they have. As I note in the report, in the commercial fishery we have concerns in that if we're going to have sustainable resource management, we need accurate numbers on total removals from all sectors, not just the recreational fishery but the commercial fishery as well.
We have a very rigorous catch monitoring system in the commercial halibut fishery, in fact in all the commercial groundfish fisheries on the west coast of Canada. There's 100% at-sea monitoring as well as 100% dockside monitoring. Every single halibut landed by our fleet is tagged in the tail with a unique serial number—
Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia
—by an independent validator.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
—but I still don't understand. How do they keep track of the total catch in the recreational fisheries? I know that in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, when our recreational cod food fisheries open up, DFO enforcement is out there in numbers. They're out in Zodiacs. They're on shore with binoculars and in DFO trucks.
How do they keep track of the recreational fishery numbers? Is there dockside monitoring?
Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia
There's no dockside monitoring. There is a creel survey program, but that program has been cut back, to my understanding, in recent years, at least for some sampling. They use that, and they also will do.... It's based mainly on surveys. Fishing lodges and charters in some areas turn in logbooks. That's not a mandatory requirement.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
How is the halibut stock? Is it in good shape? Are the numbers up? Are the numbers down?
Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia
We're actually at some historic lows in the TAC. For example, over the past 10 years, the commercial TAC has declined by probably just over 50%. Having said that, halibut are managed internationally by the International Pacific Halibut Commission on the west coast. They do the science. They assess the stock as a coast-wide stock, all the way from northern California up into Alaska into the Bering Sea.
There have been some significant declines up in Alaska. We've had some declines in B.C., but survey results in B.C. are actually looking fairly positive. The concern, of course, is that halibut are migratory. They move from up in Alaska down into B.C., from west to east, if you will. We have to be cautious. We have to be careful. We have to make sure that we monitor and manage this resource properly.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
You have a specific concern that the monitoring of the recreational fishery isn't as stringent as it is for the commercial halibut fishery. Do I have that on the money?
Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia
That is a significant concern of our members.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
You talked about the number of Canadians who participate in the recreational halibut fishery having declined over the past 20 years. Can you give us some indication of the extent of the decline?
Executive Manager, Pacific Halibut Management Association of British Columbia
Sure. I generally look at four-year periods when I'm trying to do any work, simply because the commercial fishery here uses four years as well because the dominant sockeye cycle comes every four years.
If you look at footnote 2 on page 5 of my document, comparing the 1991-94 period to the 2010-13 period, it shows that total B.C. tidal water recreational licence sales declined by 29% over the 20-year period there. Sales of licences to Canadian residents declined by 22%, while sales of licences to non-Canadians declined by 54%. But over the same period, the population of Canada increased by about 23%.