Fisheries Committee on May 3rd, 2018

[Paul Lansbergen]

That statement is the words of Madam Justice Humphries, in her description of what the crown argued in that case, so that's the crown's words, not my words. But yes, you're right. I think it does contrast with what happened in the surf clam licensing.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Lindsay, you said you supported advisory councils and what have you, but you also said, “We strongly encourage DFO to work with us”. The way you said that implied to me that maybe DFO has not been that great to work with. Could you expand on that a bit?

[Kate Lindsay]

Sure. I guess I have the privilege of being on advisory committees for other pieces of legislation, one being the Species at Risk Act, so I've found that there is an advisory committee through the implementation of that act, and it's been quite productive. I think there are opportunities to bring multi-interest groups together to have some of those difficult discussions, and we would encourage DFO to do that in the short term. I understand it takes time to bring about a formal advisory committee. Usually it's ministerial appointments, and that takes time, but I would say even in the short term that there is a group of willing industry associations, non-government associations, and indigenous organizations that could get together to help provide that advice.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay. What I was trying to get was with regard to DFO, and whether you're able to work with DFO, but I'm going to move on because of time.

You also mentioned ecologically sensitive areas and expanding provisions. Could you enlarge on what you meant by that statement?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

You have thirty seconds, please.

[Kate Lindsay]

Okay.

I want to emphasize that, without having the regulations written out in detail, the enacting legislation proposed in this bill would expand provisions currently. It would go back to all fish and the HADD definition that was previously there, and then also to the concept of cumulative effects monitoring, as well as identifying ecologically significant areas.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Are you in support of it?

[Kate Lindsay]

Some of it, if it's done well. We would like to be part of an advisory capacity in developing those—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you, Ms. Lindsay.

Mr. Donnelly, you have five minutes, please.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Lansbergen, again, I want to talk about the owner-operator principle. We had, you know, some young people from the west coast who were talking about how important that is. I just asked Mr. Berry about how maybe the east could provide advice to the west because it is a very different system. Certainly, this government is looking at strengthening, at least on the Atlantic coast, the owner-operator principle.

How would you see it if that move happened on the west coast? Is there a perspective that you would see your association taking if the owner-operator principle was to be strengthened on the west coast in any way?

[Paul Lansbergen]

Quite frankly, we haven't discussed it in detail. With my shorter tenure here so far in the fisheries sector, I don't have a good answer for that. I'm happy to discuss further.

As I said earlier, one of your witnesses in the next hour may be able to provide a better response for you on that one.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay, thank you.

In terms of first nations, we had the Skawahlook Nation here at committee, and they were talking about the importance of UNDRIP and free, prior, and informed consent, FPIC. Does your association have a position on...? I mean, you referred to co-management and, I think, the Nuu-chah-nulth decision recently, and other court case decisions.

Do you have a position on UNDRIP and how free, prior, and informed consent can play a role in fisheries in Canada?

[Paul Lansbergen]

With regard to that particular thing, no, we have not discussed that as of yet. Unfortunately, when you are coming new into a sector and an organization, there are only so many issues you can talk about with the hours of the day, but that is something that, going forward, we'll need to talk more about.

I did indicate that my membership does include indigenous enterprises, particularly in Nunavut. Right now, I think we do have a very common view within the membership on some of these issues, but we just haven't been able to discuss all the details.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

In terms of aquaculture, does the council have a position about new technology that is emerging in markets? I am specifically talking about RAS, recirculating aquatic systems. That technology, certainly in the United States, is having an impact in the aquaculture industry, and it's being looked at in British Columbia. It's being used, certainly, in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada, where there are a number of facilities using RAS technology.

Do you see the act covering new technology in the fishing industry as a good thing, or as enhancing and allowing for new technology to play a role?

[Paul Lansbergen]

Unfortunately, I think I'm going to be not as helpful to you as you would like.

With respect to aquaculture, we don't represent that part of the sector. I don't know enough, really, to say what technology is better than another. I know that the aquaculture sector would like to see its own act because it doesn't seem to fit well within the Fisheries Act.

I think that how the act influences how the sector will want to invest in technology, whether it be aquaculture or wild capture, is an important element that we need to think about. That might come into play more in the regulations than in the act itself, given that it is enabling.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I think you make a good point that a lot of the operators are looking for a separate act. We just had a report recently released by the environment commissioner, who was talking about that dual role that DFO has to monitor. Its mandate is to look after wild salmon and wild fish, but it's also to promote aquaculture and farmed fish. It has that problem. A separate act might alleviate, or hopefully, address that issue.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

That's the time. Thank you very much.

I would like to thank our first witnesses today: Mr. Lansbergen, Ms. Lindsay, and Mr. Berry.

Mr. Berry, it's always good to hear from you. Thank you for joining us this morning from Yarmouth.

We're going to suspend for a few minutes while we change panels. We'll be back in two minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Welcome back to our second hour. We now have with us Monsieur Ayoub, member for Thérèse-De Blainville, and Sean Casey, from Charlottetown.

Welcome. Thank you for joining us for the next little while.

We're going to move on to our presenters for the second hour.

We have, from the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Nick Lapointe, Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, and David Browne, Director of Conservation. We also have, by video conference, Chris Bloomer, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, and Sonya Savage, Senior Policy Director of Regulatory Affairs. By video conference, we also have the Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia, with Chris Sporer, Executive Director, and Christina Burridge, Executive Director of the B.C. Seafood Alliance.

We're going to get started. For the first 10 minutes, we have the Canadian Wildlife Federation.

Will you be splitting your time? Okay. Whoever is starting your 10 minutes can go ahead.

[David Browne, Director of Conservation, Canadian Wildlife Federation]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to appear before committee today.

The Canadian Wildlife Federation supports much of what is proposed in Bill C-68, including support for the requirement to rebuild fish stocks, and strong support for the provisions that deal with modifying commercial fisheries to address impacts to marine mammals or marine biodiversity. However, our focus today is on the habitat provisions.

In our testimony before this committee in October 2016, we emphasized what we see as the goals of the fish habitat provisions: to protect fish habitat, to restore past harms, and to compensate for future losses.

With respect to protecting existing fish habitat, the act goes a long way to achieving strong protection. We are very pleased to see the creation of a public registry in the proposed amendments, though its scope should be expanded. In our opinion, Bill C-68 falls short on strengthening the fish passage provisions. We would like to see fish passage as a mandatory requirement with provisions for exemptions. Bill C-68 also falls short on dealing with minor works that cause harm. We will go into this in greater detail.

On the restoration of past harms, we are pleased to see the inclusion of language around habitat restoration, and to hear the minister say before committee that Bill C-68 will create a positive obligation for the department to work to restore fish habitat. To this end, net gain should be established as the goal of the fish habitat protection provisions. The strengthened requirements around offsetting will also contribute to restoration, especially if this is guided by watershed-level goals.

Finally, regarding compensating effectively for future harms to fish habitat, we are seeing broad agreement in testimony before this committee that Bill C-68 does not create a comprehensive legal framework for dealing with small projects, and that the act needs to be applied consistently and appropriately across all works that cause harm. To quote Mr. Pierre Gratton of the Mining Association of Canada on the cumulative effects of small projects, “these stresses cannot be addressed by focusing the department’s attention on a few mining projects.”

I would just modify that to say: a few major projects. Mr. Gratton stressed the need to address all works with residual harm, and he highlighted forestry, agriculture, hydro, and municipal works.

Small projects are the crux of the act. Successive governments have struggled to provide a regulatory and policy framework to Fisheries and Oceans that effectively and appropriately deals with the harm to fish habitat resulting from small projects. They are a major—if not the major—cause of fish habitat loss across Canada on a cumulative basis.

Several witnesses have brought up the example of works that clear shoreline vegetation, or the works of farmers and municipalities in routine clearing of drainage infrastructure such as ditches, channels, and retention ponds, as problematic areas of regulation. They have suggested that all of these activities in all locations do not require oversight, beyond guidance via a code of practice. We would disagree that such a blanket and hands-off approach can prevent significant impacts from such a wide range of activities.

I want to be clear that we agree that a code of practice with no requirement for compensation is appropriate for many types of water bodies and many types of activities on farmland or municipal land where harm can be avoided. But we have the science to classify water bodies and activities. We know that the department could specify which locations and which works do result in residual harm and do require oversight and compensation, in order to move toward a policy goal of net gain. In these cases, we argue that the act does not contain the tools to regulate and manage HADD from small projects.

I’ll ask Dr. Lapointe to go into more detail.

[Nick Lapointe, Senior Conservation Biologist, Freshwater Ecology, Canadian Wildlife Federation]

Thanks.

We've heard so far under Bill C-68 that large projects will be managed either by permits as designated projects or by authorizations, and we support this. We've also heard that low-risk projects will be regulated by codes of practice, and we support this as long as they fully avoid harm, which DFO has clearly stated is the intent.

For example, CEPA is speaking next, and if a pipeline is placed under a stream using a horizontal directional drill without disturbing the stream bed, this should fully avoid harm and seems like a suitable candidate for a code of practice. But this still leaves out a third class of projects: the countless small projects that do cause harm, and it's really unclear how they'll be managed. We're deeply concerned that DFO intends to include projects under codes of practice that actually do cause harm, and this harm won't be compensated for.

Take stream crossings, for example. It's been suggested that properly designed stream crossings don't cause harm as long as they pass fish, but any biologist will tell you that blocking fish passage isn't the only harm caused by stream crossings. If we take the example of a culvert, there's infilling on each side of the culvert. If the culvert has a closed bottom, then it eliminates habitat in the middle of the stream. Then, of course, there's riparian habitat loss on both sides, which occurs basically for any stream crossing.

A culvert example is on the small end of the scale in terms of small projects that cause harm. Other examples of bigger projects that aren't currently addressed under the Fisheries Act include the expansion of wharves, piers or jetties, extending shorelines, and channelizing streams. Definitely anything that infills aquatic habitat leaves residual harm and needs to be compensated for because right now, when you put all of these projects together, the cumulative effect is a significant problem.

How are small projects that harm fish currently managed by DFO? Flat out, some aren't. Proponents self-assess and might not choose to even notify DFO even though there is residual harm. If they do submit a request for review, DFO's now established formal triage thresholds are based on perceived habitat importance. For example, proponents can destroy up to 100 square metres of “important” habitat or up to 1,000 square metres of low-quality habitat without triggering an authorization. What counts as important or unimportant is entirely subjective. It's definitely not based on science at this stage.

If the project is small enough, the proponent is given a letter of advice on how to proceed. The problem is that this letter is an extra-legislative mechanism. The projects aren't tracked, the conditions of the letter are not enforceable, and no compensation is provided for the residual harm of the project.

What do DFO scientists think about this? A group of them, led by DFO's chief scientist, published a peer-reviewed paper and concluded that to achieve no net loss, all projects that are not authorized need to result in zero death of fish or zero residual harm to habitat or an improvement to habitat, and this is not currently the case.

Ken Minns, a retired DFO research scientist, concluded that under DFO's current approach to managing small projects, the continued net loss of productive capacity appears inevitable. Under this framework no net loss is really slow net loss.

Again, currently under the proposed framework projects that avoid harm will be regulated by codes of practice and those that cause HADD will still require authorizations or permits. What's going to happen to the small projects that cause residual harm? Either letters of advice will still be issued and residual harm will still accumulate, something that's flat out unacceptable to anyone who cares about fish habitat, or thousands of small projects are going to require authorizations. I assume when I say that some of you, and certainly our industry partners, are thinking, “God, these guys want DFO to authorize everything”. Trust me, that's not the case. Authorizing all these small projects would create a massive bureaucracy. It would create delays, uncertainties, costs, and liabilities for proponents, and it would really only produce questionable environmental benefits. A whole bunch of tiny one-off offsets are unlikely to address the real restoration priorities that we have in Canada. There are definitely better ways to solve this problem.

One solution is to set up an alternate permitting process for small projects, where proponents can register online and receive a permit automatically—no delays, no uncertainty. The permit conditions would have to be enforceable. They would have to require that proponents first avoid, then mitigate harm, following best management practices, and this process would have to be accompanied by random audits to ensure that proponents are accountable and evaluate the effectiveness of the system. Overall, this would definitely be more efficient and it would allow DFO to assess cumulative effects, but we still need to address the residual harm from these projects.

There are several ways to do this that would be better for fish habitat than individual offsets. Big proponents might simply be able to use credits from their own existing habitat banks under the new habitat banking framework, but that leaves small proponents and private landowners out in the cold.

These proponents need to be able to purchase credits from existing habitat banks. For that, we need an amendment to enable third-party habitat banking, or DFO could collect a fee in lieu of an offset and pool these fees in a dedicated fund similar to the environmental damages fund. This could later pay for meaningful, high-priority restoration projects in the same service area, but again, an amendment is needed to enable this tool.

Finally, it might be even be possible to include specific requirements for compensation activities for some project types in the permit conditions, or possibly under codes of practice, as long as these conditions were enforceable. These recommendations are outlined in our brief. We also support recommendations made by Ecojustice on this issue.

Generally, though, we’re open-minded to any alternative solution that solves this problem, and need to emphasize that this is the primary modern safeguard that needs to be established under Bill C-68.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you, Dr. Lapointe and Dr. Browne.

We are now going to go to Mr. Bloomer from CEPA, please, for 10 minutes.

[Chris Bloomer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments on this bill. I represent the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

I have some quick comments. Over the last two years, CEPA has committed fully to participating in consultations, discussions, and round tables on the government's review of the Fisheries Act, CEAA 2012, NEB modernization, and the Navigation Protection Act. CEPA provided over 200 pages of submissions and practical recommendations that were intended to help to achieve clarity and certainty and restore trust in the regulatory system for all stakeholders.

Throughout the process we have advocated for legislation that would be founded on science and fact-based decision-making, and we have leveraged the considerable and established expertise of the National Energy Board. We sought legislation that would achieve clarity, certainty, and predictability, while avoiding duplication.

Before I speak to Bill C-68, CEPA would like to reaffirm that we remain extremely concerned about the changes put forward in the impact assessment act, Bill C-69,, and we emphasized our concerns at the standing committee studying that bill. We have recently provided the government with detailed recommendations on amendments to the bill and we hope that changes will be made.

With respect to Bill C-68, our concerns are less profound and mostly related to details that are simply unknown at this point. We recognize that the proposed amendments in Bill C-68 are essentially a return to the pre-2013 approach to fisheries regulation, with added elements such as gender analysis, indigenous traditional knowledge, and community knowledge.

The effect of these potential changes is to increase regulatory burden, complexity, and uncertainty. The impact will very much depend on the approach to implementation. To put it another way, the mischief is in the details. Numerous regulations need to be developed, including the designated project list, timelines, habitat banking, and how authorizations or permits may be amended, suspended, or cancelled. These regulations will require significant consultation with stakeholders and at this point the details are unclear. We need to understand how Bill C-68 will be implemented. This includes an understanding of how advisory panels will work, the public registry, cost recovery, time limits for authorizations, habitat banking, and how gender analysis works within the context of the Fisheries Act.

We need to understand what groups and organizations could be considered an indigenous governing body, and we need to understand under what circumstances equivalency provisions will apply. We don't know how indigenous traditional knowledge will be considered and weighted. We simply do not have any clarity on any of these issues.

Although we have many questions, I would like to use the remaining time to focus our comments on four areas of concern that are of the highest priority to the pipeline sector.

First, there is the designated project list. Bill C-68 contemplates different processes for major projects than for smaller, routine projects. This, in and of itself, can be positive, allowing for more streamlined procedures for routine projects that have minimal impacts and known mitigation practices and upon which there is a large body of best practices that have been employed. However, we do not know what will be on that list or how it will be developed. Therefore, we strongly suggest that this legislation should not be passed in Parliament without the understanding of what the designated project list regulation will look like.

Second, we are concerned about how standards and codes of practice will be implemented. Proposed section 34.2 of Bill C-68 allows the minister to establish standards and codes of practice that may provide formal guidance for small routine projects. We consider this to be positive, if implemented in a practical manner. For more than 60 years, CEPA member companies have operated pipelines across the country, currently operating approximately 119,000 kilometres of pipelines, and they have constructed thousands of watercourse crossings. Because of this history, the environmental and socio-economic effects of building pipelines are well understood, and over the years best practices and standard mitigation methods have been developed and implemented. Having standards and codes of practice are of utmost importance to our industry. We require certainty and predictability during the permitting process. The codes of practice can provide that. Without codes of practice, our industry could be buried in time-consuming, uncertain approvals being needed for low-impact activities.

We are encouraged by the recent work done in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and scientists to prepare watercourse-crossing guidelines for pipelines. The guidelines, known as the fish and fish habitat impact assessment tool, could be one of the first standards referenced under the new legislation. In addition to input from DFO, the science underlying this guideline was reviewed by the Canadian science advisory secretariat using the highest, most rigorous scientific standards. The model used to prepare this guideline could be used by other industries.

Third, in terms of amending, cancelling, and suspending authorizations, a third area of concern is related to section 43. This section enables regulations to be developed whereby the minister or any other member of the public may request an amendment, suspension, or cancellation of an authorization or permit at any time. The rationale for this provision is unclear, and it creates uncertainty where there should be certainty. CEPA strongly suggests that this provision be removed from the legislation.

My fourth point relates to the National Energy Board, or the future Canadian energy regulator, and the role that the new CER will play in Fisheries Act authorizations.

In 2013, DFO and NEB signed an MOU, and that gave the NEB responsibility for initial review of Fisheries Act authorizations for NEB-regulated pipelines. Under the MOU, the NEB will assess the potential impacts on fish and fish habitat for pipeline watercourse crossings, and determine whether mitigation strategies are needed. If there are serious impacts, the NEB informs DFO and DFO will then review and be responsible for any authorizations, just like any other application. However, the NEB does the initial work to determine whether there are impacts. If there are none, the project applicant does not have to make a separate application to DFO.

Essentially the process triggered by the MOU avoids having two departments perform the same assessment. It avoids the duplication that drives more costly processes with long timelines. We are encouraged that Bill C-68 enables the sort of MOU that is currently in place with the NEB and DFO. To this end, CEPA recommends that the current MOU between the NEB and DFO be maintained.

In conclusion, CEPA recognizes that keeping water bodies and fish habitat protected is of utmost importance to Canadians, including pipeline operators, but we must also maintain a regulatory framework that provides clarity and certainty, avoids duplication, and further builds on the wealth of technical knowledge and best practices already in place to achieve our desired outcomes and ensure Canada's competitiveness.

Thank you very much. I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bernadette Jordan]

Thank you, Mr. Bloomer.

We are now going to the Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia, with Chris Sporer and Christina Burridge.

Good morning. I hear you've been there since very early this morning, so thank you for taking the time to appear before us again this morning.

You have 10 minutes and you can go ahead any time.

[Christina Burridge, Executive Director, BC Seafood Alliance, Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia]

Thank you very much, everyone. We really appreciate the chance to be here. I'm going to start and then Chris is going to follow.

I'm here for the B.C. Seafood Alliance. That's the most representative fishing organization on the west coast, mainly representing commercial fishermen up and down the coast in virtually every major fishery on this coast. Chris is here for the Seafood Producers Association of B.C. That's the largest processor organization on the west coast. His members are big players in salmon, herring, groundfish, and many specialty products. If you like, we're two sides of the same coin. Our members are the people who bring food to Canadians and to the world.

We are broadly supportive of the habitat provisions. These were subject to very thorough consultation. We have four points we would like to make about the non-habitat provisions. We want to propose an amendment to the “Purpose” section. We want to make some comments on changes to indigenous participation and co-management. We want to make some comments on the confidentiality of traditional knowledge, and we want to close by emphasizing that stability and predictability in licensing policy and the management framework are essential to all participants in the industry, including indigenous peoples.

In terms of amending the purpose, in our view the current text does not provide a purpose. It only provides tools. The purpose itself needs to be defined as it is in, say, the New Zealand Fisheries Act and in other common property jurisdictions. We propose that proposed section 2.1 should read, “the conservation and sustainable use of fish and fishery resources through the proper control and management of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish habitat, including preventing pollution.”

Moving on to indigenous participation and co-management, the right to manage fisheries resides in the minister and cannot be downloaded to others except in very clearly defined ways. Parliament should be careful that it is not giving unconstitutional powers to the minister to delegate management to indigenous organizations. A patchwork of separate management authorities for fisheries on the west coast would be disastrous for conservation and the use of the resource by all Canadians. There must be a single manager.

Further to that point, the recent Ahousaht et al decision on the west coast confirms that while the nations have a right to fish and to sell fish, that right applies only in a very narrow area and is not unrestricted, not exclusive, not industrial, and it does not provide a guaranteed economic baseline. The judgment also says that bilateral negotiations of what the right means in practice are unacceptable. That's because DFO does not represent the interests of the other sectors such as commercial and recreational fisheries, and those interests must be included.

The judgment also says that voluntary relinquishment—that's willing buyer, willing seller transfer of licences—is the best means towards reconciliation in the fishery, and it stresses that reconciliation is a national endeavour, not only to be borne by the commercial fishing families, and that it cannot be achieved without the involvement of all interested parties.

Indigenous participation in the west coast fishery is already strong. We expect it to grow, and that's a good thing. Roughly one-third of all licences are held by indigenous individuals or organizations so any changes to fisheries management or licensing policy will affect them as well as others.

We do have concerns about the confidentiality of any traditional knowledge. We believe this needs to be narrowed, especially in the light of the Ahousaht et al decision. The recent decision by the minister, based on confidential bilateral negotiations to suspend the central coast herring fishery in the interest of reconciliation, despite the recommendations of peer-reviewed science, cost communities up and down the coast about $12 million for what would have been a two-day fishery.

Lastly, with regard to stability and predictability, the tabling of enabling provisions regarding licensing policy and social policy has already been destabilizing with millions of dollars of investment on hold on both coasts. It's scaring young people out of the industry or making them question whether they want to enter.

Without secure access, there is no incentive to invest in new vessels, new gear, new markets, or new products. Worse, there is no incentive to invest in the resource, and many of our fisheries contribute $1 million or more, for each fishery, to DFO science every year.

Unlike the habitat provisions, these changes to the act were made with minimal consultation, and in our view, have been rushed through with little opportunity for input.

I will just close by saying that fishing interests must be fully and comprehensively engaged in the development of regulations.

I'll pass it over to Chris.

[Chris Sporer, Executive Director, Seafood Producers Association of British Columbia]

Thank you.

We know you have heard many things about B.C. fisheries, but it is important to understand the context, and what we would like to do is provide that context.

I sent six slides over. I don't know if the committee members have been shown them, but when the committee members do get a chance to look at them, they'll see that the differences between landed values in Atlantic Canada and Pacific Canada. It shows the fisheries in the two regions are very different. In Atlantic Canada there are fisheries that have landed values in excess of $500 million. In contrast, the most valuable fisheries on the Pacific coast are in the range of $30 million to $50 million.

The industry has experienced some profound change over the past 30 years. In inflation-adjusted terms, the landed value today is just over half of what it was 20 years ago. Landed value has fallen from an annual average of about $720 million to $385 million. The commercial salmon and herring fisheries are now a fraction of what they once were. Salmon, for example, used to generate 48% of the total landed value but today accounts for only 17%. Groundfish and shellfish fisheries have grown in importance and today account for 34% and 37% of total landed value, respectively.

Looking at the salmon fishery, commercial salmon landed weight and value have declined over time. Landings have dropped by 69%, while value has dropped by 81%. We have seen changing ocean conditions and reallocations to first nations in-river fisheries and to the recreational fishing sector. That has reduced the amount of salmon available to commercial harvesters. At the same time, conservative management has been adopted, and harvest rates have been reduced, from 70% or 80% to 30% or 40%, as we move to protect weak stocks.

These reduced harvest levels, combined with increased competition in world seafood markets, particularly from Alaska and farmed salmon production, have resulted in reduced annual landed values, declining by 81% compared with what we saw in the early 1990s.

The roe herring fishery shows a story similar to salmon. Lower ocean productivity and conservative management have reduced harvests. This fishery, before management changes to bring in more conservative management, used to significantly exceed allowable harvest limits, but these new management measures introduced in 1997 have done a better job of bringing harvests in line with allowable catch limits. These reduced harvests combined with the collapse of the Japanese “bubble” economy—Japan is basically the only market for this product—have resulted in a significant reduction in the value generated from this fishery, an 88% drop from what was seen in the early 1990s.

Moving on to the groundfish fisheries, groundfish has also seen a decline in landed weight as more conservative management has been adopted. Our groundfish fisheries have moved, from fisheries where overharvesting occurred and there was rampant at-sea discarding and misreporting of catch, to fisheries today that have 100% at-sea monitoring and 100% dockside monitoring and full accountability of all the catch, regardless of whether it was retained or released at sea.

These management changes, while they have provided significant conservation benefits that have resulted in a reduced harvest, have allowed more value to be extracted from the resource. Harvesters are now able to provide the market with year-round or almost year-round fresh product instead of frozen product. They are extracting more value from a pound of fish.

Turning to the shellfish fisheries, these have also seen a decline in landed weight, and again it is due to adoption of more conservative management. Their landed value has actually increased. Management changes in the dive fisheries, similar with what we have seen with groundfish, have allowed more value to be extracted from the catch, and the spot prawn and crab fisheries have developed new markets and grown in importance.

On the Pacific coast we have moved to more conservative management, which has significantly reduced harvests and, therefore, also the value of the fisheries. In the past these fisheries were unsustainable. We were overharvesting—