Evidence of meeting #132 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was licences.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Fisher, As an Individual
I don't know that I can speak appropriately to that. That comes through those bilateral treaties, the Pacific Salmon Commission treaties.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Okay.
Is there anyone else in the group who would be able to say who gets first access to those migrating fish?
February 20th, 2019 / 6:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Programs, Ecotrust Canada
It would depend on the species and the fishery.
Conservative
Vice-President, Programs, Ecotrust Canada
If the migrating salmon stock passes through B.C. waters first, then we would get first crack at it. It doesn't necessarily relate, though, to the share of the fish or the allocation.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
The bells are ringing. The lights are going again.
Can I ask for permission to continue, as we did in the last session, for 15 minutes, to 6:20 p.m.?
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
I didn't think I would, sir.
Is everyone in agreement with that?
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Okay, we'll continue.
Go ahead when you're ready, Mr. Arnold.
Conservative
Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC
Sure, I'll take a shot at it. Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
In Alberta, just as an example, if a forest management agreement is signed between a forest company and the Province of Alberta, there's a stumpage fee that requires a royalty to be paid by the forest company to all Albertans, because the resource belongs to all Albertans. I'm sure it's the same case in British Columbia.
We have the same issue with all the other natural resources we have across the country. I ask this question as somebody from Alberta. Do fishers, fish harvesters or anybody along the line pay a fee because the resource in the ocean belongs to all Canadians? Is there any fee that's collected by the people of Canada other than licensing fees for the resource? Is there a royalty that's collected for the resource, for the salmon, halibut and other fish that belong to the people of Canada?
Is this a trick question? It's not, right? Am I correct?
Vice-President, Programs, Ecotrust Canada
I know nothing about that. I believe there are some fees on salmon that go back to a few different organizations. I believe they're split between [Inaudible—Editor] and the Pacific Salmon Foundation, but—
Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC
Is it like a check-off fee for the salmon enhancement programs, or something like that? Is that what it is?
Fisher, As an Individual
When you purchase a personal fishing licence, you have to make a donation—
Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC
—to the salmon enhancement fund. Is that a recreational fishing licence?
Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC
I know I do, for recreation. I'm one of those crazy Albertans who come out and catch halibut and salmon, and I have really good time doing so. Sport fishing is completely different from commercial fishing.
I'm just asking the question. I see the resource as a public resource, as I think many people at the table actually do. I think this committee is seized with some pretty difficult questions right now about whether this resource is being appropriately utilized to the benefit of Canadians, rather than other interests. I think that's the question we're seized with here.
I'm very concerned about this resource, actually. I'm concerned, as an Albertan, for a number of reasons. One, I can't seem to get a pipeline built because of the chinook salmon stocks and southern resident killer whales. This is something that concerns me, because if we had more salmon we'd have a healthier killer whale stock and the pipeline issue might not be quite the issue that it is right now. I need to get to the bottom of this, as an Albertan. This affects all Canadians. It affects all walks of life. This is how all of this stuff is interrelated.
In the first set of witnesses we had earlier today, some talked about a program over a seven-year span, for example, where we actually get back to taking the quota and licences and putting them back in the hands of Canadian fishermen, where the owner-operators of the fishing fleet actually own the quota, rather than leasing it from other interests.
My question for the new witnesses who are here, whether they be from Maine, Canada or wherever, is whether we should actually go down that road. Is that what you're advocating for? Seth, Cailyn, Helen, and everybody else here....
Is that the model? I hear that the model in Maine is quite different. The quota actually belongs to the state. I'd be curious to find out if the State of Maine actually gets a cut of the quota, or is it simply passed onto the fishermen?
Associate Professor, Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island, As an Individual
Maybe I'll go.
Fisheries are an anomaly in the world of natural resources, in my experience. In one sense, you're asking about what we call a resource rental. I was invited to give a talk at the Australian association of resource economists a few years ago, and they took me down there early. The first day at this meeting, they had a whole day debating not whether to collect a resource rent but how, in the mining industry, and it's the same thing you're talking about with stumpage on public forest lands or a grazing fee. They took a whole day debating the minutiae of how to do this, not whether to do it.
The next day was fisheries. I was on the panel. There were two North American fisheries economists brought down. The conversation immediately switched to how we could give it away to the initial recipients to let them collect the resource rent. That's been followed all around the world.
I'm not advocating.... There was a question about a transition. That's going to be difficult. That's part of the problem. You've already done this, so how do you reel it back in? People are trying to do that all around the world, or asking themselves how to do it.
You've heard over and over that most people who are on the water today, the people we used to call fishermen, are leasing. Who are they leasing from? They're leasing from the people we—I'm using this term collectively—gave it away to for free. You wouldn't do that with timber. You wouldn't do that with oil. You wouldn't do that with range lands.
Then you say, what if we somehow had a system whereby, instead of that, you were leasing from the current existing public owners? Dr. Pinkerton was talking about the CDQ program. They say, “Oh, you want to make fishermen pay.” They're paying now. They're just paying the select few whom, for some reason, we decided to endow. One of the problems is that the professional fishery economists, who have been advising on policy for 65 years, have pushed for this privatization.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)
Thank you, Mr. Macinko.
We go now to the NDP, to Mr. Donnelly, for seven minutes or less, please.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're obviously doing a review of the west coast fishery licensing system. We've heard many witnesses talk about the trend of increasing privatization of the fishery, and the inequity in the current system and this trend that's happening. We're hearing suggestions, and we've heard suggestions about how we might transition towards a new, fairer, more equitable fishery or way of managing.
I have only a short time and too many witnesses and too many questions, so I'm going to ask Dr. Pinkerton this.
In your presentation, you talked about onshore co-op, and I'm wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on the successes. That is what I'm looking at. We heard River Select talk about their co-op model on the lower Fraser. Are these successful ways of managing the fishery that this committee and this government should be looking at? Can you elaborate a little more in a couple of minutes?