Fisheries Committee on June 9th, 2016

[Robert Morley]

It's for a number of reasons. First of all, the centre of salmon in the north Pacific is actually further north than British Columbia. It's really off Alaska and Russia. That's where the centre and most of the populations are, but as well, Ms. Burridge referred to the government changing to a weak stock management approach. Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Government of Canada decided that we would try to manage every little stream and every little river in terms of individual populations and cut back on harvest rates drastically.

As I mentioned, the harvest in B.C. fisheries for probably 50 years was about 150 million pounds a year. We're now averaging 50 million pounds, not because the populations aren't there but because we're putting a lot more fish on the spawning grounds and we're not getting the opportunity to harvest them.

In Alaska, the sockeye salmon, for example, is harvested at a rate of probably 75% of the returning fish, while 25% are left to spawn. In B.C., we're lucky if we get to harvest sometimes 10% or 20%. The maximum we ever get to is probably around 50%.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Are you saying that the Alaska fishery is allowed to go after its stocks more aggressively than we are?

[Robert Morley]

Yes. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has become overly conservative in putting fish up the river, for a couple of reasons. One is to satisfy interests of first nations communities further up the river. But in so doing, they have put a lot more fish on the spawning grounds than is really required, and it is not returning the runs that we would expect to see.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

So it appears that conservation is working in B.C., but why, for instance, are such sizes of catches allowed in Alaska? Why have their stocks not suffered as apparently ours did, which promoted, of course, the measures by the DFO to constrain the harvesting?

[Robert Morley]

There are probably 400 different salmon populations in British Columbia, and they're not all doing really well. Some are in difficulty, some are at average levels, and some are strong. The same would be true in Alaska. I think Alaska has taken the approach that they want to manage the more populous populations, take advantage of the harvest, and allow the smaller populations to survive if they can. What they've seen, in fact, is that they haven't really lost very many populations. They still have a lot of populations there.

I think we probably have more habitat-related issues in British Columbia. We have a lot more development, both residential and industrial, than what is in some of the streams in Alaska, so it's probably more difficult for our populations to survive under those conditions. At the same time, I believe we could be harvesting at a higher level, and that would generate a bigger pie for everybody—fishermen, communities, and everyone else.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

We've heard testimony that suggests the majority of fishers in B.C. have been basically reduced to the role of tenant farmers. They may own the boats, but they certainly don't have access to the licence, so they're fishing for somebody else. We had somebody from the halibut fishery tell us the other day that whereas the landed value of their catch is $9 a pound, their lease fees are costing them $7 a pound.

Ms. Burridge, you mentioned a landed value of $850 million. Is it true that only about of 5% of that actually ends up back in the hands of the people who go out and catch the fish?

[Christina Burridge]

No, it's not true.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

How much, then?

[Christina Burridge]

I'm not sure I could give you that answer, but I can tell you that independent fishermen in B.C. are the primary participants in the industry. With the exception of salmon, I would say that most of those fisheries are profitable.

Mr. McIsaac referred to the $19,000 in income. It's true that in some fleets that's what comes from the fishery. Particularly, it tends to be true in some of the salmon fisheries, but the overall income for those people was $40,000 on a seasonal basis.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay. The situation in Atlantic Canada, as I understand it, is that when somebody goes out and catches fish, they have options as to where they can take that fish and sell it. What is—

[Christina Burridge]

So do people here.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Tell me about that. How many different fish-processing companies exist on the coast of B.C.? With Canfisco particularly, what percentage of the total harvest.... Until the downsizing of the Rupert plant, how much did you guys actually control?

[Robert Morley]

There are probably 150 to 200 different processing companies in British Columbia participating in the variety of fisheries that Ms. Burridge talked about.

I think I gave you the exact numbers on what our share of the harvest was. In salmon, it's about 37%. In herring, it's about 30%. In groundfish, it's about 20%. Basically, we are not major players in any other fishery. We don't participate in crab or prawns. We purchase a very little amount of the halibut. Really, we're not a large force in most of the fisheries. As I indicated, probably half the salmon we buy comes from independent fishermen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Morley. I appreciate it.

[Christina Burridge]

I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry, Ms. Burridge. I'm sure you'll work that answer in at some point if you wish.

[Christina Burridge]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We have to go to Mr. Sopuck from the Conservatives, who has seven minutes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you very much. That was most interesting testimony.

I was very taken by your report, Ms. Burridge, where you talked about the incredibly high sockeye salmon runs in 2010 and 2014. That tells me the system is capable of producing large amounts of fish. We just have to figure out how to do it better.

I have a question for you, Mr. Morley. Are there limits on corporate ownership and/or fleet separation in the B.C. licensing system?

[Robert Morley]

In terms of the B.C. licensing system, when limited licensing was originally brought into the salmon fishery in 1969, the minister at the time advised the members of the Fisheries Association of British Columbia, which were processing companies and which at that time owned 13.2% of all the salmon vessels, that when they went to limited licensing, they were going to be kept at that level. In fact, he said to them that when the fleet was reduced, they would have to divest themselves and keep below that 13.2% limit.

At the time, a salmon licence—an A licence—allowed the vessel to fish any gear type. Whether it was seine, gillnet, or troll, there was no limitation. A licence was a licence. That was before area and gear licensing. Those restrictions were never changed to say that it had to be specifically any gear or area.

Currently, as I indicated in our testimony, Canfisco owns 4% of all the licences. I'm not exactly sure what other processing companies own, but I think it's a very small number, and we would be nowhere near the 13.2% limit. It would be far below that at this point.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thanks.

Mr. Morley, does Alaska require all salmon and herring to be processed in Alaska unless it is surplus to local processing capacity?

[Robert Morley]

I heard the other day that there was testimony that Alaska requires all salmon to be processed if there is capacity by companies to do so—processed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act—before they'll allow it to be exported. That's incorrect.

As I indicated, we have been bringing in large quantities of Alaskan salmon for processing in B.C. for a good number of years, and much of that has been done even when there was excess capacity available in the Alaskan business. There are no restrictions on export of unprocessed fish from Alaska in terms of bringing it into Canada for processing.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Allain, you talked about the east coast fisheries' commitment to conservation, and Ms. Burridge actually gave numbers, for example, of what various fisheries support in terms of fisheries science. In actual numbers, it sounds as though the B.C. industry is highly organized to levy the commercial fishery for good sound science to conserve fish.

Is there a similar system in eastern Canada whereby there is an organized levy on existing commercial fisheries and the funds are spent directly on sophisticated fisheries management for those fisheries?

[Marc Allain]

I believe that in Newfoundland there is a levy on groundfish for purposes of science. We have a very large and very complex fishery, as I've pointed out, in terms of the landed values. There's a lot of diversity in it. Our fleets are very heavily committed to conservation, and there's a lot of science and research going on—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I'm sorry, but I don't have much time. I really apologize for interrupting.

To me, that's no excuse, though. You were talking about a large and diverse fishery. In this day and age, it's fairly easy to collect funds for research that are earmarked for conservation.

I'll go to Ms. Burridge now. Because the industry appears to be fairly sophisticated in terms of how it's organized, it looks to me like the companies not only want to contribute to conservation, but you have developed a fairly sophisticated mechanism to collect those funds and direct them for conservation. Could you discuss that?