Fisheries committee  Merci. I'll look into our ability to distribute that document to the committee. I'm not sure if there are privacy issues, but if not, then that will be provided. That will describe a bit more of the detail around what we agreed to in 2006.

Fisheries committee  The MOU, yes, I believe that could be distributed. I will definitely look into that to see whether it could be provided.

Fisheries committee  Certainly some of the spawn-on-kelp licence holders believe the increase in the Heiltsuk allocation affected the market price. From our perspective, in looking at that question, we noted a few things. We noted the following. The price peaked in the mid-1990s, before the Heiltsuk decision in 1996 and before the quota started to be phased in, in 1997, 1998, and 1999.

Fisheries committee  We have not reduced the pool by transfer. In other words, the spawn-on-kelp fishery has grown to 46 licence holders. At this point in time, no consideration is being given to reducing the number of licences. The fishery is considered to be a reasonably small fishery in terms of the number of licences, of which there are 46.

Fisheries committee  What happened was we tried to change the way we were interacting with the first nations. We brought in a third party to work with the first nations and us and the roe herring fishery. Before, we were trying to deal directly with the first nations--department to the first nations--and that created some challenges.

Fisheries committee  The answer is yes. Part of that is due to the fact that we started negotiating with the Heltsiuks in 1997, and over a period of a number of years the two of us were able to inform each other better of each other's views. Our relationship got better over time, just through the contact we had.

Fisheries committee  I think the memorandum of understanding would accommodate the new Fisheries Act well. The Fisheries Act, as you know, is designed to recognize that co-management arrangements with the department ideally would be entered into by organizations. That would include members. In this particular case, we would be working with the Heiltsuks, a particular group, which includes a group of licence holders who are part of that community.

Fisheries committee  Hypothetically, if there were a conflict we would know that on entering into the MOU. We would attempt to reconcile it as best as we possibly could. In this particular instance, the central coast area is isolated. We have some spawn-on-kelp licence holders there that are mostly first nations, and we have a roe herring fishery.

Fisheries committee  I can't speak to the specifics of that. The intent is to enter into co-management arrangements, ideally with organizations that clarify responsibilities and sort out roles.

Fisheries committee  I know in B.C. there are several avenues for people to pursue and bring their interests. For example, they can be part of an organization and interact directly with the department. They can interact directly with us on a bilateral basis. They don't have to be part of an organization to bring their views to our attention.

Fisheries committee  Maybe I should explain. The spawn-on-kelp fishery has a fixed number of licence holders, and that doesn't change, notwithstanding another court decision. Each licence holder has the same allocation, and the pool of licence holders is fixed. If you're a licence holder now, you are a licence holder.

Fisheries committee  That was in 2006. That's correct.

Fisheries committee  That was an increase above their regular allocation.

Fisheries committee  They were invited to participate in the memorandum of understanding in 2006. All the members were. Each individual licence holder was written to. The same approach was taken in 2007.

Fisheries committee  Yes, that is our view. The court decided there was a right to harvest spawn-on-kelp commercially and said it was a priority. It was clear, from our perspective at least, that if we had gone back without increasing the allocation and there had been a new court situation, we would be in a very difficult position had we not provided for some additional access.