Fisheries committee  I think we take them in a couple of ways. To put it into context, the commercial industry advisory committee, which is comprised of all the six fishery groupings I spoke of earlier--halibut, ling cod, groundfish trawl, rockfish, and dogfish--is involved in the commercial industry committee, which ultimately made the recommendation that the minister approved with conditions.

Fisheries committee  I think that's a good question. I have two responses to that. The evidence we have is that because we've moved into a quota system, and because people can trade for quota, there isn't the need to rush out and catch fish as they had to, for example, under a competitive fishery.

Fisheries committee  It's safe to say that the principle of catch monitoring was non-negotiable, yes. That's safe to say. That was a principle or a guideline that we adopted in 2003, and it said, specifically, that all bycatch had to be accounted for. That's true. We did say that. We did not say that meant that they had to introduce this particular measure.

Fisheries committee  We think we made headway. Previously we had proxies for the rockfish harvest. In some cases, we guessed. In some cases, we had observers on board so we could count the fish that were kept and the fish that were discarded. We extrapolated for the rest of the industry and hoped we were right.

Fisheries committee  You're right, the fishery is very important from a tourism perspective. It provides great value to the British Columbia economy and we're very mindful of the value of this fishery. So we do want to protect and conserve both the recreational fishery and the commercial fishery, and we think it's possible to do both.

Fisheries committee  No. It's important for us to document their catches as well, and the first nations that are fishing commercially have to achieve the same standards as non-natives, so they have to report their catch; it has to be accounted for. They have to have cameras or observers on board like everyone else.

Fisheries committee  No, I don't think so. First of all, it took three years, that's correct. But it took three years because, first of all, it's complicated. Second, it's controversial, and third, we really wanted to work with all the participants to bring them along in the journey from where we were to where we needed to go in the future, and that took time.

Fisheries committee  Yes, they were. We looked at a number of options in considering the approach that was eventually adopted. Those were debated and discussed over the course of the three years, from 2003 to 2006, and the current approach was eventually adopted. One of the things we looked at, for example, was just continuing the status quo, which was having monthly limits, trip limits, and so forth.

Fisheries committee  There is resistance in some areas, yes. Overall, though, this initiative is an initiative that has come forward through the commercial industry committee itself. The groups that I've mentioned have brought this initiative forward. Yes, there are small groups of fishermen within those groups that I've just spoken of who have concerns.

Fisheries committee  Frankly, I think it was both, sir. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans made it clear that we had to account for all catch. We had to. We cannot have fisheries in which people go out and catch fish and discard fish and we don't know what's happening. That is not sustainable. It won't represent conservation.

Fisheries committee  I know that's hard to believe.

Fisheries committee  We're trying to avoid that possibility. We think that by putting into place the catch monitoring system we have now and by having the fishermen participate in the catch monitoring, we will be able to document the catch and we may be able to re-examine what is required from a catch monitoring perspective, but over time.

Fisheries committee  That's a good question. The sports fishermen are concerned because from their perspective they have an important fishery that harvests some species of groundfish. For example, there's a halibut fishery on the west coast and there are other groundfish fisheries on the west coast where recreational fishermen harvest groundfish species.

Fisheries committee  That's correct. If it's unharvested, we'll go back and do an assessment, and then allowance will be made for the fact that the population is likely larger than what it would have been if the population had been reduced. Adjustments will be made to the allowable harvest to reflect that.

Fisheries committee  That was a concern of the first nations fishery at the beginning of the pilot. They were worried about their role. They were worried that they would not be able to harvest their target species. To date, they have been able to participate. The initial fears of that particular concern were not realized, so we're looking forward to continuing our discussions with first nations to address other issues they might have.