EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 4, 1995

.0944

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

We're getting some briefings this morning in advance of our trip to the beautiful west coast of Canada. We'll be leaving, I guess, on Saturday, Sunday, Monday, or somewhere in there, depending on where you're coming from.

I guess most people will be leaving on Sunday.

Do you have a proposed schedule that we can distribute while we're hearing from our officials?

Our clerk will get some copies and we'll have them distributed. It's a tentative agenda for when we will be there.

.0945

One of the problems that some of us had is the fact that this country is very large and to get back to the east coast from the west coast takes a full day. Some committee members were going to have some difficulty in getting back for functions on Saturday. The only thing you can do is take a red-eye flight on Friday night. It gets you into places like Halifax at 10:30 a.m. and into Newfoundland shortly after noon, I guess, on the following day.

There was a specific request that had come in - and we'll deal with it later in the meeting - for a group to appear on Friday morning. If that happens, then nobody going east of Toronto will be able to get home on Friday. So I've asked the clerk to see if there is some way we could accommodate the request or if indeed the request was even....

It has been arranged. Hopefully, that will mean that on Friday morning people will be able to head back to their constituencies.

The second issue deals with travel arrangements generally. For some strange reason - I think it's bizarre - the House of Commons will pay only for the committee members' and support staff's trips from Ottawa. That's really smart when all of us are going to be back in our ridings. So it means that members will have to use a travel point out of the House of Commons allocation to get to Ottawa and then another trip to get out west. I would encourage some of the members who may have some difficulty in getting to Ottawa to look at using a regular travel point for the trip to B.C. It will probably come out even more cheaply for the government if you do it directly rather than in two stages, because if you do it in the two stages, you'll be paying full fare sector fares on both of them.

Mr. Cummins (Delta): I suspect that it's quicker for me to go through Toronto rather than Ottawa anyway.

The Chairman: That's right, but the committee won't pay it.

Mr. Cummins: You can tell that Eugene. What's he doing anyway?

The Chairman: No, it's not his policy. The policy is a crazy one, because it means that you have to come to Ottawa -

Mr. Cummins: But you have to have somebody to blame.

The Chairman: Well, we might as well blame Eugene.

Mr. Wells (South Shore): I guess that's the end of the issue. I'm just trying to find the common sense of why we're paying more money because of the policy. I thought the policy was to save money.

The Chairman: Well, the policy doesn't work, because it means you have to go from your riding to Ottawa, and then you leave from Ottawa. Only a couple of flights a day come into Ottawa. Many flights go through Toronto, and many more flights go to Vancouver, as John would know, from Toronto than from Ottawa. So it doesn't make a lot of sense, but nevertheless we're stuck with that policy. So I'll be using my own travel point to go out there. It makes it easier.

The Clerk of the Committee: If you use your point to come from your riding to Ottawa or to Toronto, you still have to use a point. We'll pay from Toronto on.

Mr. Wells: What I'm saying is that it's costing the government more money to do it in that way, because I could bank that travel point and not even use it.

The Chairman: Yes, it is, because you're doing sector fares.

Mr. Wells: Because I never use all of my travel points.

The Chairman: No, but you're doing sector fares. You're doing full fare from Halifax, in your case, to Toronto - that's on a sector fare - and then a full fare from Toronto to Vancouver. Those two combined are more money than if you go in one fare sector from Halifax to Vancouver.

The other thing is that it's a special point, Derek, if you fly to Toronto. So it's not a regular travel point; it is a special travel point to go to Toronto to catch that flight, which makes it even more ridiculous.

Anyway, that being said and done, we have two officials from the Department of Fisheries. They're going to walk us through some stuff with respect to mostly the salmon issue on the west coast of Canada.

We have Pat Chamut, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management. He's going to deal with the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board, and some licensing issues. I chatted with him before we started the meeting. He's going to get into some stuff with us.

If anybody has questions, then just throw them out, as long as it doesn't impede them in getting through their work. This is by way of a background briefing, so we're not here to be argumentative. It's just to try to figure out exactly where we're at on a number of the issues so that when we get to British Columbia we at least will be able to be conversant in some of the issues and will be as up to date as we can.

Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, the clerk has handed out this brochure, which I don't have. I'm just wondering if this is what we're going to be discussing.

The Chairman: Yes, it is.

We also have Don Kowal.

Don, what exactly is your position? What's your job?

Mr. Don Kowal (Director, Resource Allocation Branch, Pacific, Arctic and Inland Waters, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'm the director of resource management.

.0950

The Chairman: Okay, Pat, it's all yours.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Before we start, I'd like to tell my colleagues who will be going to Vancouver that unfortunately I have a scheduling problem and I will not be able to travel with the committee. However, the issue of salmon licenses, which will be studied during that trip, strongly interest me.

I see that you have received a thick document this morning. I will try to read it, but I must tell you that unfortunately I have other commitments this morning. I will have to leave before the end of the committee. That does not prevent you from going on. I will read the printout of the issue of this meeting later on.

Mr. Chairman, I am wondering how things will go because I cannot be with the committee in Vancouver. Last time, if I'm not mistaken, there was no recording of our meetings. Was there recording?

I would like to know how I could be kept informed of what people will say. Should I rely on the committee's report, that is will I have to rely on the Reform members who will follow very closely these hearings and the Liberal members of the committee? This is a rather interesting question. It is a timing problem, that is why I will not be able to make it.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm sorry your schedule doesn't allow you to go, because I know you would have contributed a great deal, and you also would have learned a great deal.

Mr. McGuire (Egmont): Is Madame Venne taking his place, sir?

The Chairman: My answer is simply this. When we set this up, we set it up with the same format we used with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. We tried to low-key it, and to save some dollars by doing that, by way of more or less round-table discussions without the full regalia committees sometimes travel with. It was done that way for two reasons. One was to reduce cost, and, secondly, I think the committee felt the format used with the FFMC was more conducive to the members in terms of getting a real feel for the issues because it was less structured and less formal. So the answer is that currently there is no provision made for recording of the proceedings.

Am I right, Mr. Clerk?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chairman: When we anticipated you would be going, Mr. Bernier, there were provisions made for the translators - the same as was done with the FFMC - who would have been travelling at that time. But maybe this is an issue that we should deal with after we hear the witnesses today, just to see if there's some compromise or some conclusion we can come to.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I will let you go on with the meeting. I will try to think of a way my party could compensate for my absence; I will also talk to you later about how we should proceed so that I will know what has happened during these meetings. An interpreter could accompany the committee and give me the information later. This would be a neutral person. Anyway, we'll discuss the issue later.

I know that you had planned on discussing this paper this morning and also later this afternoon after question period.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, that's right.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Would you allow my assistant to attend the afternoon meeting, after question period, as an observer? I won't be able to be here because I must go to my riding.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, no problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, it's all yours, Pat.

Mr. Patrick S. Chamut (Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the chairman has indicated, my intent this morning is to try to focus on the three issues identified as being of primary interest to the standing committee. I was intending to talk briefly about the implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which is a fairly important issue and is very current on the west coast. Secondly, I was going to provide some updated information with respect to the implementation of the recent recommendations of the Fraser review board. Thirdly, I was going to just highlight some of the issues associated with licensing in the Pacific region.

I'd like to provide some information on each one of those topics, and I would obviously be quite prepared to answer any other questions that committee members may wish to offer either after or even throughout the course of the presentation that I'd like to make.

I'd like to start, Mr. Chairman, with an overview of the current status with respect to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. This is one of the key issues on the Pacific coast and it is currently a preoccupation of many of the fisheries managers in the Pacific region.

.0955

The issue of the relationship that we have with the U.S. over the management, sharing and harvest of Pacific salmon is not a new issue. It has been a long-standing point of dispute with the United States. The relationship we have had has largely been shaped by two important factors.

One is the migratory behaviour of Pacific salmon. Adult salmon migrate through the north Pacific and return to their rivers of origin through Alaskan waters and down through waters in B.C., and fish destined for Washington and Oregon also pass through southern United States waters. As they migrate, they are obviously subject to interception by fishermen from both countries.

The second important factor that has dictated or defined the relationship we have with the U.S. is the fact that in B.C., two of the largest salmon producing rivers are immediately adjacent to our borders with the United States. On the Alaskan border, we have the Skeena River. That river is a very large producer of salmon, and it is immediately south of the Alaskan border, which means fish from the Skeena River are obviously subject to interception by the United States.

In the south, the Fraser River, which is one of the world's largest producers of salmon, is similarly located right along our southern border with the United States. Again, the fish from that system are obviously subject to interception by the United States.

So the relationship that we have with the United States has largely been dictated by these two factors. Prior to the 1985 treaty, we had negotiated arrangements with the United States to govern how Pacific salmon are managed. Prior to the treaty currently in force, we operated under a treaty that dealt only with the management of Fraser sockeye and pink salmon. Under that treaty, which was actually negotiated in the 1930s and remained in force until 1985, the United States was entitled to harvest 50% of the sockeye from the Fraser River, as well as the pink salmon. The actual management of the fishery, the management of Canadian stocks of Fraser sockeye and pink salmon, was done through a bilateral commission established under the old treaty.

This arrangement was unacceptable to Canada for a number of reasons. First, the treaty itself did not cover a host of or did not cover all of the stocks of salmon on the west coast. It dealt only with sockeye and pink salmon. Second, in our view it provided a very unfair sharing of harvest benefits to the United States. It was also a difficult arrangement given that Canada had abandoned some degree of its sovereignty by having a river entirely within Canada managed by a bilateral commission, as opposed to having it under domestic management.

Beginning in the 1970s, there were many difficult discussions and efforts trying to negotiate a new treaty with the United States, one that would provide a more acceptable arrangement with respect to the Pacific salmon on the west coast. This was a very long and difficult process. As I said, it started in the early 1970s, and it wasn't until fifteen years later, in 1985, that both Canada and the U.S. were able to agree on a more comprehensive treaty.

The new treaty ratified at that time provided a much more comprehensive framework for the management of all of the stocks and species of Pacific salmon over an area that ranged from southeastern Alaska down through to the waters of the state of Oregon. It was much more comprehensive in terms of its geographical coverage, as well as in terms of the species and fisheries it covered.

The current treaty itself is based on two important principles. The first principle is conservation, wherein both parties commit to operate their fisheries in such a way as to prevent overfishing and to try to achieve optimum production from the stocks in the rivers of both countries.

.1000

The second principle, which is an essential counterpart to the conservation principle, is called the ``equity principle''. I will come back and talk in more detail about the equity principle, because it serves as one of the main issues of dispute with the United States today.

This equity principle states that each party, either Canada or the United States, is entitled to receive benefits of fish production that are equivalent to the production of fish from their own rivers. In other words, Canada is entitled to harvest an amount of fish that is equivalent to the production of fish from rivers originating in B.C. It is an important principle for Canada, because so many of our stocks are subject to interception by the United States.

The treaty also identifies some other essential obligations the parties undertake. First of all, there is an obligation that we are to try to reduce interceptions. In other words, Canada and the United States have agreed they will try to reduce the interception of fish of origin in the other country. So we are to manage our fisheries in such a way as to reduce interceptions.

Secondly, we are to try to avoid undue disruption to existing fisheries. This tends to be a very difficult balance to find, because oftentimes if you talk about reducing interceptions it has the consequent impact of causing a disruption to an existing fishery. I can tell you as we negotiate the salmon treaty, trying to find a balance between these two conflicting objectives has been very difficult, and each side is able to refer to these principles in some way either to attack or to defend a position, because they are directly contradictory.

The third obligation in the treaty is that the parties are to design their fishing plans taking into account the annual variability in the abundance of stocks as they migrate through the waters of each party.

The treaty is an important instrument in providing us with a bilateral mechanism to deal with the fishing arrangements; the conduct of fisheries in some of the key areas where interceptions occur. So the treaty contains a number of annexes. For example, it deals with fisheries conducted in the trans-boundary rivers. The trans-boundary rivers are watersheds in the northern portion of B.C. immediately behind the Alaskan panhandle. So ``trans-boundary rivers'' implies a river system that originates in B.C. but that on its way to the sea passes through a small strip of land called the Alaska Panhandle. These rivers have to be managed in a joint way.

The treaty also deals with fisheries in northern B.C. and southeastern Alaska. They provide regimes for managing coho and chinook fisheries in places such as the west coast of Vancouver Island, the north coast, and the Strait of Georgia.

Finally, there are two other annexes dealing with Fraser sockeye and pink salmon and chum.

So essentially what you have is a bilateral agreement that deals with the main intercepting fisheries conducted by both parties.

The treaty itself is administered by a group called the Pacific Salmon Commission. That group consists of eight commissioners on each side - eight for Canada and eight for the United States. Within Canada the commission is composed of two people representing the federal government, both of whom are from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and I'm one of them. There are also two representatives from each of the three main fishing sectors that pursue the Pacific fishery. So you have two representatives of the commercial industry, two representatives of the recreational fishery, and two representatives from the aboriginal community.

On the U.S. side they're organized somewhat differently, in that they too have eight commissioners. Two of them represent the federal government, but they have no voting privilege under the U.S. enabling legislation. So they have two federal representatives, two representatives from Washington and Oregon, two Alaskans, and two representatives of the tribal groups in the southern United States, coming from around Puget Sound and Oregon; the Columbia River.

.1005

Effectively, on the U.S. side - and this is one of the reasons why we've had so much difficulty negotiating with the United States - the U.S. federal government has no official vote nor any particular authority to direct the work of the United States section of the salmon commission. Each one of the three groups, representing Washington, Oregon, Alaska and the tribes, has a veto. So it becomes very difficult to find means to achieve compromises within the negotiating process in the salmon treaty. As you can see, with the veto arrangement that exists, there is very little that can be done, for example, to try to get Alaskans to compromise to provide a benefit to Washington State.

The Chairman: Do you want to go through the U.S. membership? That's two from Washington-Oregon, two from Alaska, and two aboriginal. That's area specific. The two aboriginal are specifically from....

Mr. Chamut: Yes, there are two main aboriginal groups: one located around Puget Sound and the other representing Columbia River tribal groups.

The Chairman: Hang on. Regarding the Alaska representatives, is there any requirement that one of those would be aboriginal, or are they just governmental representatives? How does that work?

Mr. Chamut: Under the U.S. enabling legislation, the State of Alaska has the authority to name two commissioners to represent the State of Alaska, so they tend to be a representative from the Alaskan department of fisheries, plus a representative from their commercial fleet. There has never been an aboriginal representative from Alaska.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Wells: There's going to be a lot of information to assimilate between now and when we leave on Sunday. We're going to have two hours of this. Is there a written presentation of some sort with all the historical background? Listening today is helpful, but I think if we had it to read later, it would be very helpful - if we could read it on the plane. I know there are briefing documents here, but I don't think there's anything here with the historical background, which I think is important to have.

The Chairman: Are you dealing with a document that would give sort of a historical overview of the commission?

Mr. Wells: What he's doing right now, some of the background information, whatever is relevant, but I think some of the.... I don't know how far back we should go.

The Chairman: Do you have anything by way of notes?

Mr. Chamut: I have notes, but I have to say that they are augmented by a fair amount of personal knowledge of the topic that is not reflected in the notes. I could certainly provide a copy of these notes, but they may be somewhat cryptic.

Mr. Wells: Will we have the transcript of this hearing by then?

The Chairman: Good luck. Under the new system, we're lucky if we ever get transcripts.

Mr. Chamut: On the other hand, what I could undertake to do is to search through some of the existing documentation we may have and provide you with something that provides a bit more historic -

The Chairman: I would suspect that there is probably something within the department or within the region that is a backgrounder on the evolution of the treaty. If you had that and you could provide it, it would be helpful.

Mr. Chamut: We will certainly undertake to do that. I think there are documents that will more or less serve the purpose, and we will make those available.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Chamut: To carry on, the treaty was signed in 1985, and it commenced at that time and provided the new framework for bilateral management of salmon on the west coast.

One of the key components of the treaty that was signed at that time was that it laid out an eight-year sharing formula for Fraser sockeye, and I emphasize Fraser sockeye and you'll hear more about it in the rest of my remarks, because Fraser sockeye are the largest and most valuable stock of salmon on the west coast. They tend to be the predominant driver of the fishery: it's the predominant influence in how it's managed, and it provides the majority of benefits to the commercial fleet.

So when the treaty was first signed, it was felt to be desirable to try to tie down and lock up the sharing arrangements for Fraser sockeye, and that was done with an agreement with the U.S. for an eight-year period. So in the first eight years of the treaty, from 1985 through to the year ending in 1992, two four-year cycles were agreed to, and in the first four years the Americans received 8.5 million Fraser sockeye as their share. In the second four years, the United States received a total of 7 million sockeye, spread over four years.

The Chairman: The first one was for four years as well, was it?

Mr. Chamut: Yes, that's right.

.1010

Mr. Cummins: What was the total on that?

Mr. Chamut: It was 8.5 million. There were also other arrangements that were concluded with respect to all of these other intercepting fisheries, and they were generally subject to renegotiation over the course of every one to two years. So every year there was an annual negotiation to try to lay out the arrangements for the next year's fishery, with the exception of the Fraser River sockeye. I think it's fair to say that the initial implementation of the treaty was reasonably harmonious. There were some upsets, as one would expect in anything of this nature, but it was reasonably cooperative and I think it worked fairly well.

But during that initial four to six-year-period of the treaty, from about 1985 through to 1990, there was a very disturbing trend that began to emerge from the way in which the fisheries were actually conducted. One of the first things we noted was that there was a declining production of coho and chinook salmon from the southern United States. That meant that for Canadian fishermen who harvest some of those fish on the west coast of Vancouver Island, their catches began to decline, and it began to put this equity principle somewhat out of balance.

The second factor, which occurred concurrently, was that we were successful in enhancing and in building the stocks of Canadian sockeye salmon from Canadian rivers, and because of that it resulted in an increasing interception by United States fishermen of fish from Canadian rivers.

The third important factor is that we had significant increases in Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon.

So as a result of these three factors there was a steady growth in the U.S. interception of fish from Canadian rivers at the same time as we had a steady reduction in harvest by Canadian fishermen of fish from the United States. We ended up with a growing imbalance in interceptions over the course of that period, which provided a very unfavourable balance to Canada and a very favourable interception balance to the United States. It was our view, based on calculating the amount of interceptions by both countries, that the imbalance was contrary to this principle of the treaty that I talked about earlier - of equity, that the United States were catching too many of our fish.

So we began to negotiate to achieve a reduction in U.S. interceptions and to achieve a more favourable balance in the overall interceptions between the two parties.

It's safe to say that the U.S. resisted very strongly any and all efforts by Canadian negotiators to try to agree on what the equity principle really meant, and, secondly, to institute any changes to fishing practices that would result in a more favourable balance in interceptions.

This led in 1992 to our first major dispute with the United States, and it was a dispute over Fraser River sockeye. The U.S. at that time was in the last year of their eight-year sharing formula. Their total of 7 million had been provided to them to be fished over a period of four years. They had about 350,000 fish left to be fished as part of their entitlement, and they refused to live within the pre-agreed 7 million ceiling for that four-year period. Because of their unwillingness to agree to the deal that had been negotiated a number of years earlier, we ended up in a very difficult disagreement and we had a dispute over the fishing of sockeye salmon.

In 1993 we did achieve agreement. It was a very difficult negotiating process, but we achieved a one-year agreement that was based on a firm U.S. commitment that they would sit down and negotiate what the meaning or interpretation of this equity principle was really all about.

As we approached them, though, through the course of 1993, and again in 1994, there was simply no U.S. willingness to address equity in a meaningful and constructive way.

.1015

The Chairman: Can I interrupt you there?

You've indicated that the last year's negotiations, under the second four-year arrangement, were in 1992. Was that for 1993 or 1992?

Mr. Chamut: That was for their harvest in 1992.

The Chairman: They had 300,000, 350,000 - whatever you told us - that were left to catch and they said they wanted more. Did they in fact take more?

Mr. Chamut: They claimed they would take approximately 850,000, which would have been about 500,000 pieces over what they were entitled to. In the final analysis, because of the actions we took to deny them fishing opportunity, they ended up, by memory, I think taking about 500,000.

The Chairman: So they just violated the agreement? Whenever they don't like it, they just violate it?

Mr. Chamut: That's right.

The Chairman: That's what they did in that case; I shouldn't say ``whenever''. So they basically said too bad, we'll take what we want?

Mr. Chamut: That's right.

The Chairman: You just mentioned that you had very difficult negotiations, but it ended with what? What was the result of the negotiations in 1992?

Mr. Chamut: At the end of 1992 and the beginning of 1993 we ended up with an agreed arrangement on fishing for Fraser sockeye that provided the U.S. with a total of 2.9 million sockeye in 1993.

The Chairman: For one year?

Mr. Chamut: For one year.

The Chairman: So you went from -

Mr. Chamut: We went from 7 million over four years -

The Chairman: We went from 7 million over four years, which is close to 1.7 million, and we bumped it up to -

Mr. Chamut: This is where it gets complicated, Mr. Chairman, because the way in which Fraser sockeye return is that they don't come in at an equal or a similar level each year. They have cycles, and 1992 was a very low year; 1993 was a very abundant year. So one would normally have expected, even with the sharing arrangement that had been in place previously, that you would have still had them catching.... I think in 1989, which is the year that would apply to 1993, they took 2.4 million. So the 2.9 million did represent an increase, but it was because we negotiated a sharing formula that was based on percentage of the return. We had a very abundant return in 1993. Canadian fishermen took in the order of about 15 million sockeye. They took the lion's share, but yes, the U.S. did take more sockeye.

This did have the effect of further skewing the interception imbalance, because in those years our harvest of their stocks continued to decline. This has become a very significant area of disagreement with the United States, and we have been firmly of the position that this equity principle must be defined, it must be mutually agreed, and it must be implemented before we're prepared to again sit down and negotiate fishing plans that inevitably continue this erosion of our balance in interceptions.

To give you some perspective on what we're talking about, we estimate - these are figures from 1994, and this is to some extent disputed by the United States - that the U.S. is harvesting approximately 5 million more salmon than they are entitled to. To put that into better perspective, 5 million in this particular forum would equate to about $100 million. It's a a sizeable amount of revenue. It translates into a sizeable impact on communities. We feel it's an important issue that needs to be resolved and we have been proceeding actively to achieve that.

We went through a very difficult period in 1994 where we imposed a transit fee on U.S. vessels going through the inside passage in Canada, on the west coast. It resulted in a renewed U.S. willingness to sit down and attempt to work this out. There have been very active negotiations conducted between Canada and the United States during the period following the fishery last year, September through to the current time.

.1020

The U.S. has now acknowledged that there is an interception imbalance. That acknowledgement is progress, but they have still been unwilling to offer any constructive proposals to correct it. You can appreciate that a correction will result in some adjustments to U.S. fisheries. Given the structure of the U.S. commission, it's very difficult for the U.S. to agree on how any sort of adjustments will occur. Their fishermen are very firmly opposed to any sort of adjustments that will reduce benefits to their fishermen.

Given the lack of progress to date, and given that we have not achieved the success we expected, we have proposed to the United States that further discussions between our two negotiators do not seem to be particularly productive. We have suggested that there be some form of third-party dispute resolution to deal with this issue.

The proposal currently before the United States is for a mediation process. That proposal has been made to the United States. We expect there will be a response to that proposal this week.

The Chairman: When was it made, Pat?

Mr. Chamut: That proposal was made exactly two weeks ago at a meeting here in Ottawa. We have been expecting a response this week. I actually thought we would have it before this meeting. We expect it possibly tomorrow or early next week. Obviously, the U.S. response to that proposal will guide our next steps.

In the event they are prepared to submit this particular issue to mediation, we will be negotiating things like terms of reference, the schedule, and coming to some agreement on who that mediator might be.

The Chairman: Have we proposed mediation or have we proposed something that is binding? Are we simply at the stage where we're saying we don't think the negotiators can negotiate any more? Are we saying perhaps there's just too much distance and too much history, let's get a mediator? As you know, there is a big difference. A mediation can go on forever as well and be non-conclusive or inconclusive.

Mr. Chamut: The option of arbitration is one that is not acceptable to the United States. It has a host of very pronounced difficulties for them. What we've been looking to as an alternative is mediation. Mediation is not binding but it does provide us with a significantly improved opportunity to expose this issue to a third party. We feel we have a strong case. We feel we have compelling evidence, both in terms of the way in which the interceptions have occurred as well as in terms of the wording of the treaty and the commitments and obligations of both parties.

The Chairman: At the end of the day even mediation may still.... As you've indicated, there is a political problem with the set-up of their commissioners under the U.S. legislation. At the end of the day, I would suspect that it probably will not be the U.S. government that takes the lead. Am I right? Is that the difficulty when dealing with the U.S.? We're negotiating with the U.S. government but in fact they have no power on the board.

Mr. Chamut: The difficulty we have in negotiations within the forum of the salmon commission is exactly what you've laid out. There are regional interests that have vetoes. It makes it very difficult to come to any sort of compromise that would affect any one of those regional interests.

But the United States government is signatory to a treaty. Under the enabling legislation that was set up, the U.S. government does have an overall responsibility. I recall that the legislation stipulates that - and I'm rephrasing or paraphrasing the legislation - if it appears that the United States may be in breach of its obligations under this international treaty then it may assume a much more influential role in becoming involved in finding solutions. There is an override in their enabling legislation.

It's my view that with mediation we would have a much stronger degree of influence on the U.S. government as opposed to dealing with it within the salmon commission, where you have this particular legislative voting structure. We expect there will be a large amount of activity on this file over the next month or so because it's evident that time is becoming short. The fishing season in B.C. for salmon will normally start at the end of June or the beginning of July.

.1025

It's our view that we would like to have things negotiated - I will not say resolved - at least to have a better framework within which to develop fishing plans before the start of the season.

The Chairman: While these negotiations go on, what kinds of arrangements are made for fishing in the interim? What happened last year and what's likely to happen this year?

Mr. Chamut: Last year we had domestic fishing plans in place. The intent was to provide for a fishing plan that would meet our responsibilities for conservation at the same time as it provided opportunities for our commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fishermen.

We would intend in the event...it's probably premature to speculate at this point, but obviously if there were no agreement we would have to look at developing domestic fishing plans. I would make the comment that there are a number of very pressing conservation problems that have to be addressed. Our fishing plan would, without question, have as its primary objective the achievement of our domestic conservation objectives, and at the same time we would not be prepared to fish in such a manner as to jeopardize some of the weaker United States stocks, particularly those headed for Washington and Oregon rivers, which tend to be largely coho and chinook and in many cases are in a largely fragile state.

The Chairman: Do you have any worries that if indeed that happens and if we do take a position that we're conservationists as the first requirement of any plan...are you hopeful the United States, if they had to do their own fishing strategy because these negotiations didn't get under way, would be equally concerned about conservation of Canadian stocks?

Mr. Chamut: I have to offer a view that we'd probably have a degree of success with our colleagues in Washington and Oregon, but I would not offer any particular assurances about our colleagues in Alaska. Many times we have found it very difficult to deal with the Alaskan fisheries because they have been resistant to efforts to try to modify their practices in order to accommodate Canadian concerns.

Mr. Cummins: A problem you have had is that they are not identifying fish caught while directed to Canadian rivers as a rule, are they?

Mr. Chamut: They have very few large populations of sockeye. It's safe to say that in their net fisheries at district 104 and at district 101, immediately north of the border, the sockeye they catch in those rivers will be of Canadian origin. It is identified in subsequent work as of Canadian origin because there are protocols between Canada and the United States that oblige them to provide us with information on stock composition. It's on that basis that we can actually make calculations about what the interception rates are.

We have advanced a very long distance in being able to identify where fish are coming from. We can identify them by river of origin, so at the end of each year we're able to tally up what the interception rates have been in areas such as district 104; the Noyes Island fishery.

Mr. Cummins: I was thinking in particular about a question of the chairman's on chinook, coho, and steelhead bound for the Skeena and caught off Noyes Island. I don't think I've ever seen any actual numbers on that suggesting there could be a large number of, say, steelhead that are caught off Noyes Island and that are bound for Canadian waters. I didn't think that was reported there, for one thing.

Mr. Chamut: The treaty itself has a primary focus on the main species of Pacific salmon. Steelhead is mentioned only as an incidental species. In the last three years, given the concern we've had about Skeena steelhead, we've been insisting the Alaskans provide us with information and put in place measures to try to conserve steelhead that are taken in all of their fisheries, but primarily the Noyes Island net fishery and the Tree Point net fishery, which is gillnet.

We have been getting more information. I would not indicate to you we are satisfied, by any means, but there has been some improvement. The problem in large measure is that the Alaskans do not keep a separate inventory of steelhead, as I think you're implying. It's presented us with a problem, but we have made some progress in insisting that they count and provide us with that data.

.1030

Mr. McGuire: Does Alaska have good salmon rivers?

Mr. Chamut: Speaking in broad terms, the Alaskan fishery is the largest salmon fishery in the world. They catch probably in excess of eight to ten times what B.C. catches in total production. But most of their harvest comes from places like Bristol Bay, which is well to the north in the upper part of the Gulf of Alaska. This treaty covers the area called southeastern Alaska.

The Alaskan production is largely pink salmon, some coho and some chinook; they have very few sockeye populations. They have a number of small streams and small producers, but they don't have any single system like the Fraser or the rivers in Bristol Bay that they can say is a major producer of salmon.

Southeastern Alaska relies largely on pink salmon of their own production and to a large extent on sockeye, chinook and coho from Canada.

Mr. McGuire: In Oregon and Washington, the Columbia is not a good river any more, apparently.

Mr. Chamut: It's proving very difficult to produce salmon when there is something in the order of thirty-odd dams on the main stem of the river. Their production has declined considerably because of the environmental impact that has occurred in the Columbia and because of a period of pronounced drought. There has been a very dry period for the last number of years.

The environmental impact along with the dams and the reduced water have really created some problems in producing salmon from the Columbia, which is really sad, because at one point the Columbia River rivalled the Fraser in its salmon production.

Mr. McGuire: So they're actually catching Canadian fish. In Washington and Oregon, their fishery is a Canadian fishery. They're not producing anything themselves.

Mr. Chamut: The Oregon fishery is largely sport-based. Not that many people now fish commercially, because there's not a sufficiency of stock to sustain a viable commercial enterprise. There are some trolling activities around the mouth of the Columbia, but they're becoming much curtailed.

A lot of the people who once fished commercially in Washington and Oregon are now fishing commercially in Alaska, because for a long period of time there was no limited entry on the commercial fishery in Alaska. Many people fish in Alaska who live in Seattle or in places along the Pacific northwest. They migrate during the salmon season up to Alaska and pursue their fishery there.

Mr. McGuire: So the American fishermen we're concerned about are all based in Alaska?

Mr. Chamut: Many, but I wouldn't say all. I don't want to imply that. If I had to give an estimate, I would probably say in the range of 20% to 25% of those who fish in southeastern Alaska are from the Pacific northwest.

There is still a very viable commercial fishery by Washington state fishermen, though. If you look at the map you'll see the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is at a southern portion of Vancouver Island. The Fraser sockeye in particular migrate through that strait, where they're subject to harvest by American fishermen.

There is still a very viable commercial fishery for both aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people in that area, but again, it's almost entirely dependent on Canadian stocks.

Mr. McGuire: Can they fish the whole strait or just their side of the strait?

Mr. Chamut: Up to the border. It's not permissible for them to come across.

The Chairman: I know it's all second nature to John over here, but is it possible to give us some information that would indicate, by species and by origin, the catch and how it's divvied up between Canadian and U.S. fishermen? I'm thinking specifically of the Fraser sockeye, which we've talked about a lot. What are we talking about here?

.1035

I'd like to start getting a sense of what this equity clause means. I'm a little confused. I don't know what equity means. I guess we can't come to an agreement on what the definition should be and that's why the negotiations have been inconclusive.

What the heck does equity mean? If 80% of the sockeye is of Canadian origin out of the Canadian river systems, but they get 50% of it, how is that equitable? How does this work?

Mr. Chamut: That 50% sharing arrangement was under the old treaty, the one that was -

The Chairman: I just use that as a figure. I know that.

How did we get to this point? The Canadian provincial and federal governments decided they wanted to preserve the environment for these fish. We haven't gone the way of the U.S. on the Columbia; they recognized there was an economic advantage to building the dams and that it could destroy habitat. They made a decision, and they've gotten the benefit of that decision with cheap power for industrial sources as well as consumers.

In Canada we've done things a bit differently. We've decided not to go the full industrialization route. We haven't gone in the direction of using these river systems. We've decided we want to preserve the environment.

They get the industrial benefit down there, with cheaper power because they've dammed up the river system. We've gone a different route, but we let them catch our fish, and a lot of it, apparently.

If you want to comment on that, fine, but could you also show us the breakdown on the various salmon species? Just run through it, if you can get it for us. Tell us how much is caught and what the split is. Give us some sense of the origin of that fish.

You must have that. You might even have it on a map or something. I think there was some sort of map in a briefing I got at one point.

Mr. Chamut: Mr. Chairman, it would be very difficult for me to give you that kind of split off the top of my head. I could probably give you a general sense.

The Chairman: Well, is there something else I should ask for? That might have been the wrong thing to ask for. I think you know what I'm looking for.

I'm just trying to get some sense of how much is caught, how much is caught by each nation's or state's fishermen, as well as where most of that fish comes from.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): In proportion to the origins.

The Chairman: Yes, in proportion to the origins.

John, do you know what I'm asking?

Mr. Cummins: I think part of the problem is there are trade-offs, and this is what Mr. Chamut was talking about at the beginning.

On the west coast of Vancouver Island, for example, the Canadian troll fleet traditionally has caught a lot of chinook and coho bound for the Columbia River. That fishery has declined, so that west coast troll fleet has had to target Canadian sockeye. That's part of the trade-off. They don't want to recognize the decline in the Canadian catch or recognize that we have given up this fishery.

So then what comes into play too, to a certain extent, is the value of the fish. When you deal with the equity principle, how do you establish a value? What is the value if it was commercially caught? What is the value if it was caught by sports fishermen? What is the value of a sockeye equivalent? And so on. The whole thing gets very muddy.

Another complicating factor is the fact that not only do you talk about the origin of the fish, but if those fish pass through American waters, they are entitled to something simply because they swim through American waters. Is that not correct?

Mr. Chamut: They claim it.

Mr. Cummins: Yes.

Mr. Chamut: It's the pasturage concept.

Mr. Cummins: That is another thing that muddies this issue.

The Chairman: But, John, when the equity issue was first put in this new agreement, it meant Canadian fishermen would catch an equal amount of fish bound for the Columbia River and the U.S. rivers as American fishermen would catch of fish bound for our rivers. Is that what it was originally meant to do?

Mr. Chamut: Let me try to walk you through it, because it gets extremely complicated. Muddy is not quite an accurate description. It's muddier than muddy. At times the debate seems to be like angels on the head of a pin. But let me try to give you some sense of it.

.1040

I know what you're getting at. Let's start by making an assumption. I don't think this is necessarily a valid assumption, but for the sake of illustration, let's assume that in 1985 the fishing regimes that were put in place were equitable.

Under the fishing regimes at the time, there were arrangements that would have seen Alaska taking about 500,000 Canadian sockeye in district 104. They would have taken about 120,000 in district 101.

The Chairman: Would this all have been outlined in the agreement? Does it go right down to the zones and districts, as we do on the east coast?

Mr. Chamut: This is a copy of the treaty; we can provide other copies. The treaty text itself runs for about eight or ten pages on the bilateral commitments made.

Mr. McGuire: Is that the 1985 treaty?

Mr. Chamut: That's right.

It runs about nine pages, essentially, and lays out the framework for the development of more detailed annexes, which describe the arrangements in each fishery. As you can see, there are just a few pages at the front and a whole bunch of pages at the back. The pages at the back stipulate very precisely what the arrangements will be for how the fisheries will be conducted in various parts of the coast.

So in 1985 there was an agreed set of arrangements that stipulated how the fisheries would be conducted. Those fisheries would have set catch targets and upper limits that defined what each party could catch in certain areas.

Just to give you some sense of what's been happening, let's look at an assumption in rough figures that the United States could have taken about half a million Canadian sockeye in district 104. Currently I think they're taking well in excess of twice that amount of sockeye, so they're taking about a million.

Let's look at the west coast of Vancouver Island, where we catch United States coho and United States chinook along with our own fish. It's all mixed; you can't tell one from the other when you're in the water. When the treaty was signed it said Canada could catch 360,000 chinook salmon and 1.8 million coho.

As I said earlier, a decline in production has occurred in the United States rivers. So our catch of U.S. coho in 1993, to give you some comparison, was half of what we were entitled to catch, because they simply weren't there. At the same time, we had a total catch of about 200,000 chinook. Our stipulated ceiling was 360,000.

We've been managing in such a way that we're not trying to catch every last fish that's out there, because to do so would be contrary to conservation. We have been managing our fishery to abundance, restricting the number of days fished and the like. It results in a significantly reduced catch for our fishermen in those areas.

At the same time as our catch of U.S. stocks has declined in those fisheries, the American catch has been growing. It's grown in Alaska and it's grown recently in Fraser sockeye, because once that eight-year sharing arrangement was gone, the United States looked with a fair degree of greed on the amount of fish Canadian fishermen were catching. They wanted a share of it, which is not surprising, because the fish in many cases swim right by their doorstep.

So a number of factors have simply eroded the number of American fish we catch and increased the number of Canadian fish they catch. It's tilted the scale in a way we think is contrary to the equity principle.

The Chairman: I think you did frame it for me, but that being said, visuals are always better for me than reams of paper. Is there a map or something that you can give us that would give us some indication? I know a saw a map years ago that would give us some indication. Some people have some stuff; I don't have it.

.1045

Mr. Chamut: Mr. Chairman, what I would point you to is some of the information that was in the brochure. This has been circulated. It doesn't deal with individual fisheries. It deals generally and it talks about what the interception rates have been in Alaska. It talks about the increasing trend of interceptions in Alaska and it talks about the value of the interceptions. Over here it shows in a graphic way the decline in Canadian interceptions of U.S. fish so you can see which way the trends are going.

This is one of the backgrounders in the grey folder that's been circulated and it's called Pacific Salmon Interception. It starts with a narrative that describes what the graphs mean, and the graphs themselves provide some depiction of what's been happening with respect to interceptions of stocks in the various fisheries.

Mr. McGuire: Is that district 104?

Mr. Chamut: District 104 is the same fishery that is conducted in Alaska, and you're pointing to it, just north of the border.

Mr. McGuire: So 101 is below that?

Mr. Chamut: District 101 is north of the border in Alaska.

Mr. Kowal: It's the black line that comes across.

Mr. Chamut: That's the border, and Noyes Island is the island immediately north of the border.

Mr. McGuire: That large island?

Mrs. Payne: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question a little bit unrelated to this particular point. Were the penalties that were imposed last year at all effective? Why were they lifted?

Mr. Chamut: Do you mean the transit fee?

Mrs. Payne: On the American boats.

Mr. Chamut: The transit fee was $1,500 for a one-way fee. Were they effective? They were certainly effective in getting the attention of the U.S. administration. They were not intended to actively interfere with the United States or in any way deny them from transiting or going through from south to north or vice versa. The intent of that fee was to demonstrate Canadian concern with respect to the way in which the United States was not, in our view, meeting its obligations pursuant to the treaty. I think it was very successful. It was imposed for a period of about two weeks and gained the United States awareness of the Canadian concern. It resulted in the elevation of the issue and the appointment of a new negotiator, which in my....

Mr. McGuire: Mr. Fortier?

Mr. Chamut: No, in the United States. Mr. Fortier has been our negotiator now for a couple of years.

It provided us with a more cooperative opportunity to negotiate a resolution to this dispute.

The Chairman: So you're telling us basically that if there is no conclusion to this negotiation there is most likely to be more pressure from American fishermen on stocks that are from Canadian rivers.

Mr. Chamut: I think we would expect to see Alaskans as well as Puget Sound fishermen fishing on Canadian stocks.

The Chairman: Any other questions?

Mr. Wells: When does the season open?

Mr. Chamut: We would normally expect the season to open in late June. The first commercial fishery would be conducted in late June, and it would continue through until possibly November.

.1050

Mr. Wells: What would happen if no agreement is reached?

Mr. Chamut: In the event there's no agreement, then there still will be a fishery, which will have to be conducted according to a management plan that will be laid out to meet domestic objectives. That's what we will do in the absence of any agreement.

Mr. Wells: Will you have the same sort of transit fees and other measures that came into play last year?

Mr. Chamut: I don't think I'd like to speculate at this point on what may or may not happen. I think the main track at this point is to achieve a negotiated resolution to this issue.

Mr. Wells: What were the other measures beside the transit fee? There were other things that were implemented.

Mr. Chamut: The transit fee was the main issue that was used to get the attention of the United States, but we also, through the course of the year, developed a fishing plan that was intended to prevent the United States from catching a large allocation of Fraser sockeye.

I'm not sure there were other measures that were actually implemented; there were many discussed.

Mr. Wells: How did you prevent them from doing that?

Mr. Chamut: Last year we had a migratory route for sockeye that largely came down Johnstone Strait. They migrate toward the Fraser River. If you look at the map, you'll see that the migratory route was through the inside, as opposed to coming around the outside. When they come through that way, they are not as susceptible by interception by the United States. So we harvested a large number of fish in Johnstone Strait and it had the effect of reducing the fishing opportunities for the United States fleet.

Mrs. Payne: Why?

Mr. Chamut: Because the fish come down Johnstone Strait and, at least in theory, turn left into the Fraser River before they reach United States waters. Now that's not absolutely true, because they mill around a little as they approach the river. But the theory is that they do head down. The majority of them do head up the river without migrating extensively through U.S. waters, where they would be susceptible to harvest.

Mr. Wells: We got them before the Americans had an opportunity to catch them. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Chamut: We caught a number of them before the Americans had that opportunity.

Mr. McGuire: Is fish farming going to be an issue out there? I mean the competition between wild fishing and fish farming.

Mr. Chamut: Yes, sir. There has been a concern that fish farming will inevitably conflict with the wild fishery because of concerns that fish farms may introduce diseases, that environmental impacts may be associated with the placement of the farms, and also that the escape of farmed salmon into the water may result in undesirable competition with Pacific salmon.

There have been a number of issues like this that have been debated, and there have been a number of reviews that have been carried out by the provincial government, which is responsible for regulating aquaculture and the licensing aspect of aquaculture.

Mrs. Payne: So the escape of farmed salmon into the wild is a concern.

Mr. Chamut: There are people who have expressed concern about two elements. One is that, of Pacific salmon that are farmed in cages, there's a concern that the escape of large numbers of Pacific salmon could alter the genetic make-up of a stock of fish from a particular area. Those concerns have not yet been documented in any way, but there's at least -

Mrs. Payne: Has there been any evidence to indicate that -

Mr. Chamut: No, there's no evidence to indicate that this has happened or that it is a really strong concern. It is a concern in theory. I don't want to diminish it, because if you have a large escape and that escape populates a river, it could have an impact on the resident stock in a small area. There's no evidence yet to confirm that this has occurred or will occur, but it's a concern that people have identified, and it is being examined.

.1055

Mrs. Payne: Who is voicing the concern? Are they fisher people or scientists...?

Mr. Chamut: A variety of people have expressed concern. For example, local residents in areas where fish farms are in place have expressed concern about the alienation of the waterfront. Commercial fishermen have expressed concerns about some of the environmental impacts. Others are concerned about the possible effects on marine mammals because devices are used to keep seals, small porpoises and whales and the like away from sea pens, and they may have an environmental impact.

I want to come back to the second concern. I talked about Pacific salmon escapes. There is also a large number of farms that are farming Atlantic salmon, and in the west coast context you can appreciate there is a concern about escapes and whether or not those fish, if they did escape, could resettle in a watershed in B.C.

The Chairman: There's also a concern in B.C. that they might apply for TAGS on the west coast or something like that.

Mr. Chamut: We've had some experience with salmon ``TAG-ing''. That was many years ago and I think I'd just as soon forget about that experience.

Mr. McGuire: Do the Atlantic and Pacific salmon interbreed?

Mr. Chamut: No, they don't. I think the concern is really about establishing a resident population of a species that really doesn't belong in the Pacific Ocean. But again, there's no evidence to indicate that has occurred. Some Atlantic salmon have been noted. You get five to seven reports on an annual basis of Atlantics being noted. There has been no evidence of any spawning activity, but it is a concern and it is being reviewed. I believe the province has initiated a review of fish farming in the last number of weeks.

Mr. Wells: Why would it be a concern?

Mr. McGuire: It's a better animal in the Atlantic.

Mr. Chamut: People on the west coast believe the Atlantic salmon is an inferior product.

Mr. McGuire: They're totally wrong.

Mr. Chamut: I certainly offer no personal opinion in that regard.

But I think the main concern is the species is not intended to be there naturally. Any time you introduce something as an exotic species, there may be unintended impacts. At this point I don't think anyone has suggested what those might be, other than just simply a general concern that you don't want exotic species in an area where they really don't belong.

Many people have said it would be a good thing if they could have Atlantic salmon because it would create angling opportunities and the like, but I don't think that's the view of the majority.

The Chairman: Perhaps John could give us a sense of the value of the various species of salmon. Some of it is really cheap and some of it garners a fairly good price on the market. Is there some pricing information you can give us?

Mr. Chamut: We can pull that together. In general terms, pink salmon tend to be of low value. They are largely produced for the can, although there's increasing interest in fresh and frozen, but the value is low. Sockeye salmon tend to be the valuable commercial species, and I would hesitate to even give a price because it has ranged from $4.50 in 1988 to 90¢ in 1993. It's highly variable depending on the market. With chum salmon, again it depends on the quality. It can range from 50¢ in some cases, if it's close to the river and soft and black, to $1.50 or possibly $2 at times. You're looking at that range.

The Chairman: I think Alan told us there is some information in the briefing book, so that's one less thing you have to search out.

It's interesting to note that at the Superstore in Dartmouth they were selling pink, frozen, whole salmon for 99¢ a pound. You just wonder how they could even fly it out, or however they get it out, from British Columbia all the way to Nova Scotia for 99¢ a pound. They were being scooped up by the basketful.

Mr. Chamut: Yes, it's an excellent product.

The Chairman: Yes, a very good product.

.1100

Mr. Cummins: Just as a comment, I think it's a product that's underpriced. Whether it's marketing by the companies or what it is, I can never understand that because it's a good fish.

The Chairman: Yes, I agree with you. It's a great fish.

Mr. Cummins: There are people who prefer it. My son won't eat sockeye. He says the flavour is too strong, yet if I bring home a pink and put it on the barbeque, he will lap it up. It's really strange that -

The Chairman: It's 99¢ a pound in Dartmouth.

Mrs. Payne: Salmon?

The Chairman: For pink salmon.

Are there any other questions on this, or are we going to zip over to the next item? What else have you got for us, Pat?

Mr. Chamut: What I was planning to do was just walk quickly through...there's a document, I believe, in the briefing material that talks about the status of implementation of the Fraser recommendations, from the report that was recently tabled by Ambassador Fraser.

There are 35 recommendations and each one of them has been accepted by the department. We are now moving actively to implement each one.

The first recommendation, I think, was just a general admonition to the department to ensure that the constitutional responsibilities we have for conservation are maintained and are of paramount consideration. Basically, each one of the recommendations that follows adheres to this in some way or another, so it will be administered and implemented by the responses to all of the other recommendations that are there.

The second recommendation dealt with the initiation of a process for dealing with many problems in the commercial fishery in particular: overcapitalization, the problem of too many boats chasing too few fish, and also allocations between various user groups. What is under way in this recommendation is that a group called the Pacific Round Table, which is a group of individuals representing all the various stakeholders, has been formed. They had an initial meeting on April 20 and April 21 for the purpose of looking at ways to try to reduce the overcapacity problem in the commercial salmon fishery.

So that exercise has commenced. There has been good progress made to try to address a very difficult issue.

The Chairman: What is the extent of that problem of overcapacity within the Pacific commercial salmon fleet, capacity-wise? On the east coast we're trying to take 50% out. Is there a figure, a goal?

Mr. Chamut: There hasn't been a particular goal set. I think it's safe to say that with the fleet capacity that exists in the Pacific, it far exceeds what's necessary for harvesting. It has become increasingly sophisticated over the last few decades, and clearly there is the classic problem of too many boats and not enough fish.

When you have a fleet of the capacity we have in the Pacific, it results in potential threats to conservation because it has a very large killing capacity. It also results in a lot of competition among the various licence holders and needless investment of money back into vessels and equipment that doesn't necessarily improve the individual's place; it just keeps him or her up to the same status as their colleagues. By investing in your boat, you don't create more fish, necessarily.

There's a very large concern about world salmon prices and about the ability of the resource to sustain the existing fleet. So there's a need to try to look at the number of participants, the number of licences, and this exercise is under way to try to find some consensus among the user groups themselves as to how this overall industry viability will be addressed.

.1105

Mrs. Payne: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, a very relevant question? How many female fishers are there?

Mr. Chamut: Actually, there is quite a number.

Mrs. Payne: Are there?

Mr. Chamut: When I say him or her, it is not just a nod to political correctness. There definitely is a number of people who fish quite actively.

Mrs. Payne: Do they own enterprises?

Mr. Chamut: Yes, they own enterprises, as well as fish alongside their partners.

Mrs. Payne: I wasn't aware of that. Thank you. It's nice to hear there's equality somewhere.

Mr. McGuire: Are quotas being considered? This is not a quota fishery, is it?

Mr. Chamut: No, this is a competitive fishery.

Mr. McGuire: This is a case of getting as many as fast as you can.

Mr. Chamut: That's right.

Mr. McGuire: So that makes people buy more modern equipment.

Mr. Chamut: That's right.

The general theory is that if you can put a device on your boat that allows you to catch more fish faster, it will give you an advantage - which it will for a short period of time. But then everyone basically ends up doing the same thing, so you're back where you started and you're catching no more fish because there's a finite quantity of fish to be caught.

Mr. McGuire: Why isn't there a quota?

Mr. Chamut: A salmon fishery is not amenable to quotas because you're not dealing with something where you can accurately say at the start of the season how many fish will be available for harvest in 1995. It's not like groundfish on the west coast, where you can go out and you have a population that can be assessed. You can identify how much can be taken safely. Then at the start of the year you can catch 100,000 tonnes and set a quota for each individual licence holder.

With Pacific salmon, it is a competitive fishery. It is managed on a real time basis, and you never have an accurate prediction of exactly how many fish are coming back. So what you have to do is use the information. As the salmon migrate down the coast, you have to assess what the run size is and open and close areas, depending on your estimates of abundance. You can't set a quota because you could quite easily set a quota that would be either too much or not enough, based on the number of fish that actually return. So you have to essentially have a very different way of managing. Quotas would not be amenable to the salmon fishery.

The Chairman: At the beginning of the season when you come in with your plan for the fishery, you come in assuming certain things. You assume the size of the stock and then you set a total maximum catch limit in the fishery. Is that how it's done?

Mr. Chamut: We generally start at the other end of it and we look at what we expect the total run size to be. Then we set our escapement target. In other words, we decide how many fish we need to have on the spawning grounds and work back from there, and develop our management plans based on delivery of fish into the river to meet aboriginal needs, plus spawning escapement.

The actual conduct of the fishery is managed based on the information we collect through things like test fisheries and real time assessment techniques. It gives us an understanding of how many fish are coming back and how long we can have an opening in a particular area without compromising these escapement flows to the river.

The Chairman: So you open the areas as the fish migrate down.

Mr. Chamut: That's right.

The Chairman: It's pretty fluid then, isn't it?

Mr. Chamut: Yes, that's a good way of describing it. It's a very active fishery. You cannot set a management plan in place and say we're going to open this area for two days at this time of the week, do that at this time of the year, and say this is your management plan and just do it. It's a very different fishery, one in which you've got your hands on the controls all the time. You have to make management decisions based on the information. The feedback loops are almost instantaneous. They have to be in order to open and close. It becomes a very challenging fishery to manage because you have real time information feedback loops that are necessary in order to make decisions.

Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): On that same point the chairman brought forward and the model we presently use, working from the amount of escapement required and working backwards, one of the fundamental themes of the Fraser report is that we need to put in more contingency plans as the number of uncertainties increase, and that too often we've been too close to the line. We have to rethink the modelling that's presently being utilized and take into consideration the number of uncertainties that exist out there that may not have been taken into consideration.

.1110

I guess we're reviewing the model that's presently utilized to take into consideration more of the uncertainties that exist and to ensure that, on the escapement, we have a model with contingency plans to take into consideration things that can go wrong.

Is that some of the new modelling that you're looking at in light of the Fraser report?

Mr. Chamut: Yes, there's a number of those things. The committee will probably see them reflected here, Mr. Chairman, as members go through.

I think it's worthwhile commenting that the approach the department will be taking to managing salmon in 1995 would best be characterized as being risk adverse, or precautionary. At the outset, we're taking very conservative estimates of run size. We are going to be ensuring that all of the models used to predict abundance are recalibrated. We have some new work that's been done jointly with our scientists and with staff from the Pacific Salmon Commission, so there will be new approaches used. We have new equipment being installed to give us better understanding of run size in various parts of the system.

There's a system now, or a process we're installing, to try to give us feedback on temperatures in the Fraser River, which is one of the areas that was emphasized in the Fraser report. What we'll be able to do is modify the management systems in accordance with information we get back on water temperature in the river. Water temperature has an impact on mortality and spawning success, as the fish migrate through the freshwater system. We're going to have various temperature monitoring systems in the river in order that we can adjust as necessary to make sure we do meet our escapement targets. There is a variety of those sorts of issues that will be introduced into our management system to avoid some of the difficulties we had in 1994.

Mr. Wells: I'm just trying to figure out in my own mind why you said it would not be an advantage for any particular fisherman to put extra equipment to fish it hard at the beginning. As a competitive fishery, there are no quotas. You could shut it down any time. But you said there was no advantage to fish it hard at the beginning by individual fishermen. I don't understand that.

Mr. Chamut: Okay, I should probably explain it a little further. There is no advantage to the fishermen over the long term.

Mr. Wells: Are you talking about the season or over the term?

Mr. Chamut: No, I'm talking over a period of a couple of years, likely. If an individual purchases equipment that makes him or her more efficient - and I guess I'd use the example of a tilt table on the back of a seine vessel. This is a device that allows a seine captain to pull the net out of the water onto the boat much quicker. It used to be that if you had a large amount of fish caught in the net, you had to take them out by hand with another net, a smaller net. With a tilt table on the back, it allows the stern of the vessel to be declined somewhat. You pull the net onto the incline and then you tilt it back up and you can get the fish on board much quicker. So it allows the fisherman...instead of making 15 sets of his net in a day, maybe he can do 20.

We had these for the first time, as far as I can recall, in the mid 1980s, and I don't think too many boats have the capability that haven't moved to that technology. So what was a competitive advantage at one point in time no longer is one. The fisherman has invested a certain amount of money to modify his vessel to provide this capacity and very quickly sees the rest of the fleet catches on. Everybody is in that same sort of catching up process.

Mr. Wells: Doesn't he catch it quicker and therefore has less expense of his own to...? If he can do it in less trips, does he not have less expense in catching the same amount of fish?

Mr. Chamut: No, his actual expenses are going to increase. He will actually -

Mr. Wells: After the one-time capital investment, they will go down.

Mr. Chamut: Yes.

.1115

The whole advantage in the Pacific fishery is to be able to fish as quickly as possible and to be able to move from one opening to another as quickly as you can. So people are investing in vessels that allow them, in the same fishery in particular, to get as many sets of their net as possible, as well as to travel from one area of the coast to another so they can participate in a number of openings. It's not very long before your whole fleet tends to start to develop that capacity.

If an individual is able to have that kind of equipment at the outset, they may very well be able to catch more fish more quickly during that one season, but it's not very long before that competitive advantage is no longer there, because it's a technique that's being practised by pretty well everyone in the fleet.

Mr. Wells: We have the same situation on the east coast. We have high-tech draggers and then we have a relatively lower-tech hook and line sort of fishing.

You would just have everybody fishing the same kind and size of net with the same number of nets and no difference in the size of the boats. Everybody is the same. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Chamut: No, they're not all the same. I don't want to imply that. Look at within a particular sector. I'm talking here largely about the seiners, who are the people with very large nets that they use to encircle a school of fish. I think the fleet there generally tends to be fairly sophisticated in technological terms.

I don't want to give you the impression that every vessel has every one of these characteristics, because they don't. But, by and large, you have a very sophisticated fleet. And a competitive advantage enjoyed by one is fairly quickly adopted by others. I think that's really the point that I want to make.

Mr. Wells: I'm realizing very quickly why we're going to the west coast. I'm used to dealing with the fishery on the east coast.

I shouldn't say this perhaps while we're being taped, but I'm not even sure what kind of boat you're using. Are you using a large boat? Are you using those over 65 feet long? Are there any small boats in the fishery?

Mr. Chamut: Yes, there are. There are three main types of vessels employed in the commercial fishery. I talked earlier about the seine fleet. There's a range of sizes. You can get a seine vessel that could be 50 feet long. They can be a little bit smaller than that, but there are not many of them, and they're not particularly safe. If you look at a seiner, it runs from 50 to 85 or 90 feet. The biggest would be about 90 feet. There are not many of those.

You also have gill-netters, which tend to be much smaller and less sophisticated. They operate by simply fixing gill-nets in the water column. They tend the nets by running back and forth. They generally tend to be in the range of 30 feet.

You also have a vessel called the troller. These vessels are free-ranging. They fish with hook and line. They trail lines from poles off the side of the vessel. They move through the water to catch species by hook and line. They tend to range in size from maybe 30 feet up to 50 or 60 feet. Some of the really big ones, which have freezing capacity on board, are 50 to 60 feet.

So those are the three main types of commercial salmon boats. They do range in size as well as their -

Mr. Wells: Could you give me the first one again?

Mr. Chamut: Seine.

Mr. Wells: So that would be the same sort of thing as a herring seine?

Mr. Chamut: Yes. They have a very large net on a drum in the back of the boat. They deploy it around a school of fish.

Mr. Wells: You don't have the dragger that we have in the groundfish fishery in the east coast?

Mr. Chamut: Not for salmon, but we do have -

Mr. Wells: I'm dealing with salmon.

Mr. Chamut: Just for salmon, we only have the three types I mentioned, but we do have groundfish fishermen as well.

Mr. Wells: Yes. I understand that, but I'm just dealing with salmon. Thank you.

The Chairman: Does anybody else have a question?

Mrs. Payne: Just a short one, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

You mentioned water temperature. On the east coast, we're having quite a lot of discussion with regard to water temperature changes. Are you having the same phenomenon on the west coast?

Mr. Chamut: Yes, we are. It tends to be somewhat different in the sense that, in the last couple of years, there's been a tendency for warm water to move further north than it normally does. That has brought with it other species of fish that are not normally seen off the coast, in particular mackerel. The school of mackerel on the west coast is very large. When the warm water moves to the north, it brings with it these large schools of mackerel. The impact of that is that they tend to eat large numbers of juvenile salmon.

.1120

I think in 1991, 1992 and 1994 we had large events where warm water came north and brought with it mackerel. The mackerel are right there at the mouths of rivers and coastal inlets at exactly the same time that juvenile salmon are swimming out from their rivers of origin. Because of that, we are expecting very large decreases in production from some of our river systems on the west coast of Vancouver Island in 1995 and 1996.

So it's a different phenomena, but nonetheless -

Mrs. Payne: It's sort of a reverse situation here.

Mr. Chamut: It's different, but nonetheless it still creates a problem, because we are going to have to do some extraordinary measures to ensure that our conservation objectives are met in some systems.

Mrs. Payne: Is there a mackerel fishery there now?

Mr. Chamut: No, there's no mackerel fishery because they are not normally present in B.C. waters.

We did explore the possibility when they were there of having a fishery for them, but it was not very successful for a number of reasons. Nobody in the commercial fishery was particularly interested in pursuing them. There was no market for them. And they do tend to deteriorate fairly quickly if they're not processed quickly.

Thirdly, there was a concern that by fishing mackerel you would have incidental harvest of other species like salmon. But given the size of the mackerel population, when you talk about the possibility of fishing it to try to protect salmon, it is a practical impossibility.

We were talking in terms of a school of mackerel that was, as I recall, the size of Prince Edward Island and it numbered in the hundreds of millions of fish. The capacity to fish them is not there. Even using the entire fleet would not have had a real effect on the stock.

I hesitate to think what we would have done had we been successful with a mass of mackerel that size and no market for them.

Mrs. Payne: There are lots of markets in the Orient.

Mr. Chamut: It's a market that would have to be developed, and, unfortunately, it's an event that occurs so infrequently that it was simply not feasible to gear up and try to do anything. We did explore it in detail, but it was not feasible.

Mr. Chairman, the recommendations in Fraser are itemized in the document before you. In view of the time, I'm not sure it would be productive for me to go through them all.

The Chairman: I don't think you should. But if there are one or two that you think are the most controversial or the ones that most specifically address the problems the commission found, could you point them out and tell us about them?

We can all read this stuff. We just want you to give us the flavour as to what are most likely to be the issues. If there are 35 recommendations, maybe everybody likes all 35, or maybe there are one or two that are causing some difficulty with some sectors or some competing issues.

Mr. Chamut: First of all, we talked earlier about what I would call the precautionary management approach. I know there is a number of recommendations directed to the department that will oblige us to take action or to conduct our management program in such way as to ensure that the conservation targets are met. It will mean taking a fairly careful approach to how the fisheries are opened and closed, and that will create some degree of change to the way we manage and also to the reaction from the fleet. I do expect there will be people who will question some of the management decisions.

The Chairman: Any comments before he goes on?

Mr. Cummins: That's just summer sport, isn't it?

Mr. Chamut: I was going to say business as usual. I should not go on.

.1125

One of the issues that I would highlight is recommendation number 10. There has been a recommendation that was advanced to create something called a Pacific Fisheries Conservation Council. It was the intent in this report to have it act as a public watchdog to report to ministers - in this case, ministers would imply both federal and provincial - and to consult with the public about conservation issues.

This is an idea that we have to some extent on the east coast with the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council, which provides recommendations annually to the minister on quotas and on conservation targets.

On the west coast they're proposing one with, I think, a slightly different role. To this point in the discussion I think it's fair to say that the stakeholder groups have not been receptive to this particular council being created. Our intent is to consider the idea jointly with the stakeholders in this Pacific Round Table group, and this will be an agenda item for consultation in the workshops to be held in the fall.

The Chairman: Why are some of the stakeholders not supportive? Or why are they cautious?

Mr. Chamut: I think there's a variety of reasons and I think it would be something you might wish to explore with them individually. I don't think I should speak on their behalf. I think there are some who are concerned about creating another ``bureaucracy that will oversee elements of the fishery''.

The proposal here will have cost implications, and they are concerned about complicating an already complicated system. I think that would probably be a theme that many of them would enunciate.

Mr. Wells: Would that be the equivalent to our FRCC?

Mr. Chamut: To some extent, but I believe the role that's envisioned for this group is much broader than the FRCC.

The Chairman: When you say much broader, tell me what that means.

Mr. Chamut: Mr. Fraser recommended that the group serve as a public watchdog in the sense that it would consult with the public, it would provide advice to ministers, it would have a more independent role -

The Chairman: Than the FRCCs.

Mr. Chamut: - that would be supported by a staff of, I think he said, 8 to 10 people. They would have their own independent staff capacity for dealing with fisheries conservation issues. They would provide advice on research, conservation, habitat issues, and a variety of other things that are currently not part of the purview of the FRCC.

So it would be a much more broadened role, and it's something that many of the clients have not yet embraced as a desirable thing. Nonetheless, it will be advanced. We do intend to explore it in more detail with the workshops to be held in the fall.

There is a recommendation I would draw your attention to. It is in numbers 12 and 13. The whole question of enforcement has been an issue in the Pacific fishery that will no doubt be raised again during your meetings on the west coast.

The Fraser recommendations indicated that enforcement, the priority and the profile of enforcement within the department's program, be highlighted and emphasized. It is also part of number 13, where it recommended that there be a plan to ensure an effective and credible enforcement level is re-established in the region.

There is a number of things under way that I would draw your attention to in this material. We have reorganized to some extent, and enforcement has been elevated in its priority and profile within the organization. We have a new director of enforcement. The individual who has been brought on strength is an ex-RCMP officer with a number of years of training and experience with respect to enforcement. All of our enforcement officers are now reporting directly to this law enforcement person rather than to the area managers.

All of our C and P staff will be directly engaged in the negotiation of management plans and the aboriginal fishing plans.

In terms of strengthening enforcement, we have added 15 more fishery officers in 1995. We are hiring 32 indeterminate seasonal officers. We're increasing some of the training of some of our people who run our vessels on the west coast. We have our charter patrols that will be part of the process. We're increasing the amount of air surveillance and also working much more closely with the coast guard, the RCMP and the like.

.1130

So the enforcement presence and the enforcement program have been strengthened considerably as the result of the recommendations that have been made. I think this will be a topic that you will no doubt have -

The Chairman: Can you give me some sense...? Mr. Cummins was repeatedly on his feet in the last little while dealing with this issue of lack of enforcement and that the resources simply were not given. I think, if I recall some of the questions, there may have actually been a decrease in the enforcement measure, which was budget-driven, over the last 12 or 15 months. Am I right, John?

Mr. Cummins: Yes.

The Chairman: In that regard, then, what are we looking at as far as the increased budget for enforcement this year over last year?

Mr. Chamut: Well, as you've noted in the recommendation, there is a number of additional staff being hired. I don't have the figures on what that will mean financially, but it's sizeable at a time when many, many elements of the departmental budget are declining. There will be a significant increase in enforcement presence, as well as enforcement resources in 1995.

The whole implementation of this Fraser report will be an expensive proposition. We are finding ways to fund it. You have to realize that in addition to the increased number of staff, they all require equipment and training, and all that is being funded. In addition, there will be moneys invested in things such as air surveillance, helicopter charters, which will give us a much better and more effective presence with a large degree of mobility and focus.

The Chairman: You have 15 more fisheries officers in 1995 and 32 indeterminate seasonals will be hired. Does that put you at a level where you were two years ago or three years ago, or is this at the highest level it's been in a long time?

Mr. Chamut: Well, you get into a difficult question of comparisons, because one of the things that happened was a reorganization. Prior to 1993, for example, our fisheries officers were involved in a variety of tasks. They did fisheries management, fisheries enforcement, habitat management, and they contributed to our aboriginal fisheries programs. So they were multi-tasked.

We had a need to try to provide a much better focus on some of these particular elements because people in many cases were being run ragged and the duties they had were not being adequately fulfilled in all areas.

So we ended up with a new organization that provided a discrete tasking of the officers who were there. Some of them were specifically tasked to do enforcement. That's all they do; in fact the large majority of them do enforcement. Some of them were assigned habitat management duties. Some of them were assigned specific duties to do fisheries management. You've taken them from being multi-tasked to being focused on particular activities.

It's very difficult to make comparisons about things past and current, because you've now got a dedicated core of people who only do enforcement. It gives them a greater degree of focus and a larger ability to deal with some of the enforcement issues that are there.

The Chairman: So you're telling me that the 15 officers and the 32 indeterminate may not necessarily be doing enforcement. They may be doing -

Mr. Chamut: They will all be doing enforcement.

The Chairman: They're all enforcement?

Mr. Chamut: Every one of them will be doing enforcement and it will be at a level that will be significantly increased over 1994.

The Chairman: How many enforcement officers did you have last year? Last year was under the new system, wasn't it?

Mr. Chamut: I believe last year the figure was - and this is by memory, so if I'm slightly off I hope for some latitude here - in the order of 94 fisheries officers dedicated to enforcement.

The Chairman: What about seasonals? How many would you have hired?

Mr. Chamut: I believe we had about 15 to 18 seasonals.

The Chairman: So you're doubling the number of seasonals.

Mr. Chamut: That's right, yes.

An important point here is that we're also providing training to those people who operate our vessels. We have a fleet of vessels that provide enforcement presence and serve as a platform. But this year many of the officers and staff on board those vessels will be given enforcement training, which will again augment our capacity for doing enforcement.

.1135

Mr. Cummins: So when you look at those numbers, a couple of things may be worth noting. For 1994, the numbers were actually down from that of 1993 in terms of the number of fisheries officers and what not. There was a considerable cut-back from that of 1993.

The other issue you have to consider is the size of the area we're covering here. Pat, is it not correct that there are about 1,800 salmon-producing streams in B.C.? It's a tremendous number.

Mr. Chamut: Yes, there are at least that many.

Mr. Cummins: Along the Fraser River you're looking at 700 miles of river. What's the coastline there? We're talking big numbers, yet just in the area that has to be covered by these fisheries officers, it's easy to lose 10 people on a coast that size.

The Chairman: These numbers do not include the effort in enforcement of the AFS. Is that a separate budgetary entry? I know there's a considerable amount of money being dedicated to enforcement with the fisheries officers for the AFS. Is this in addition to that? Do the numbers you gave me include the efforts with the AFS?

Mr. Chamut: These officers would be involved with the enforcement in the aboriginal fishery, and a very large proportion of them will be so dedicated. The numbers we've talked about do not include any of the officers who are part of the aboriginal watershed groups, for example.

So there will be additional enforcement staff engaged in dealing with the aboriginal fishery, who will be enforced by DFO staff, plus they'll work with some of the aboriginal people who are on site.

This year, one of the recommendations - I haven't yet found it here - deals with the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, which will be one of the highlighted issues. There will be a number of initiatives taken in managing the aboriginal fishery. You'll see, starting with recommendation 20 or so, that there is a number of things dealing specifically with that.

Additional training will be provided to guardians. There will be specific measures taken to try to separate the harvest of fish by aboriginal people as a food fishery from the commercial fishery. At this point in the negotiating process, we are going to have aboriginal officers working much more directly with the enforcement staff from DFO so that we don't have two separate regimes operating independently. They will be working under the direction of DFO in 1995, which is a change.

Many of the recommendations that start around recommendation number 20 deal with elements of the aboriginal fishery and how it will be regulated. This would be something worth highlighting.

Another issue that I would draw your attention to is recommendation 27. The Fraser group recommended that action be taken to try to deal with the problem of sewage discharge from the Lulu Island and Annacis Island sewage treatment plants.

At the present time, these two sewage facilities discharge effluent from the greater Vancouver regional district into an area within the estuary of the Fraser River. Because of the nature of the oceanographic characteristics in the area, the discharge does not tend to be diluted very quickly. It's not flushed out of the area as quickly as, for example, in Victoria, which has a similar sort of discharge, but which is very difficult to detect because it's a tide-swept channel.

In Vancouver, large amounts of sewage are discharged into the estuary of the Fraser. Conditions are created that are adverse for fish. There are times when the effluent is deleterious to fish.

.1140

A recommendation has been made that the department urge the Greater Vancouver Regional District to implement secondary treatment of the waste.

There's a project that has been planned. Funding has not yet been found, but is being sought, and the minister has written to the GVRD and requested that they confirm their intention to install secondary treatment at Lulu and Annacis Island treatment plants. That letter was sent fairly recently, I think within the last few days, to put a very high priority on the need to complete the construction of sewage treatment at these facilities.

The Chairman: What are they doing now? Is it primary treatment there?

Mr. Chamut: Yes, primary treatment is the extent of treatment at this point.

Mr. Dhaliwal: In the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which is the regional government, they were talking about two treatment plants, one on Annacis Island and one on Lulu Island. On Annacis Island, Pat, I think they are already constructing the secondary treatment as a part of the federal government infrastructure program. That's in the riding of our colleague Mr. Cummins. They are scheduled and that is supposed to be completed.

Mr. Chamut: There is work under way and there has been federal funding dedicated to it. I believe there is some question about funding for the last phases of it, which I think is a concern that has to be addressed.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Our infrastructure funding was based on matching funding, provincial and municipalities. We wouldn't give them the funding unless that was finalized, so there is still another phase of the funding that has to be completed.

Mr. Chamut: There's money that has to be found to enable the project to proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I think those are probably the highlights of the recommendations that are likely to be a focus of your visit to the west coast. Are you interested in licensing?

The Chairman: We are most definitely interested in licensing. It's actually one of the thrusts that we are going to have. It'll be important for us to start it on the west coast, but it's a very important issue as well on the east coast. We are anticipating being down there in the middle of June. If we are going to be doing both coasts, we want to make sure that some of the issues are the same. Maybe you'd like to walk us through the licensing.

Mr. Chamut: There is a note in the book that tries to summarize some of the main issues associated with licensing on the west coast. I think you'll find that many of the issues are the same on both coasts.

The first one that's identified is fleet overcapacity and we know, as we talked earlier, there is an overcapacity problem. I think it's a characteristic of many fisheries around the world and it certainly applies in the Pacific context as well as the Atlantic.

The way in which one can deal with fleet overcapacity is through changes in commercial licensing policy. For example, in the Pacific context, if one wished to reduce the number of the fleet, one option would be to institute something called ``area licensing'' so that each vessel would be restricted to a particular area of the coast. That could have a dramatic effect on the overall capacity of the fleet over a long term.

That is one of the options that is being considered in round table discussions that are under way.

The Chairman: You mentioned about the round table. How long has this round table been going on, and who determines and sets the agenda? I presume it's purely an advisory type of committee that can give some information back to the department and to the minister. Am I right about that?

Mr. Chamut: The round table itself is an initiative jointly of the department and a group called the Pacific Regional Council. The Pacific Regional Council is the senior advisory body to the minister on west coast fisheries issues. It has developed an agenda, as well as a group of participants, and they have had their first workshop, which is largely organizational and agenda-setting.

.1145

After the fishery is largely concluded in the fall, it will get on with its agenda. In the intervening period, the department is working with all the various stakeholder groups to do research, provide information, and assess various options, so that people can come to further meetings in the fall fully prepared to discuss reasonable approaches.

The Chairman: On that same issue, maybe the information I want is in here. I haven't got through the book.

Mr. Wells: It's in the section in the briefing book, Mr. Chairman, under tab 3.

The Chairman: I wanted to find out if we have some stats that show the relative value of the fisheries on the west coast.

Mr. Alan Nixon (Committee Researcher): Yes.

The Chairman: I would like to ask a general question that deals with the roe herring. Could you describe that a little bit, such as whether there are some licensing problems there and how that's done?

Mr. Chamut: Yes, you'll find that within the note that is in your material. A number of issues deal with problems or concerns associated with the roe herring fishery.

One of the concerns you will be confronted with is the issue of double licensing in the roe herring fishery. Double licensing is a management tool that is used periodically to reduce the amount of capacity in a particular fishery. There are times when, if you allowed every vessel to fish that has a licence, you would end up with either an unmanageable fishery or threats to conservation.

In some instances, the department has said that in order to fish in a particular area, you need to have two licences on your boat. That effectively requires that people either form a partnership, where two vessels with licences agree to fish with just one boat, so you end up with a cooperative arrangement between two people, or, alternatively, an individual is able to lease a licence from another licence holder in order to get two licences on board the vessel.

This has created a number of concerns that have been expressed. People are concerned that it denies some individuals access to the fishery, notably people who work on board the boats, as opposed to those who hold the licences.

The whole question of leasing of licences is an issue in the Pacific fishery. Many licences in the roe herring fishery are personal licences. They are not attached to a vessel. They are licences held by an individual.

What has happened increasingly over the past number of years is that individuals have leased those fishing privileges to others. The cost of doing that is fairly sizeable.

Many people have objected to the practice of allowing leasing, and you will find that there are individuals who will have very firm views that this practice should not be allowed. It is particularly evident in the roe herring fishery, as opposed to salmon, because within the roe herring fishery, it's a personal licence as opposed to a licence attached to the vessel, which is what you have in salmon. I think you'll definitely find a number of people who will have opinions about the merits, advantages, and disadvantages, because there's obviously debate on both sides of this.

The Chairman: What is the actual method of the herring roe fishery? How is it conducted?

Mr. Chamut: Herring roe is a fishery that is conducted in the spring of the year. It just recently concluded in B.C. It's conducted using two methods.

First of all, there are vessels that are licensed to fish with gill-nets, so you have individuals with gill-nets who will harvest the fish just prior to spawning. They will effectively have a quota set for an area. Each individual vessel is licensed for one area.

The Chairman: Did you say the vessel is licensed?

Mr. Chamut: Sorry, no, the individual is licensed. That licence is valid only for one area of the coast, and there are normally about five areas.

The Chairman: The individual is licensed for an area.

Mr. Chamut: That's right.

The Chairman: It's an area licence.

.1150

Mr. Chamut: There's also a fishery for roe herring that's conducted using seine vessels, and again the licence is held by the individual and is valid only for one area of the coast.

The Chairman: Are they individual licences in both cases?

Mr. Chamut: Yes.

The Chairman: They're individual licences and they are by zone. How do you go from a gill-net to a seine?

Mr. Chamut: You can't. They're separate licence categories. The size of harvest and the value of the licence are quite different. A seine licence would, on average, I think, catch between 80 to 100 tonnes of herring, and a gill-net licence would probably catch, on average, 10 to 12 tonnes. There's quite a difference in harvesting capacity.

Mrs. Payne: [Inaudible - Editor]

Mr. Chamut: No. They're separated in time and area. You can't effectively have a gill-net and a seine fishery operating at the same time.

Normally we set quotas for herring by area, and there are about five areas on the coast. In most areas you'll have a separate gill-net allocation and a separate seine allocation. By regulation, the seine fleet gets 55% of the coast over the overall quota throughout the coast, and the gill-net gets the remaining 45%. That's a long-standing allocation split between the two gear sectors.

Within each area we manage it in such a way that at the end of the season, the coast wide split between the two gear types is 55% harvest to the seine and 45% by the gill net.

In each area we go in and monitor the herring population, because the objective is to harvest them at the absolute instant before they spawn. We monitor the population and each day take samples of a fish and look at the maturity of the roe. You try to catch them just before they're ready to spawn, because that gives you the highest value product. The roe is mature, it's well formed, and it hasn't yet spawned. You test on a regular basis up to the point where you're satisfied they're just about to spawn, then you call an opening.

It's one of the most exciting fisheries that I've ever been involved in, because they can occur very quickly. We've had openings that have lasted twelve minutes, because the overall quota for the area is set and you don't want to exceed it.

The Chairman: Everybody just waits.

Mr. Chamut: Everybody waits literally until the anointed hour, which is set, and people are then allowed to fish. It's a very competitive fishery. The stakes can be very high. There are instances where individuals have had very large catches in these nets worth sometimes in excess of $2 million.

The Chairman: That's also one of the problems. Some people don't fish the licence; they just lease it out so that people are able to fish, and they get $100,000. It's like a lottery almost.

Mr. Chamut: That's right.

The Chairman: I wonder if this will happen to tuna in your area, Derek.

Mr. Chamut: What you end up with are individuals who will lease their licence, and a seine licence might go anywhere from $60,000 to $100,000 for an annual fishing permit.

The Chairman: Do you need to have two licences to fish, both seine and gill-net, or just gill-net?

Mr. Chamut: No, sir.

The Chairman: If it's overcapacity, you have the requirement for two licences to fish for both.

Mr. Chamut: As an example, we had a fishery in the central coast for the seine fleet in March 1995 - this year. Because of the size of the quota, the number of vessels that would be fishing in it, and the area within which you could actually fish the stocks, you simply could not have a large fleet fishing. It would be a disorderly fishery, and you would no doubt not be able to monitor and achieve your conservation targets.

.1155

It was in that situation that we ended up with a requirement to have two licences on board, and this was developed as part of a plan that was worked out in consultation with the herring industry itself.

As with every issue in the fishery, there are many people who are proponents of things like double licensing and there are many people who are not. At the end of the day, if we have to make a decision, we make it on the basis of achieving our conservation targets, having an orderly fishery and trying to achieve good market value.

The Chairman: Tell me about the roe on kelp fishery. How do you get a licence for that?

Mr. Chamut: The roe on kelp fishery is another fishery involving herring that's conducted in the spring. It produces herring roe eggs deposited on a piece of brown kelp. A particular type of kelp is harvested. It grows on the west coast. It is a very desirable product in Japan. I think we have in the order of about forty licences on the west coast, and they each get a quota to produce about eight tonnes of product.

The preferred process is to create a pen out of netting, and within that pen they hang strands of this particular kelp. They then go out and harvest herring that are not yet spawned and put the herring inside this pen. The herring in turn spawn. The eggs are released into the water and are deposited on the fronds of the kelp. The eggs are allowed to firm up and harden on the kelp, which is then harvested. It's generally salted and transported in large bucket containers to the Japanese market.

So you end up with a very thin piece of kelp sandwiched between two layers of herring eggs. As I say, it's a very valued product.

The Chairman: It's fish farming, basically.

Mr. Chamut: It is a form of fish farming. It also can be conducted without necessarily ponding the fish. You can go to an area where you know herring are going to spawn, simply suspend kelp in the vicinity and collect the product.

The Chairman: How does one get a licence for that?

Mr. Chamut: It's a limited-entry fishery, so each individual -

The Chairman: I always thought it required the surrender of other licences.

Mr. Chamut: No. A total of 28 licence holders have limited-entry licences. In 1988 or 1989 it was decided to provide an additional ten licences to aboriginal communities, because a licence like this is very valuable. It's a good source of community income. There's been good success in promoting aboriginal economic development through providing them with one of these licences.

So the decision was made to provide ten new licences to aboriginal communities, but they were provided on the basis that for each licence granted, the licence holder would retire six gill-net licences, because we don't want to increase harvesting capacity in the fishery.

The concept sounds simple enough. In reality it has proven difficult for the aboriginal groups to be able to get the necessary funding to retire the gill-net licences and take them out of the fleet. It's been an ongoing problem that has constrained -

The Chairman: The aboriginal community had to purchase six gill-net licences and surrender those licences in order to get one of the other ones.

Mr. Chamut: That's right.

Progress has been made. We've gradually been getting funding to assist in the retirement of the licences. It's become less problematic, but it will still be an issue.

The Chairman: It's an interesting fishery; that's why I asked the question.

What is the value? You have forty of these licences, and they are lucrative. How lucrative is lucrative?

.1200

Mr. Chamut: The price has been declining. The last economic study I can recall seeing indicated the licence might be able to provide you with revenue of $400,000 to $500,000 a year.

Mr. Wells: Not too shabby.

Mrs. Payne: I have one question on that same fishing licence. Is there a period of time for harvesting this? Is it almost as exact as the herring roe fishery?

Mr. Chamut: Yes. You have to do it at a time consistent with the spawning behaviour of the herring, because they effectively release the spawn into the water column, so you have to get them harvested and into the enclosure before they spawn. So it's done in the spring of the year.

Mrs. Payne: What I'm talking about is at the time when the roe attaches itself to the kelp, is there a certain period when you have to harvest the kelp before the roe begins to hatch?

Mr. Chamut: Yes. You'd want to harvest it fairly quickly after the eggs are deposited and before the eggs hatch.

Mrs. Payne: What kind of time span are you looking at?

Mr. Chamut: Generally it's a matter of days. Once the eggs are there, they tend to harden up, and they're harvested at that point. Generally it's just put in brine.

Mrs. Payne: It's pretty precise.

The Chairman: The roe on kelp would be much more sustainable, because the mortality you get with the other fishery is not there.

Mr. Chamut: There is always a certain amount of mortality associated with harvesting the herring and putting them in a pen. And you lose the egg production; in other words, the eggs do not hatch, so they do not contribute to stock replenishment. But yes, it is non-destructive in the sense that there's no large mortality of the adults used in the process. They live to spawn again.

The Chairman: As an aside, is there any similar fishery down on the east coast?

Mr. Chamut: It's just starting.

Mrs. Payne: Best-kept secrets.

Mr. Wells: It's in my riding.

Mr. Chamut: An individual has been working with people to try to find suitable areas and suitable kelp, because the particular kelp that's used in B.C. does not grow in Atlantic Canada. It's a kelp called macrocystis, which occurs from California north to around the Queen Charlottes. It is not present in Atlantic Canada.

The individual is working in various ways to try to find opportunities of doing it. I don't know if he's had success yet, but he's had some support from the department.

The Chairman: Who's doing it?

Mr. Wells: I don't know the name. It's in Queens County.

The Chairman: That's interesting, because with all the problems in our fisheries, sometimes we neglect to look at the other coast to find out what's been successful and see if we can adapt it on our coast.

Mr. Wells: We're keeping that a secret for a while.

The Chairman: Not any more; it's on the record.

Maybe you can help me with a few other things. When we deal with the west coast fishing industry, we mostly talk about salmon, and that's what we've done here today. We talked a bit about herring. There's also a groundfish fishery out there.

Mr. Chamut: Yes.

The Chairman: I'm looking at Ian down at the back.

I've seen some really good maps from the department. That's a great map if you're from British Columbia, but I don't know where the hell the rivers are on it.

Ian, is it possible to get some maps that give us more detail?

In addition to that, the salmon fishery is not one, but some of the fisheries are done by zone.

You have no zones? You just told me the herring fishery is done by zone.

Mr. Chamut: Sorry; I thought you were talking about salmon.

The Chairman: No, just generally.

There are different fisheries; some are zonal and some are not. Could we have a list of those zones? I can't get through a day unless I have my east coast zones to have a look at in the morning, and I know it would be difficult for John to talk about issues on the east coast without having a map in front of him, because of the different states of the fishery.

Ian, could you see if there is something available and get us that?

What about the groundfish fishery?

Mr. Chamut: The groundfish fishery in B.C. is sort of the underemphasized operation. It tends not to be as large or as lucrative as the Atlantic fishery, but it is nonetheless an important contributor to the overall fishery sector in B.C.

The groundfish in B.C. is a very different set of species from that in Atlantic Canada.

The Chairman: Which ones are you talking about?

Mr. Chamut: There are large numbers of rock-fish.

The Chairman: What's a rock-fish?

.1205

Mr. Chamut: I saw brochures behind me when I walked in.

The Chairman: Is it like a small cod?

Mr. Chamut: We can provide brochures that describe rock-fish. I would hesitate to get into all of the various species and their labels.

There's a very large number of fish that are caught in the groundfish fishery along with things like sole, Pacific ocean perch and Pacific cod. It's a very diverse fishery involving multiple species and conducted in deep waters along the continental shelf.

The Chairman: Is it a quota fishery?

Mr. Chamut: There are quotas specified for each species and there's the usual process for having vessel trip limits. We have dockside monitoring and the like.

A couple of issues that will no doubt come up in the groundfish area have to do with the whole question of groundfish landings in the United States. As things currently stand, groundfish trawlers face no impediment in fishing in B.C. waters and landing their fish in processing plants in the United States.

That does create concerns amongst some sectors. It's done by the trawlers because often they can get a higher price in U.S. processing plants and then take advantage of cheaper U.S. fuel. So there are some advantages for them in having the opportunity to land their fish in the United States.

There's a lot of concern in the groundfish fleet about overcapacity. There are about 140 vessels currently licensed to fish groundfish; the general view in the fleet is that that's probably too many. Over time some sort of look at a more desirable number of participants would be needed.

Mr. Wells: Are these all draggers?

Mr. Chamut: These are all draggers, yes.

The Chairman: Are all the ground fisheries conducted by draggers?

Mr. Chamut: There are some fisheries for groundfish that are conducted with hook and line and others with traps. Halibut, for example, a groundfish, is managed by individual quotas. There are about 440 licence holders, each one of whom has a separate quota they can harvest, and they harvest it with hook and line.

There's also a species called either sable fish or black cod; it's a deep-water species with a total of about 49 licence holders. They fish either by hook and line or by trap. They're just traps that are put on the bottom and -

The Chairman: But there are individual quotas for both those fisheries?

Mr. Chamut: There are individual quotas in both fisheries.

Mrs. Payne: When you say ``trap'', what do you mean?

Mr. Chamut: It's essentially a steel cage, which is baited. The cod enter into it and are pulled up. It's not unlike -

Mrs. Payne: Like our lobster trap?

Mr. Chamut: - a crab trap, right.

The Chairman: So some of these fisheries are quota-driven, some are not, some have individual quotas, some have not?

Mr. Chamut: That's right. You will find some interesting views with respect to the introduction of individual vessel quotas. Many of the people who are currently engaged in fisheries that are managed by means of vessel quotas, in this case, sable fish and halibut -

The Chairman: Sable fish is black cod?

Mr. Chamut: That's right. The licence holders in those two fisheries are very pleased with the introduction of the vessel-based quotas because it results in a much safer fishery. It allows them to harvest the fish when they feel it's appropriate, as opposed to going out any time there's an opening. It allows them to take advantage of market conditions. There is a variety of advantages that have been achieved by operating in this way.

At the same time, when you introduce any system based on individual quotas, you tend to reduce the number of employees because you don't....

In a competitive fishery it's important that you catch as many fish as you can in as short a period of time, whereas in a vessel-quota system the competitive nature is no longer there. You can catch the fish at your leisure. You do not need as many people on board, and questions and concerns have been raised about the impact on employment.

.1210

So it's a topic that will probably be brought to your attention when you're there.

Mr. Wells: It's no different from the east coast; it's always the same issue.

Mr. Chamut: It's the same issue and the same response.

The Chairman: I hate to do this again, Ian, but I'd like to address some of the stuff we've been talking about.

Could we just get a concise one-pager that indicates the various fisheries, whether or not they're open on the coast, managed by zone, quota-driven, whether there are trip limits and whether individual quotas exist. When we get there we should at least look like we understand the fishery and when we come back we'll understand it better.

An hon. member: [Inaudible - Editor]

Mr. Chamut: Yes, they are, they're transferable for one year.

Mr. Wells: My only question was whether they were transferable quotas, and they are?

Mr. Chamut: They are transferable.

The Chairman: Are they like the ITQs we have down east?

Mr. Chamut: Yes, but they're not permanent. There's no permanency in transferring. It's for one year.

The Chairman: So they can transfer them, but there's no guarantee the licence will be valid after one year? Is that what you're telling me?

Mr. Chamut: No, the licence and the quota revert back to the original licence holder at the end of the fishing season. So, for example, if you and I both have quotas and you wish to transfer your quota to me, you can do so, but at the end of the -

The Chairman: I have to do it each year?

Mr. Chamut: Yes. You cannot do it permanently. At the end of the season or with the new season starting, your quota and your licence would be reassigned to you.

Mr. Wells: Free agency.

The Chairman: Free agency, yes.

Mr. Wells: It's not a bad idea.

The Chairman: Yes, because we don't do that on the east coast.

I don't have any other questions on licensing; I'm fine on that.

Ian, if you can find something, give it to us by tomorrow. Get it to the offices and give it to the clerk too so he can take it with him this afternoon.

Mr. Chamut: We have some items, essentially some shelf items, which can be brought forward. We'll bring it forward as general information.

The Chairman: Alan, is there anything you want to ask on the three issues that came up that we haven't asked?

Mr. Nixon: Just a matter of curiosity. What happens to the herring caught in the roe fishery? The roe is the valuable part. What happens to the remainder?

Mr. Chamut: Once the herring are harvested they're generally frozen immediately. As with any population you'll have a mix of males and females.

Once the fishery is over, they start the processing of the frozen product. It's thawed and there are machines in the plant that allow you to identify males from females. The males get kicked off to one side. The females will be going into the processing sector where the roe is extracted. The carcasses of both males and females will be used for fishmeal production.

Mr. Nixon: Is there any information available on the outcome of the round table that took place at the end of April?

Mr. Chamut: The minutes are being prepared and finalized. We are in the midst of trying to get them done for tomorrow. If they're done, we'd be happy to provide them to you.

Mr. Nixon: Thank you.

The Chairman: Any other questions? I guess if we don't have any further questions, we're going to break. When we come back at 3:30 p.m. we have another hour and a half of meetings.

You asked me how I'm getting home. There's a 6 p.m. flight. It only happens on Thursdays. You have to be a Houdini to try to figure out what they're doing now, but there's a 6 p.m. flight to Halifax.

You can leave your stuff here; we'll make sure the room is locked.

Mr. Wells: What's the agenda for this afternoon?

The Chairman: The agenda for this afternoon is more of the same. We are going to be dealing with program review, DFO, Canadian Coast Guard integration and corporate services so that we have a better idea of the impact on some of the downsizing and rationalization that's taking place with respect to the administration of the west coast fisheries.

.1215

Mr. Cummins: I have a flight to catch this afternoon, but my researcher Brian will be in attendance.

The Chairman: Sure, not a problem.

Mr. Cummins: I want to comment that we're quite fortunate to have Mr. Chamut here this morning. He's probably one of the most knowledgeable people you're going to find on the salmon treaty on the west coast and I think we're privileged to have him addressing us on that issue this morning.

The Chairman: I'm glad you did raise that, because it's a very difficult issue to understand and he certainly has given us the full impact of the complexity of it.

I'd like to thank you on behalf of the committee.

Mr. Chamut: Thank you, Mr. Cummins, and it's been a pleasure.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.