l^: Oltll R INDI SIKI \l DIVIIOI'MIM IIJlKllS 



chango in iis applicition to commercial tishormcn m the 

 Pacific region m isi>latii>n. So. I contiiie my commenlary 

 to problenis that have been brought lo my attention with- 

 out milking specific proposiils for altering the program. 



First. si>me fish buyers complain aKnit the complica- 

 tions and ci>st of admmislenng contributions. Because 

 the amounts due in respect of each fisherman varies and 

 a fisherman often deals with more than t>nc buyer, the 

 administrative load is heavy. 



Second, it is frequently pointed out that because the 

 fishing season is short for most fishermen, their benefits 

 far exceed their ciMitributions. In the most recent period 

 covered by seasonal benefits. Pacific coast fishermen 

 received $13.3 million; and fishermen's contributions 

 amount \o less than 5 percent of the benefits received." 

 The resulting drain on the unemployment insurance fund 

 is sometimes seen as a subsidy to the fishing industry, 

 encouraging participation in an overcrowded activity. 



Third, benefits are paid without regard to the fisher- 

 man's total earnings. Some earn high incomes from 

 fishing and others receive earnings from other occupa- 

 tions. So the benefits are not consistently paid to those in 

 need in the usual sense. 



Fourth, the criteria for eligibility for seasonal benefits 

 puts pressure on the Department to alter fishing periods 

 in order to enable fishermen to obtain the required num- 

 ber of stamps. In order to qualify for benefits between 

 November 1st and May 15th (the most relevant period 

 for fishermen), a fisherman must have had a minimum of 

 10 to 14 weeks of insurable employment dunng a 

 specified preceding period. As a result, fishermen press 

 the Department to provide fishing opportunities in the 

 required number of weeks, leading to what are commonly 

 referred to as stamp fisheries. 



This last is the feature of the unemployment insurance 

 .system that bears most directly on fisheries policy. As I 

 explained in Chapter 4, the Department has a heavy 

 responsibility to design fishing plans and to regulate 

 fishing during the season, to meet the needs of resource 

 management and conservation. It should not be dis- 

 tracted from this duty by provisions in the unemploy- 

 ment insurance program. 



These are complicated problems, and should be 

 reviewed in the full context of the unemployment insur- 

 ance system in Canada. I therefore recommend — 



4. The Unemployment Insurance Commission should 

 review the unempJoN nient insurance provisioas for 

 fishermen, taking full account of the circumstances of 

 the commercial fisheries of the Pacific coast and their 

 management requirements. 



A related matter raised by some participants at the 

 Commission's hearings is the desirability of catch insur- 



ance tor lisiicMncii.' Such arraiigcinciits arc well devel- 

 oped in some other countries, and the Department has 

 supported catch insurance arrangements lor sonic fisher- 

 ies on the Atlantic coast. Advisors to the Minister sug- 

 gested in 1973 that such arrangements be considered for 

 the Pacific salmon fishery, but so far, this has not been 

 done." Yet the major Pacific fisheries, which generate 

 such volatile earnings, seem particularly well suited for 

 catch insurance for fishermen. Thus I recommend — 



5. Ilie DepartuR'nt, in consultation with the Pacific 

 KislH-ries Council, should investigate the desirability 

 and feasibility of catch insurance for tishemien 

 engaged in Pacific fisheries. 



THK PROCESSING INDUSTRY 

 AND ITS REGULATION 



Pacific coast fish are proces.sed into a variety of prod- 

 ucts and marketed widely. The processing industry, con- 

 sisting primarily of canning, freezing and curing opera- 

 lions, is linked to primary fishing activities through fish 

 markets and vessel ownership. In the following para- 

 graphs I describe the basic features of the industry and 

 how it is regulated. 



Dimensions of the Processing Industry 



Fish buyers and processors are licensed by the Prov- 

 ince of Briti-sh Columbia under its Fisheries Act,''' and 

 the numbers licensed in both categories in 1980 are 

 shown in Table 13-1. The number of processing compa- 

 nies active in the industry is smaller than the number of 

 licences issued because some firms operate more than one 

 plant and a separate licence is required for each. In 1980 

 there were 77 processing firms, 41 of which processed 

 fresh salmon, 42 frozen salmon and 13 canned salmon, 

 while 17 firms processed roe herring (but even the firms 

 in each of these categories are not mutually exclusive).'^ 



Table 13-1 Fish buyers' and processors' licences issued 



'" '980 number of 



licences issued* 



salmon cannery 

 fisfi cold storage 

 fish processor 

 fish buyer 

 other 



18 



92 



179 



672 



175 



total 1.136 



■■ Figures refer to licences issued in the fiscal year ending March 31. 

 Source: Manne Resources Branch. Ministry of Enviroment of British 

 Columbia. 



The numbers of licences for all categories except can- 

 neries have increased during the last few years. Fish 

 buyers have increased particularly rapidly, reflecting in 

 part an influx during the late 1970s of so-called cash 

 buyers (often associated with foreign interests), who pur- 

 chase and pay for fish on the fishing grounds. They are 



