220 CtlNSUl I M l\ I VRR ANCilMl N IS 



lives ot tishmg organi/iUions whi) give general advice to 

 the Minister and serve as a st)undini; board lor i-hiIicv 

 prufK>sals. ITiis is a large KkIv, eoniprising 17 members. 

 It has apfKirently eclipsed the Pacific Region Fisheries 

 Management Advisory Council, which was established to 

 assist the Director General in the I'acitic region, but has 

 been inactive in recent years. 



The F-ield Services Branch ot the I'acitic region has 5 

 regional committees, each consisting of about 10 mem- 

 bers, to assist with tisheries management problems in 

 specific areas, namely the Skeena River, Queen Charlotte 

 Islands, Central Coast, Johnstone Strait (for chum 

 salmon) and the Fraser River. 



Other committees are concerned with particular fisher- 

 ies. The Span Fish Advisory Board consists of 20 repre- 

 sentatives of commercial sportfishing and recreational 

 interests, and provides advice on sportfishing policy. The 

 Hemng Industry Advisory Board and the Herring 

 Spawn-on-Kelp Committee assist with planning, manag- 

 ing and developing herring fisheries. The Groundfish 

 Advisory Committee performs similar functions for 

 groundfish. A temporary committee has been advising 

 the Minister this year on implementing changes to the 

 halibut licensing system stemming from this Commis- 

 sion's Preliminary Report, and another such committee is 

 deliberating on the refomis proposed for the food heiring 

 fishery. 



Subcommittees of advisory committees have been 

 established from time to time to deal with specific issues 

 such as catch allocation. Conspicuously lacking is an 

 advisory group for either the Indian fishery or habitat 

 management. 



Advice on fisheries research is channelled through the 

 national Fisheries and Oceans Research Advisory Coun- 

 cil. In the Pacific region, the Salmonid Enhancement 

 Board and the Task Group (described in Chapter 5) are 

 concerned with the enhancement program. The Vessel 

 Licence Appeal Board (described in Chapter 8) handles 

 appeals. A special committee was established to advise 

 on proposals for fleet reduction following publication of 

 this Commission's Preliminary Report. And, of course, 

 this Commission itself has involved intense consultation. 



The International Pacific Halibut Commission has an 

 advisory board of fishermen and vesselowners, and the 

 International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission has 

 advisory groups from both the United States and Can- 

 ada. The Department also calls on interested fishermen 

 for advice in negotiating international fisheries matters 

 such as the salmon management arrangements with the 

 United States and the offshore tuna fishery. 



While these groups serve as forums for discussion, fre- 

 quently recommending courses of action to the Minister 



or regional officials, none ol tlicm has ihc ;iuthonty to 

 make bnuling decisions, nor do they comprise any struc- 

 tured consultative system. And, mt)st arc chaired by an 

 officer of the Department. 



In addition to formal consultative forums, a good deal 

 of informal discussion takes place between IX-partmental 

 officials and fishermen at meetings and conventions, in 

 private interviews and in the field. 



SHORTCOMINGS 



My comments in the remainder of this chapter are 

 directed to only some advisory and consultative bodies. I 

 set aside those associated with the international commis- 

 sions because they relate to Canada's arrangements with 

 foreign countries, which are beyond my terms of refer- 

 ence. The research advisory council was appointed only a 

 few months ago and cannot yet be evaluated. I have dealt 

 with external participation in administering commercial 

 licensing and appeals, and in directing the enhancement 

 program in earlier chapters. A role for public hearings is 

 described in Chapter 3. I do not attempt to assess any of 

 the temporary advisory bodies. Thus I focus on the 

 arrangements for consultation and advice on general pol- 

 icy affecting the management of Pacific fisheries and on 

 the problems relating to particular interests. 



With a few exceptions, most commentators are dis- 

 tressingly critical of the consultative process, describing it 

 in such terms as an "exercise in frustration,"^ "window 

 dressing'"* and a "dialogue of the deaf.'"' Although 

 specific criticisms vary, many who have served on advi- 

 sory committees complain that they lack direction, clear 

 terms of reference and orderly procedures. Insufficient 

 advance notice of issues to be discussed and inadequate 

 information for informed discussion are also common 

 complaints. Others have charged that consultations are a 

 public relations exercise on the part of the Minister or the 

 Department, only rubber-stamping decisions already 

 made. And most worrisome, in my opinion, is the wide- 

 spread perception that advice is not seriously sought or 

 listened to. 



Here in the Pacific region we currently have a 

 consultative process made up of a staggering 

 number of representative sections, industry 

 committees, governmental agencies, etc, all 

 theoretically participating in the ongoing 

 mechanisms of fisheries management. In real- 

 ity we have near paralysis made up of endless 

 bureaucratic reorganization, plain inertia, 

 empire building, and, on the part of all - end- 

 less posturing. Positions are usually polarized 

 and entrenched with a pervading reluctance 

 to make positive proposals for fear they will 

 be viewed as a sign of weakness. The D.F.O. 



