230 PEDFRAI VRRANOf^MKNIS Wl m HRI I isil ( oi I MBIA 



Both governments claim jurisdiction over marine 

 plants, though i>nly the province has a stiKk-assessmcnt 

 program, a research program and a iicciismg system. 

 Some years ago senior officials agreed that the prt)vince 

 should manage the resource subject to a tcxlera! review oi' 

 harvesting plans tor their possible impact on tish habitat. 

 Recently, however, dis;igreements have arisen over 

 approvals of harvesting licences. 



This division of respt>nsibilities for shellfish is without 

 apparent logic, and the overlapping responsibilities for 

 marine plants and mariculture are unsatisfactory.- These 

 matters should therefi>re be resolved and incorporated 

 into the tbrmal intergi>vcrnmental agreement. 



The allocation of resptmsibilities for administering 

 shoreline fisheries should be pragmatic. I suggest that the 

 federal government concentrate on sea fisheries, which 

 are its heaviest responsibilities in any event. The argu- 

 ments for provincial administration are strongest for 

 operations on the foreshore. Thus, the provincial respon- 

 sibilities for oysters should be expanded to include other 

 intertidal shellfish species. The oyster culture industry 

 already markets most of the clams harvested and is diver- 

 sifying into the harvesting and culturing of other shellfish, 

 which call for the same kind of licensing arrangements. 

 But even where the federal government is to take the lead 

 in admimstenng a species, the agreement should provide 

 links to provincial government policies and programs, 

 such as those for freshwater resources, small business 

 development and Crown land allocation. 



Finally, both governments are involved in regulating 

 fish processing, with the province licensing and control- 

 ling the operation of facilities for landing and processing, 

 and the federal government being concerned with quality 

 standards. These joint interests offer an opportunity for 

 constructive cooperation in collecting statistical data on 

 landings and other matters, as I suggested in Chapter 8. 

 Elsewhere I emphasized the importance of improving 

 catch data for purposes of managing and administering 

 royalties and quotas. Thus, collaboration in data collec- 

 tion and perhaps also in inspections and enforcement 

 should be provided for in the agreement. 



INTERGOVERINJMENTAL LIAISON 



The numerous and continuous joint interests of the two 

 governments in matters of fisheries and fish habitat man- 



agement call for a mechanism for regular consultation 

 between them. Moreover, the cooperative ventures I pro- 

 p«)se above will require close commuiiicalion, coopera- 

 tive planning and supervision. 



During the 1950s a Federal-Provincial British Colum- 

 bia F'isheries Committee was established to bring 

 together the two Deputy Ministers responsible for fisher- 

 ies to resolve matters of mutual concern. But this body 

 has met only once in the past five years, and there is now 

 some questii)n whether it still exists.' 



A new consultative group is therefore required, and I 

 recommend — 



2. The Cioveninienl of Canada siMHild invite the Govern- 

 ment of British C ohimbia to cooperate in eslahlishing 

 a Canada-British Columbia Fisheries Committee. 



i) The committee's rcsponsibihty will be to assist 

 the two govenmients in negotiating an inter- 

 govemnK'ntal fisheries agreement, to awrdinate 

 and oversee the implementation of that agree- 

 ment, and to provide for consultations on other 

 fisheries matters of mutual interest. 



ii) The conmiittee should consist of the Deputy 

 Ministers responsible for fisheries in the two gov- 

 ernments, who would act as alternate chairmen, 

 and such other members as may be mutually 

 agreed upon. 



In view of its structure and responsibilities, this com- 

 mittee should report to the two governments at the politi- 

 cal level. To maintain momentum in the negotiation and 

 consultative process (which may be difficult in view of the 

 broad and divergent responsibilities and geographical 

 separation of those directly involved) and to ensure that 

 decisions are carried through, consideration should be 

 given to the provision of a permanent coordinator for this 

 committee. 



CONCLUSION 



The governments of Canada and British Columbia 

 both have a major influence on the management of Can- 

 ada's Pacific fish resources. Explicit and mutually agreed 

 arrangements for reconciling their interests are overdue. 

 The steps I propose in this chapter are intended to pro- 

 vide a framework for smoother and more efl^ective means 

 of coordinating their responsibilities and activities. 



FOOTNOTES 



1. The Pacific Gillnetters Association, Exhibit #70. p. 4. 



2. A new federal interdepartmental Manne Resource Industries 

 Oevelopment Steenng Committee recently produced a policy 

 paper (Managing the New Frontier: Towards A Pacific Marine 

 Economic Oevelopment Strategy) calling for a strategic develop- 



ment of manne resources in Bntish Columbia with participation by 

 the province. 



3. D.D. Tansley, Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and 

 Oceans, transcnpts of the public hearings. Volume 67, pp. 13844- 

 45. 



