Thank you very much.
The Fisheries Council of Canada is a national association with members in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the northern fisheries of Nunavut, Nunavik in Quebec, and Nunatsiavut in Labrador.
The fishing industry is a $5 billion industry. We employ about 80,000 people, which is a small number, I guess, compared to those for my friends from the mining industry and the forestry industry. Our industry is particularly important to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important both culturally and in terms of GDP for Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick, and the northern fisheries that I mentioned, and also for the aboriginal communities that increasingly are participating in our fisheries in British Columbia and the Maritimes.
With respect to species at risk, we're looking for policy changes or updates in recognition of the uniqueness of the aquatic species. Unlike other wild species, aquatic species actually have three acts--the Fisheries Act, the Oceans Act, and SARA--to protect and conserve the species. We want to see more convergence of those three acts in dealing with aquatic species that become threatened or endangered.
In the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have seen efforts to converge the fishing act he says the fishing act and the Oceans Act, which seem to be moving fairly well and seem to be quite progressive. We'd like to see a little more of that happening with respect to SARA. In other words, work still needs to be done in order to try to harmonize those three acts with respect to endangered species. I should say that it looks as though the drafters of SARA witnessed that or recognized that, because, as you'll note, the preamble does say that SARA will complement existing legislation.
Parliament has given the Department of Fisheries and Oceans quite a bit of money and quite a bit of human resources to manage the fisheries and to be concerned with conserving and preserving the fisheries. They have considerable resources to make science-based decisions and to protect species and their habitats. They have the regulatory tools to manage the fisheries and the resources to enforce and monitor the fisheries.
So what do we want? We want basically three things. One is assessments. I don't know if you've had a chance to read the document that we've provided, in English and in French, but we're saying that there is a disconnect between the methodologies of COSEWIC and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to how you determine the status of the stock.
In COSEWIC, they use mainly the rate of decline over a defined period. That's basically what determines whether the stock is in good shape, of special concern, endangered, or threatened.
In Fisheries and in fisheries science generally, fisheries science takes a broader view of the issues. It looks at a precautionary approach within an ecosystem-based approach. So instead of simply looking at the rate of decline, Fisheries will look at a stock and ask what is the extent of the decline at a certain point in time, with respect to, if you will, the precautionary approach reference point. If, for example, the current extent of decline of that species is to the right of the line, if you will, it's in generally good health. If it's to the left, it's in what we would call a red or critical zone. If it's very far left, it's into endangered or threatened.
So basically that's an element, and they also look at the recent and current trajectory of the stock. If you look at the stock and you see that it's in fairly bad shape, but that the current and recent trajectory is one of growth, that gives you a different indication than what you would have if you looked at the status of the stock currently and saw that the fact it was trending down. So you make, if you will, risk-based types of decisions.
The other element they introduce is what they call the current productivity situation of that stock. For example, a high degree of mature fish in that stock is a positive sign. A high degree of mature fish means that they are regenerating and that they have the capability of regenerating. If the natural productivity of that stock is down at the current time, which may be because of salinity in the water or because of ocean temperatures, that's a bad sign.
All we're saying is that we have a disconnect: we have the relatively formula-like approach of COSEWIC and then we have a complex aquatic ecosystem type of arrangement. Over the years, our fishing communities have basically bought into this type of regime that we're talking about: the precautionary approach and ecosystem-based approach. To try to get that community to buy into a rather straightforward type of rate-of-decline approach has been difficult and, really, in our view is not appropriate.
So that's one thing: get the assessments right.
The other thing we're looking for is governance. Basically what we want to see is some form of upfront transition protocol as to when the species, as it's recovering, if you will, exits the blunt tools of SARA--that is, prohibition when it's endangered and threatened--and moves into “special concern”. Then, instead of having just one tool, it can be governed by the Fisheries Act, which has a suite of management tools, such as just closing the area during the spawning stock. You have all these types of management tools available in terms of managing the fisheries once it's into special concern.
All we're asking for is that. To me, that's good governance. If we have fishing communities and aboriginal communities that are dependent on the fisheries, they should be able to be advised that if the stock recovers to a certain biomass then it can be moved into special concern and can be managed with tools other than prohibition.
That's what the mining industry and the forestry industry do when they have a community that is suddenly closing down. In mining, for example, they tell their people that they're closing down because there's no more ore in the area, and that's it. On the other hand, if they're closing down because of economics or markets or because there's a glut on the market, they tell their employees they're closing but it looks like they may be able to reopen at some point. That's all we're asking for. We're asking for that for fishing communities and aboriginal communities that are depending on the fisheries, with respect to commercial fisheries or fisheries that are significantly impacted with respect to species that are listed as endangered or threatened.
Our last point is on subsection 83(4) in SARA, which is the exemption for permitted activities. There seems to be confusion there. The Fisheries Council of Canada has been on every task force on endangered species going back to Minister Sheila Copps. This was a very important paragraph for us.
It envisaged that if you have a listed aquatic species and a fisheries management plan and it's part of an authorized recovery type of program, if there's an incidental catch of the listed species whereby it's brought up and it's dead and it's food, rather than throwing the dead fish and food back into the water, we are allowed to bring it to shore and have it enter the food system, if you will. We always thought that was what that subsection meant, but recently I hear a lot of confusion about it.
Obviously there have to be all sorts of constraints around that. For example, right now one listed species is wolffish. Fortunately it does not swim at deep levels, and we are part of a recovery thing. If we catch that in our nets, we are able to return it to the water live.
My last comment is that we find SARA is needlessly prescriptive in some areas. Most legislation that we get involved in now is outcome-oriented, in the sense that “this is the outcome and let's work towards that”. For example, when SARA was introduced, an arbitrary nine months was introduced, and nine months of consultation for our industry is difficult because of the seasonal nature of the fisheries. It's also difficult because of the increasing participation of aboriginal communities in the B.C. fisheries, the maritime fisheries, and our northern fisheries, and, if you will, the complications that has with respect to their being consulted and coming to a decision.
Thank you very much. I apologize for going over my limit.