Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

My other question for you—and I think you're on the right track, and I did ask the minister, and the committee is aware—is about a couple of lakes in central Newfoundland that have been, through a schedule 2 process, been made available to a mining company to be turned into tailing ponds. Of course, the objective would be that they would restore the habitat or upgrade the habitat somewhere else, so that DFO does not have any net loss of habitat. That would equate to saying that this company can proceed with what it does.

I always equate that to being like clear-cutting a national park and planting trees in your back yard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Do you have a question there?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I do. I'm coming to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Well, I'll tell you, you're out of time, so very quickly—

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

On the issue of dragging, the government, as you know, didn't support a moratorium on the high seas, which the UN was trying to do.

As part of what you're saying, although you didn't say it, does WWF support some sort of a moratorium, not only on international high-seas dragging, but on dragging within our 200-mile limit as well?

[Robert Rangeley]

No, we don't.

Our position on this recent decision by the government not to support that high-seas moratorium was that it's unregulated fishing. Canada was on the international task force on IUU, which is “Illegal, unregulated, unreported” fishing. We have all the commitments for ecosystem-based management and all the other things I've been talking about. Why we wouldn't support a moratorium, a temporary cessation of fishing—in this case it focused on trawling, and I think that's what got everyone anxious, that it focused on a gear type....

The point is that we can't support unregulated fishing. We have enough trouble with our fish stocks in places where it is regulated. And that's what that was. It's totally incomprehensible to me why Canada would not take a position to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you for that, Mr. Rangeley.

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Dr. Rangeley. Maybe another time I could try to explain to you why we took the position we did on that, but I won't try to do that here.

There are just a couple of areas on which I'd like a little more clarification.

If we had 10% of our ocean area in MPAs, and let's say we had met our target by 2012, does your organization have any calculation on how much less fishing would be taking place by Canadian interests, let's say? I think I've heard you say both things, that industry is going to love it because there will be recovery of stocks. But are they actually going to fish less? Are there going to be all kinds of areas now where no fishing is allowed and fishermen are going to be affected by this? I'm not saying whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. I just want to know if, in your opinion, they will be.

[Robert Rangeley]

There are a couple of points there. One, I would not say industry supports protected areas. In fact, I just want to point out something from our recent press release on this. What I said was:

Industry has legitimate concerns about how conservation measures will affect them, and we designed this study to show how these concerns can be brought into the equation.

Some industries get it and want to participate in that, and others are resistant, for the reasons I just discussed.

Remember now, MPAs aren't the goal; they're the tool. And it's a mix of solutions that have to include protected areas based on all the recent evidence, including that science paper I referred to from Boris Worm. There's a positive message in that paper. One was that ecosystem services, the things we get from the ocean, particularly fisheries, are enhanced and increase with increasing biodiversity, and a mechanism to get there is through protected areas. What we're saying is that it's a tool. Our fisheries and our ecosystems are degraded, and we're not going to get there unless we put back some of those refuges and protect some of those key areas and ultimately benefit fishing and livelihoods.

Our goal is not to put fishermen out of work. Our goal is to have long-term sustainability in fisheries, preferably greater fisheries and greater stability in the fisheries, because there's a greater diversity of fish stocks from which to fish and less reliance on invertebrate species on which we're now reliant, especially on the Atlantic coast, because of the “fishing down the food web” effect where we've taken all the top predators out.

Will protected areas result in less fishing? There's no global answer for that. It's going to be a patchwork. It will depend upon the goals. That's the whole point of engaging the fishing industry, but you can only make those decisions around particular areas in a context of zoning. There is a range of tools out there. Protected areas is one tool. It's not about strictly putting fences up and keeping fishermen out. It's about protecting those conservation values that are necessary so that we can fish sustainably for the long term. That's the goal you have to keep in mind when you talk about protected areas, not putting up fences.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I understand that. You make a compelling case for that, but if you could wiggle your nose and be the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and you were going to set these MPAs so that we meet our target, you must have some idea where those would be and how fishermen would be affected.

[Robert Rangeley]

What we have now in our analysis is a series of options out there. I know where a number of the key conservation values are from our mapping, our GIS work, and this analytical work. That doesn't mean each of those conservation value areas has to become an MPA. What I'm talking about is this process in involving industry and decision-makers in making those kinds of tough decisions, so that we're looking at protecting the right kinds of areas for the right reasons and goals. As I said, it's a flexible tool, and until you start applying that tool and then using the tool also to analyze the cost benefits.... One could make a decision that we're going to sacrifice a conservation value for an economic gain, but at least that's a decision that's on the table, as opposed to no planning and no decision-making.

No one has agreed to a map yet, so we can't tell you that, but a key analysis is what you're getting to, which hasn't been done.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

With respect to the Grand Banks, are you saying that, in your opinion, the lack of recovery is due to continued overfishing?

When we did the study, I think we did it because the logic would tell you that if you impose a moratorium in 1992, eventually the stock would recover, and it hasn't recovered in any significant way. At least that was the testimony we heard. So we want to try to figure out what the reasons for that might be. I'm just curious, as you seem to be saying that you think there's still overfishing going on.

[Robert Rangeley]

It's a contributor. The first thing is I think everyone's agreed now that overfishing was the cause. We got to a certain state through overfishing. There are other factors. We've heard some of them--predators, environmental factors that are conspiring to inhibit recovery. Bycatch on many stocks has been a factor, as has illegal unreported fishing. So there are a number of factors.

Our point in terms of recovery is there's a suite of tools. We're only going to get to recovery if we set some goals, set some targets, and then work towards achieving those targets by putting in the right kinds of protection--limiting indirect mortality and direct sources of mortality such as bycatch and indirect mortality such as habitat loss, for example. We're only going to get there if we set specific goals for recovery. There has been no plan for recovery.

We know that a moratorium is a drastic measure, but it's not sufficient, because we've had moratoria and we still have nine straddling stocks that are still under moratoria and haven't recovered. It's not sufficient, so we have to do something else. The status quo isn't working. In fact, many of those stocks are continuing to decline. They haven't even held their own since the moratoria. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I think we agree with you. In fact, one of the things we found surprising was that there was no recovery plan, and I think we commented on that.

Are you saying, though, that you disagreed with the decision to open a recreational and a limited commercial fishery in northern cod this season?

[Robert Rangeley]

Whether that fishery was open or not, it was done on the wrong basis in the absence of a plan. You'll remember what happened prior to the opening of that fishery. It was recommended that northern cod be listed under the Species at Risk Act, and the department, the minister, recommended against that. The decision and part of the rationale was that there be a cod recovery strategy developed.

On that recovery strategy, there is a document called, “A Strategy for the Recovery and Management of Cod Stocks in Newfoundland and Labrador”, but it in fact isn't actually a strategy; it's a framework, a working document. But there's nothing strategic about it, nor are there any actions or plans built into that. There needs to be an action plan.

My point with respect to opening that fishery, including recreational fishing, was that it was done in the absence of a plan, and I think that's irresponsible.

I'm not going to argue whether that has further inhibited cod. I looked at the stock estimates and there are a lot of error bars around them, and it's a bit of a flip of a coin as to which side, whether it's going to inhibit or not, but the point is it's done in the absence of a plan.

The other point I made about that is, what does that signal in terms of conservation leadership internationally? We make a lot of noise--and many times well-justified noise--about impacts outside our EEZ by contracting parties to NAFO. Yet, when we make decisions that people are scratching their heads about and saying, “Well, is this conservation?”, it doesn't signal the right leadership we want to see, in my opinion.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you.

Is there time for Dr. Lunney?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

No, unfortunately, there is not. We have 17 seconds, so if you can get it done in 17 seconds....

We're going to Mr. Cuzner.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

I have a quick question, 17 seconds' worth.

You mentioned at the beginning I think something about an integrated management plan. You said something about being at a publisher. Did I misunderstand something there? Has WWF-Canada produced an integrated management plan for the Grand Banks area or some commentary on it?

[Robert Rangeley]

No, “integrated management” is a term that's used in the oceans directorate for involving all stakeholders in planning ocean uses. So the ESSIM, eastern Scotian Shelf integrated management, that I referred to is the model or the pilot that's the furthest ahead. There's the Placentia Bay–Grand Banks one, which we were also participating in. There are a whole number of elements in producing this, including an ecosystem overview, identifying significant biological and ecological areas. Getting down to the path where ESSIM is but the Grand Banks one isn't means asking, what do we do with all this knowledge, and how do we change our management? Put all that in the context; hence the “integrated” part of “all stakeholders”. That's what I was referring to. So we recognize that.

The way we work globally, around the world, is we would facilitate or convene this integrated approach if it didn't exist here. Actually, it's a success, coming out of the Oceans Act and the oceans directorate, that we have integrated management. It's a model that WWF endorses; hence we've put a lot of our resources to try to make that work. The day the government gives up on it would be a sad time.

So we want to really make sure it's well supported, and all indications are the minister will sign off on the eastern Scotian Shelf plan. And remember, it's a pilot for all of Canada, so it's really crucial that we get the first one right and the minister does sign off on it. That's what we need to see.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

For the record, I wish we had more time to continue the discussion. But thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I'm sure you do, Mr. Lunney.

Perhaps before we go to our final questioner, I'll have one very quick question. Maybe it's more of a comment.

Many of us at the table looked at the northern cod recovery, and we made a recommendation from this very committee that there be a food fishery or a recreational fishery, if you will, in the Trinity Bay area of Newfoundland. We did that based on what we thought at the time. It looked as if that was a separate stock from the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. There's a lot of argument to say that those cod probably, if they come from anywhere, come from the Hamilton Bank. There was certainly a lot more cod on the inshore in those bays than there had been in past years, even though we weren't seeing cod in other places.

So I respect what you're saying, but for the committee, when we made that recommendation, we looked at it on the basis that there's such a separation between science and the people on the shore. We needed to get some buy-in, and we did believe we could make that recommendation, which the minister ended up accepting, based on no further degradation of the stocks, that at least that small fishery was sustainable.

[Robert Rangeley]

Yes, and our point is that it's a sequence of decisions leading up to that point. Why don't we have a plan?

The other thing we should remember from that decision--and maybe this is something the committee might want to remember--is that it was publicly announced that the results of that fishery and the recreational fishery would be released in the fall of this year--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Yes, absolutely.

[Robert Rangeley]

And we're looking forward to seeing the analysis—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

So are we.