Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would ask for clarification on one of your first points on toxic chemicals and pesticides. I was referencing the centres of expertise. Do you want information on the centres of expertise or on the work we're doing?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

If you could, I would appreciate information on the work on pesticides and toxic chemicals.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Okay, we will come back to you on that.

In terms of your point about the disconnect between fishermen and scientists, this is one that keeps me awake sometimes. I think it is an issue. We have tried and we will continue to try to address it.

As you may recall, one of the programs we've put in place is the sentinel surveys, whereby we work directly with fishermen. They do the surveys and analyze the results together.

We also have the fisheries collaborative science program, in which we are trying to effect more partnering with science. In your own home province, we have the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society, where we're working closely with the fishermen.

I think we can do more to bring each side together. At the end of the day, there will always be the fact that sometimes if the advice isn't coming out the way people want it to, there will be a disagreement. But I don't think that's what you're speaking about. You're speaking about the fact that they just don't believe it. Our own minister is very concerned about this and has certainly encouraged us to work more with the fishermen. We are going to do that.

In fact, when I spoke of our partnering in the collaboration strategy, this would involve more active outreach to the fishing industry, not just to explain what we do, but to figure out.... I want to know, how do we incorporate this knowledge, which isn't necessarily quantitative, into our models for advice?

Everybody was struggling with that, but it's one of the major issues I see, so I'm open to your advice. We will try to move forward on what we can do, but I think we're on the same page.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I think we are.

Mr. Lunney.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome all our representatives here as well.

I think the chair, in his brief intervention, actually highlighted something. He highlighted an issue there that perhaps is the elephant we don't talk about that's sometimes in the room—that is, the delicate interchange, the circles of influence. There are the fishermen on the ground and the harvesters, there's the circle of scientists trying to gather information, and then there's the circle of politicians. These worlds are certainly not mutually exclusive. The influences are all intertwined.

We all want science to drive our decisions, yet often I think the scientists are frustrated because the politicians are trying to respond to the needs of the fishermen, and the resource suffers as a consequence.

In this dialogue, though, somehow we really want the best science to drive things. I think that's what most of us want, but I simply want to acknowledge the frustration that scientists must feel at times because of the other influences that get in the way.

You started the story here about the untold story and some of the communication challenges that are related to that. I think DFO has done some excellent science. Out in our part of the world, we have the Pacific Biological Station, which is one of the world's foremost scientific institutions. I do want to ask about that. We have some world-class scientists there, Dr. Dick Beamish and others, and I think, frankly, we don't sing our own story well enough.

Because the whole concept of ocean science is so huge, frankly, not only do the scientists not know everything, but the public at large is even more ignorant about what's in there. I live on the coast, and it's amazing the number of people who live there who haven't been out on the water, who drive along and take a peek at the coast.

There's so much that we just don't know. I did my first scuba dive on the coast. As soon as you go under the water, there's a whole other world. I think everybody should visit under there for a little bit; they might appreciate what's going on a little more. Even the fishermen probably should take a look under there.

The bottom line of what I'm driving at in these comments is that with so much that we need to know to appreciate better ocean ecology, the delicate interactions, what's really going on in there, we want our scientists to have the resources to do the job right, and we also need to be able to listen. So I think we need to look at the communications strategies.

You outlined another challenge here, and that is the expanded mandate. It used to be all just fish and stock management. Now you've suddenly been tasked with healthy and productive aquatic ecosystems, as well as the sustainable fisheries, as well as safe and accessible waterways, and the hydro-geographic tasks, and so on. It is a huge, huge mandate, and I feel that we've really been underresourced in trying to tackle this mandate.

So we want to be of assistance in trying to make sure that our scientific community has the tools to move ahead on this thing and also that we are able to communicate our successes. We know, too, with the challenges the oceans are facing with climate change and so on, which has been referred to here, that there are other groups also using science to drive other agendas and to represent issues that influence decisions, that sometimes manipulate science for their purposes as well. Ultimately, we need information to make the best decisions, and we all have an interest in trying to get there.

I want to go back to the money question that Mr. Stoffer mentioned. I would just ask if you could explain. You mentioned that vessel numbers were included there. I think what you meant by that was not the number of ships on the ground—unless it was—but the cost of running vessels. Did we acquire new vessels? Is that what's part of that? Could you please expand on that for us?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Yes. Sorry, I'd like to just come back to one of your first interventions, and then I'll answer the vessel question.

I agree with you completely on getting our story out there. You've given me the opportunity to say that in 2008 we will be celebrating the centenary of our two oldest research stations in the country. Both the Pacific Biological Station and the first permanent station in St. Andrews will be 100 years old. St. Andrews began as a floating station. So 2008 is a big year.

We have at least three international conferences we will be celebrating. One is on the west coast, the PICES—it doesn't have anything to do with the acronym, but it's the North Pacific Marine Science Organization. We have ICES, which is the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea,coming to Halifax in 2008. And we have the American Fisheries Society here in Ottawa in 2008. So I would ask this committee to help us advertise that.

Coming back to the numbers of vessels, what I meant is that the vessel budget was included in the 2005-06 figures, but not in those for 2006-07. Normally, that's around $36 million.

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

I see. So that $26 million or something would show up somewhere else, but not in the management section here. That would account for the $23 million or so.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

In one year it was included and the next year it wasn't, because it had already been withdrawn. Each year I transfer this money to coast guard.

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

Thank you for clarifying that. It's very helpful.

By the way, you said something about being put on lists. I think that had to do with scientists who were speaking at the department or updating information, so that we could be informed when some of these discussions go on. I think you'd find that most of the members around the table are actually quite interested in the science. We like to know what's going on down there; we all feel we don't have enough information.

We have these bacon and egghead breakfasts here. Some of you probably attend occasionally. We're invited to attend, and most of us try to get there whenever possible.

On the oceans issues, we're particularly interested. I think we would welcome an invitation to some of those presentations.

Going on, then, I want to ask specifically—and I'm glad you did the little pitch about the centenary coming up—about the Pacific Biological Station. Maybe you could comment on it. Are we moving ahead with adequate funds for the research that's required there? Are there funding increases or decreases? I probably should have asked that when we were discussing the main estimates the other day. Can you comment on whether the scientists on the front line are getting enough funds to move ahead with the projects that need to be done?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Thank you for the question.

If you ask any individual scientist, of course, they can always do more if they have more, and I agree with that.

We have had an augmentation of the science budget. As our minister has said when he's appeared before committee and has told us many times, he wishes to see increases in science. He has allocated, and we have the numbers—on the transformational plan, for example—on how they've been allocated across the regions. The Pacific region is the largest; the Maritimes is almost as large.

As I said, we have had the direction on the expenditure review, on the stock assessment. We have had other investments, and again, we've had augmentation.

In terms of where we are now, we have a very supportive minister and we're very pleased with that.

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

Thank you.

I have one more question. I want to ask about the Larocque decision regarding not allowing resources to be used towards funding science. I don't know that we fully understand this decision—when it happened and what the implications are.

Could somebody comment on the details surrounding that decision and the implications for the department?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

It was June of this year when the Federal Court of Appeal ruled, in what's now called the Larocque decision, that fisheries resources do not belong to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and that the minister did not have the authority to finance any of the department's activities by granting a licence to fish and sell, in this case, snow crab.

On October 18, another decision came down from the Federal Court that applied the principles of the Larocque decision. This is called the APPFA decision—the Association des Pêcheurs de Poisson de fond Acadien. Essentially it said the same thing: that we can't do this.

We then looked across the country to see where we have such arrangements whereby there's an allocation of fish that is then sold, with the money coming back in to fund the activities. There are varying degrees in how it's being interpreted, but we've done a fairly thorough analysis as to how much this might entail—we're not sure about that—and how much is absolutely essential to carry on. I think we need to work very closely with the industry to see how we move forward.

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

We do test catches, to see who's where when we have migrating species. Are we talking about the sale of those fish that are caught—for example, migrating Fraser salmon coming along Vancouver Island? In those test fisheries, would the fish caught be sold to help fund the—?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

That particular issue is part of the consideration under Larocque, although it has a few differences from the east coast decisions.

Sylvain may wish to say something on that.

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

Was Larocque at an appeal court? Are these decisions being appealed, or was that already an appeal court?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Larocque was in the Federal Court of Appeal. The first decision came down in May 2005, and it came in favour of the minister. The appeal came in favour of Larocque.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I think that takes the rest of your time, Mr. Lunney.

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

Mr. Paradis was about to respond, Mr. Chair—please.

[Sylvain Paradis, Director General, Ecosystem Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The test fisheries are being assessed, as are the other issues. We had a variety of agreements. As long as the fish is used to carry out activities, it has to be looked at in terms of how the agreement was actually reached with the various fisheries associations—or the fleets, in that case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I have one final point in regard to stock assessments, and I think we really need to put it on the record. All of us here looked at the collapse of the cod. We've seen what happened in other fisheries, we've studied a number of them in depth, and to be fair, in response to Mr. Byrne's statement, I think there needs to be some clarification.

In all of those issues that we studied, we certainly saw examples from all governments of political interference. We saw bad decisions made by deputy ministers, but we didn't see—at least I didn't, and I want to put this on the record—very much bad science.

There has been a lot of good science out there and some poor decisions made from it. There has been a lack of science, but there was a lot of good science, and under difficult circumstances, you folks have managed to do that. I just want to put that on record.

Thank you very much.

Go ahead.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

I would like to thank you very much for that, Mr. Chair. It will mean a great deal to our scientists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Very good.

We have one more group of witnesses to appear, so we'll take a short break for thirty seconds to allow this group to leave. Then we have the World Wildlife Fund.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thirty seconds runs into five minutes in a hurry.

I would mention before we start—I think most people were given this—that Dr. Jean-Denis Dutil, a DFO scientist at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, will give a talk entitled, “Cod Recovery: Food for Thought”, this Friday, December 8, from 1:30 to 2:30, at the Peter Mitchell Room, 200 Kent Street.

Some of our members may want to take that in, if they're here on Friday afternoon.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the study on marine conservation issues on the east coast, I'd like to welcome our next witness from the World Wildlife Fund of Canada, Robert Rangeley, the vice-president for the Atlantic region.

Welcome. I'd ask you to start your presentation. I'm sure we have members who are anxious to ask questions.

[Robert Rangeley, Vice-President, Atlantic Region, World Wildlife Fund Canada]

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Robert Rangeley. l'm a marine biologist and I am vice-president of the Atlantic region for WWF-Canada.

First, I should apologize. This is a last-minute invitation. We didn't have time to get the translated copies ready. There is a presentation with the chair.

With me is Lorne Johnson, director of our Ottawa bureau.

I'll tell you about WWF-Canada very briefly and then I'll get into some of the issues we'd like to discuss with the committee.

WWF-Canada was founded in 1967 by Senator Alan MacNaughton, and it has become one of the country's leading conservation organizations. We enjoy the active support of 60,000 Canadians. As a member of the WWF International network, we are active in over 100 countries worldwide. With our supporters and partners, we seek to achieve the WWF vision, which is to stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature. We want to do this by conserving the world's biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

Today, l'm going to begin with one of our priority conservation objectives: the recovery of the Grand Banks. I'll discuss specific measures required to achieve sustainability in all our marine waters and the consequences of inaction. A legacy of short-sighted fisheries decisions since the advent of industrial fishing in the 1950s, even up to the present, has impacted marine resources globally, but maybe nowhere nearly as dramatically as in the Grand Banks. These decisions led to ecological collapses, economic hardship, and uncertainty.

Fisheries collapses, where some stocks declined to less than 1% of their historical highs, were thought to have bottomed out when moratoria were imposed in the early 1990s. How wrong we were. Most people assume that because the fishing of some species is banned, those fish stocks are no longer being caught, but this is clearly not the case.

For example, we know that in 2003 alone, up to 5,400 tonnes of cod on the southern Grand Banks were caught in bycatch. This represented some 90% of the estimated stock at that time. That was a fishery that had already declined and had been on moratoria since 1994. Despite this bleak scenario, the Grand Banks are not lost. There's still considerable productivity, and the building blocks for recovery exist. To reverse this situation there first needs to be a positive vision for the Grand Banks.

In an effort to get discussions started, WWF has proposed a vision for the Grand Banks whereby levels of productivity and species richness return to 1950s levels by 2050. This would mean a return to a balanced, healthy ecosystem supporting lucrative fisheries that provide lasting economic benefits to Atlantic Canadians and distant water fleets alike. There is still a chance, and WWF and many others are committed to making recovery a reality.

If Canada is to undertake an effort to allow recovery to happen, we must change how our oceans are managed, and we're long overdue. Despite nearly 15 years since the first cod moratorium, there is still no recovery agenda and no action plan. What needs to be done? Fundamentally, fisheries management must shift from a focus on commercial species to managing on an ecosystem basis where biodiversity and habitats are the values to sustain. This is old news and is not controversial. As you've heard from your previous witness, this is an agenda item.

If we accomplished this feat it would bring Canada in line with other progressive jurisdictions such as in the Alaskan North Pacific and in CCAMLR, the regional fisheries management organization for the Antarctic. They have successfully used ecosystem-based management to build sustainable fisheries and livelihoods. These are good models for Canada to follow.

The three measures I am about to describe must be applied in all Canadian waters; they are straightforward and well acknowledged. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has made the commitment. The problem is moving from words to action. Further, Canadian leadership, that is walking the talk, will influence the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, and will inform the reform process currently under way. This is crucial for Grand Banks recovery, and it's our last best chance to get it right.

Turning to the measures, first, DFO must lead the development in the implementation of recovery plans for depleted stocks. As has been clearly demonstrated, moratoria alone are insufficient. Such drastic measures must be accompanied by effective recovery plans, which include measurable targets, with timelines and comprehensive management measures that address all sources of fishing mortality, including bycatch, and that protect important habitats.

If a cod recovery strategy were put in place, decisions such as those taken last spring that opened the northern cod fishery and also permitted recreational cod fishing would have been measured against the objectives of the plan. That this didn't happen signals a willingness to once again roll the dice with cod recovery and future livelihoods.

Second, DFO must develop and enforce measures to significantly reduce bycatch. Current rates of fishing mortality, particularly through bycatch, are clearly inhibiting the recovery of moratoria stocks. Bycatch is also contributing to the overexploitation of actively fished stocks and to impacts on non-commercial species as well. As a minimum, absolute bycatch limits must be set, and set at levels that will promote recovery.

The third measure is that DFO must protect habitats. Canada needs to accelerate the establishment of a network of marine protected areas. Currently, only 0.5% of Canada's waters are protected, far short of the government's commitment to establish representative marine protected area networks covering at least 10% of our oceans by 2012.

Identifying and protecting sensitive areas, such as coral forests or areas that serve as fish nurseries, are crucial for recovery as well. Fundamentally, protected area networks, properly designed and implemented, are an essential tool to deliver on recovery goals and the ecosystem-based management objectives. Healthy oceans depend on them.

While progress on establishing protected areas has been slow, there are some opportunities to act immediately.

For example, the minister could move swiftly to sign off on the eastern Scotian Shelf integrated management initiative, also known as ESSIM. He needs to sign off on the plan, which has been fully drafted now. It probably represents the most significant move towards involving all stakeholders in oceans management. It includes a plan for protected areas.

As well, three MPA-candidate areas have been formally recognized by DFO and other relevant government agencies as low-hanging fruit, and their designations have been promised for many years. They are ecologically outstanding and have strong local support. The government could live up to these commitments and swiftly establish the Bowie Seamount on the Pacific coast, the western Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area, and Igaliqtuuq National Wildlife Area as protected areas.

What are the consequences of inaction or maintaining the status quo? Well, recently the world was shocked to learn that the collapse of all wild-harvested seafoods could become a reality before 2050 unless fisheries reforms are implemented. The study, published by Dr. Boris Worm in the journal Science, showed that the cause of this catastrophe is an ongoing decline in biodiversity resulting mainly from bad fisheries practices. This decline is reducing the ocean's ability to produce seafood, but also to resist disease, filter pollutants, and recover from stresses such as overfishing and climate change.

Canadians are acutely aware of the social and economic impacts such a disaster can produce. While it is obvious that we are on a dangerous path, the good news is that recovery of fish stocks is possible if measures are taken to promote and protect biodiversity.

WWF challenges this Parliament to help make the vision for Grand Banks recovery a reality by taking action now and delivering on Canada's commitments to oceans management.

I thank you for your time and your attention. I will be happy to discuss these issues with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

We appreciate your report, Mr. Rangeley.

We'll go to our first questioner, Mr. Matthews.