Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Mr. Rangeley, for coming.

I listened with great interest to your presentation and would say to you very honestly that I'm very interested in Grand Banks cod and Grand Banks fish resources in general—for a number of reasons, of course. I care about protein supply for the world, but I happen to represent a region of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the south coast, that has been decimated, basically, because of a downturn in our cod stocks. That's why we settled where we now live, although there are far fewer of us now. We've gone elsewhere to look for work, because our cod has been decimated.

I am fortunate in one way, in that the area I represent has two commercial fisheries, 3PS and the gulf cod. But they're in the south, and I think a lot of that is due to there being warmer water and probably greater nutrients too. I think that's a factor. But having said that, we're nowhere near where we were.

Speaking to your presentation concerning a recovery plan, no one can argue against it. I support it, I think. Successive governments have been negligent in not having a proper recovery plan.

Reducing the bycatch is a no-brainer, but I have a quick question to you. Who has been taking the bycatch mostly? You talk about the southern Grand Banks. Who's been taking it?

You can't argue too much about protecting habitat either. But what I found most interesting in your presentation—and I'd like you to answer the bycatch piece, if you can—is this.

We talk about managing the ecosystem and about a balanced ecosystem. There are a number of factors that caused the decline of our cod resources, and it's going to take dealing with a number of factors to get the cod resources to rebound, to regenerate.

You never mentioned predator behaviour at all. I'd be interesting in hearing you respond and comment on that, because it is one of the factors with the three you've outlined, which are very important and which I support. Here's another one you didn't talk about, and I think it's critical that we deal with it.

[Robert Rangeley]

Yes, very good.

I'll quickly go to the bycatch and then I'll deal with other factors, as you mentioned.

The astounding thing about the southern Grand Banks, and the reason it is such a good model for how things have gone wrong and how they could become better, is that it is one of the most productive areas. We have the cold Labrador current bringing nutrients from the Arctic; we have the warm gulf stream, which creates warm waters and high production. It's from there, in the southern Grand Banks, that many scientists believe recovery of cod will begin first.

Unfortunately, since 1994, when the moratorium was put in place, bycatch levels increased every single year. I just cited the worst possible year, which was 2003. That was a mix of Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian fleets fishing on a number of species, and Canadian fleets fishing yellowtail in particular on the southern Grand Banks. So there has been a mix of Canadian and foreign fisheries implicated.

There has certainly been some strong effort by the Canadian fleet and the department to work very hard to reduce the Canadian bycatch through gear measures and so on.

Regarding the question about predators—and no doubt you're speaking of seals—there are two things here. One is, what do we do about it? One thing you'll find with any animal population that is being severely impacted is that their resiliency to withstand external environmental factors such as variability in climate change or predation goes down. A strong, healthy cod stock may in fact be more resilient to high predation numbers or high numbers of predators than a stock that has been decimated.

As to whether killing more seals would do the job, I think the evidence around the world is that predator control just has not worked and is not a good way to manage ecosystems.

It's a different question, if you're asking what we are doing about predators, from the question of a seal hunt, which is a sustainable harvest. I'm not mixing up those two issues.

Does that get at your question?

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

It does somewhat, but coming from the part of the world I come from, it seems that organizations such as your own would rather see 20 million seals than see a rebuilding of a cod stock that would sustain a rural way of life. I'm being very honest this afternoon. We wear the impact of all of this and we feel it, when a third or a quarter of our population have to go elsewhere to work and yet we see as many seals as we see about.

I've asked people, why do you care more about seals than you care about human beings? To me, people are obsessed with them. I agree there are a number of factors that have to be addressed. Your bycatch one is very legitimate; your habitat is very legitimate; a recovery plan is very legitimate. But what I can't understand is why there's a resistance to recognizing another factor.

The seal herd is sustainable at 2 million animals, but we now know it's a minimum of 6 million harps, not counting the grey, not counting the other hooded seals and harbour seals. Do you know what I'm saying? Let's all get mature about this and let's include that as a factor and deal with it.

[Robert Rangeley]

It is a factor, and I just want to put on the record our position—which is on the record—that we don't oppose the seal hunt. We have no position about seals, in particular. It's a sustainable hunt.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I'll try to believe that comment, Mr. Rangeley, and to be fair to the World Wildlife Fund, they have not been anti-seal hunt, at least in recent years, and have supported a sustainable hunt. Other groups, which they often get mixed up with, such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and other groups, have been anti-seal hunt, but the World Wildlife Fund—

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Chairman, I'll just finish with this comment.

Why wasn't there a fourth factor? Why weren't there four factors? Conveniently, sometimes, you can leave something out.

[Robert Rangeley]

Well, we want to manage our activities; we can't manage the ecosystem. Ecosystem-based management is not about managing ecosystems. We cannot manipulate the ecosystems; that's been shown time and again. Predators are there, and I absolutely agree they're a factor, but it's not something we can control in a scientific management approach.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Just one question, then. Are you telling us that in fact if the population went from 6 million to 2 million, it wouldn't have an effect on the cod stocks?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the biggest consumers in the world of cod is the seal. Is there something I'm not understanding? If there are fewer seal, or if the seal is controlled to be fewer in numbers.... If it's sustainable at 2 million and sustainable at 20 million, it would seem to me it would take a lot more cod fish to feed 6 million than it would 2 million, and that not being a factor just....

We're having a big time in this country trying to educate the world.You indicate you don't oppose the seal hunt, but the fact is, and I think you're fully aware, we have so many organizations and very wealthy people who do nothing but promote—and sometimes, I'm sure you're well aware, quite incorrectly—how the seal hunt is operated, using pictures that are ten or fifteen years old.

When you come here and one of the factors is not seals, it's just hard to understand.

[Robert Rangeley]

The scientific evidence is such that it's not a direct-line relationship between the number of seals and the number of cod consumed and the impacts on the population. Sure, they.... I'm not going to defend....

Predator-prey interactions are such that it's a complex dynamic; it's not a straight-line relationship, and it never will be. Seals eat lots of other things; cod populations aren't driven by the number of seals. If we have strong cod populations, they certainly could be resilient to the seal harvest.

But the point is.... And let's get away from “one predator, one prey”. That was the whole point of my talk: we have to look at ecosystem-based management, putting back some of the refuges and some of the resiliency into the system that we're continually impacting, such as corals and other habitats and other spawning areas for cod, for example.

It's a factor, but no one can tell you how many seals taken will result in a return to cod recovery.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Go ahead, Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'll be super quick, honest to God.

Our chairman made the comment during the last witness panel that we do have some good science. Could you comment on DFO science in general? Does it suffice? Is it focused properly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Very quickly, please.

[Robert Rangeley]

Sure. That's a good question.

On the quality of science, there are excellent scientists at DFO, no question. Are their priorities in the right place? We work closely with DFO all the time from a science policy management point of view. Many DFO scientists know what to do. I said this is old news about ecosystem-based management. DFO scientists have been at the forefront internationally in developing the tools and the models of how to move forward. The problem is implementation. If there was a focus for scientists--but it doesn't rely on just scientists and it doesn't just rely even on DFO--it's certainly DFO decisions, managers, and taking those approaches and making them happen.

We don't need more science to make more things happen, in other words. The science isn't the limiting factor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Rangeley.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Rangeley.

I don’t have any choice but to talk about the seal file. I represent Gaspésie and the Magdalen Islands. I’m not going to get into a scientific debate, but I’m going to tell you my opinion and I’ll ask you a question.

In view of the drop in the cod population, the “seal factor” takes on greater significance. This is no longer a situation in which the cod population is healthy and marine resources are abundant. In these conditions, whether we like it or not, seals are having more impact. You say that there is not a cause-and-effect relationship. That reminds me of the fact that there are more shrimp because there is less cod. This is a cause-and-effect relationship. That’s my opinion. I’m not going to get into a scientific debate, unless you really insist on it. It’s for you to see.

You say you agree that there should be a properly run seal hunt, as is the case now. However, the people from the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Humane Society give me the impression of acting just for the money it brings them. Maybe they just want there to no longer be a seal hunt, but I’m not even sure of that. Maybe it’s in their interest for it to last so that it will make them even more money. Their arguments have no scientific basis. It is disinformation, demagogy.

What do you think about the campaign against the seal hunt led by the people from the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Humane Society?

You hesitate. Silence gives consent?

[Robert Rangeley]

Let me try. I think I understand.

Our position on the seal hunt and our understanding of it, socially and economically, is that it is a legitimate harvest activity. It has a long, cultural history, as do many of the fisheries. It's a legitimate harvest and it's sustainable. And that's about as far as we go with the seal hunt. We have no issue with the seal hunt.

In terms of understanding that it plays a role in gulf and Atlantic provinces, yes, we get that. We understand. In fact, we've worked with seal harvesters. It's a non-issue for us.

I don't know what else to say, unless I've misinterpreted your question.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

That was more a comment than an answer.

I’m tempted to use antiparliamentary terms, but I won’t do that.

I want to know what you think about the demagogy and disinformation campaign led by the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Humane Society.

[Robert Rangeley]

I have no comment on that. I'm dismayed when I hear inaccurate information anywhere. I know it's such a volatile issue. As far as I'm concerned, I respect the right of animal welfare and animal rights groups to have their opinions. I don't share many of their opinions. We are a conservation organization. We stick to what we know, which is conservation. We stay out of the animal rights/animal welfare issues.

What can I say? I feel your pain. It's difficult. I can't imagine being in the centre of that as many in P.E.I. and the north coast and Newfoundland are.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

If your group or organization could denounce this demagogy and disinformation campaign, it would help us and it would help bring out the truth. I’m not asking you to say that the seal population in its entirety should be exterminated or to propose any such measure. However, in my opinion, we have to criticize those who should be criticized. I am not criticizing the fact that these people are concerned with endangered species, but I’m criticizing the fact that they use disinformation and demagogy to achieve their financial ends.

I’m not asking you to go as far as I do, but I’m asking you to take part in the fight, because we really are in the throes of a struggle. We are fighting a group that makes money at our expense among the public. These people say that the seal hunters are barbarians and that this hunt is completely futile.

The more people knew the truth of the situation, the more they would criticize those involved in demagogy campaigns, the more the situation would improve for everyone and the more the truth would come out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Could you give a very quick answer to that, Mr. Rangeley?

[Robert Rangeley]

Very quickly, I think we have done what you've said and we've done all we can. In other words, we have not opposed the seal hunt. The fact that the world's leading conservation organization doesn't oppose it on conservation grounds says something about our science. We do look at the seal hunt, believe me. The day it became a conservation issue we would have to have a comment on it from a conservation point of view. Right now, it's not one, and it's distracting a heck of a lot of attention I think from some of the more important issues--resources and everything else. You have no idea how many millions of letters we've received internationally on this.

You recognize we're in a hundred different countries and there are a lot of cultural differences in our organization among the different countries, and it has caused problems. We've looked at it very deeply in our organization because of some of these differences. We are unified as a global organization, not just WWF-Canada, on our position. I think that's the strength we can bring to it.

We're not about to enter into a campaign against other organizations. We have plenty enough to do towards conservation issues and to hold our course, and I think our position says all it needs to say about our views on other claims on the credibility of the science.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you for that, Mr. Rangeley.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, sir, for appearing before the committee.

You mentioned marine protected areas, and I couldn't agree with you more. Like you, there's a whole whack of us who are extremely frustrated at the slow progress of marine protected areas. We keep hearing the platitudes that they're important and that they need to be done, yet we're not doing them. I'm just wondering why you think that is. Why do you think there's such a reluctance on the part of government through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other departments to move quicker on this very important issue when they know the science is there? All of this is old hat, as you said yourself. Why, in your opinion--the WWF--do you think the government is so strange in its approach to this very important issue?

[Robert Rangeley]

I wish I could answer that. We have a commitment to 10% by 2012, and we know what the date is now. We have a few postage stamps of protected areas in our oceans—about half a percent.

The interesting thing—and it's the result of the work we've done and of taking on the best knowledge of protected areas around the world—is that we've developed this planning framework for protected areas and have just completed a very comprehensive science document, which I don't have with me because it's just at the printers, on actually how to put protected areas in place.

There are a couple of things you have to know about protected areas. The approach we're advocating is not to talk—arbitrarily, in a sort of top-down approach—about putting lines on a map and saying, “fishermen out”. We're talking about, for example, the model that's being undertaken in the eastern Scotian Shelf. That was a DFO-led process, and it came out of the Gully MPA, as you know.

The recognition of the Gully—our first protected area in Atlantic Canada—came about through a rather messy process. It's an important, significant area to protect—the North American east coast's largest canyon, with northern bottlenose whales, and then, as they started to learn more about it, deep sea corals, and all sorts of important values to protect.

The problem was—and I spoke to a lot of industry at that time—that it appeared to be ad hoc. It came out of the blue, and they didn't know how to react to it.

How do we incorporate all the users into a plan for protected areas? We took that challenge on. One way was to participate in and help to advance the goals for integrated management. That's in one particular area, and the ESSIM area is a pilot for Canada.

That's been my point. We really need to see the minister sign off on that plan in the new year—which, all indications are, will happen. It's a good plan.

Now, about the protected areas. We're not talking about ad hoc protected areas popping up everywhere. What we're talking about is systematic planning, representative networks, but the neat thing about the approach we're advocating and the tools we've used—and it's based on the best models around the world—is that it's a flexible approach. You recognize what your goals are, the values you're trying to conserve, and then you involve other stakeholders in it.

There's actually a fair amount of flexibility around where you can put those boundaries. As well, many MPAs are zoned for different types of use.

So we're talking about a zoning approach within which we have 10% of our oceans, protecting the most valuable places and representative habitat throughout, that's engaging industry and other decision-makers in the process, as opposed to creating a one-off map of the protected areas.

Part of the problem, and the initial resistance from industry, which I think is driving some of the resistance in the department, is that they saw one MPA as a slippery slope to more MPAs and more rules against the industry in places they couldn't fish in.

It's just the opposite. Yes, it's about managing ecosystems, and it's the kind of thing that's going to help us get to where we need to go in terms of recovery and long-term sustainability. That's the approach we're advocating.