Fisheries Committee on May 1st, 2007

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

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

No. You were actually slightly over--but not very much over, of course. Thank you, Mr. Cuzner.

Perhaps I could ask for two points of clarification here.

With respect to Mr. Stoffer's statement, I appreciate the confidentiality and the privacy aspect. However, when the minister was at committee, the minister said there would be no jobs lost due to the move of the coast guard vessels. He was very emphatic and very clear about that. Has there been any change in that?

I appreciate what you said, that there would be some attrition. Some people would be ready to retire, some people may choose to move to Newfoundland, and others would simply be based out of wherever they live now, whether they live in Ontario, New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia, and be flown back and forth.

Is there a difference between what the minister said and what you're saying?

[Larry Murray]

There is absolutely no difference, Mr. Chair.

It probably wouldn't surprise you to know, either, that this was probably the minister's first question. It's certainly of great interest and great concern to him. He has been assured that there will be no job losses, that the employees who are presently the crew on those two vessels will continue to be the crew on those two vessels.

No job losses: that is the right answer. He has been very clear with us on that from day one. That certainly is the direction that has been provided and that is the direction that will be executed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Just quickly, on the Larocque decision, and in relation to Mr. Cuzner's question, when you speak to fishermen there's always a discrepancy here. The people who used to get fish from DFO in order to do science thought it was a great thing; all the rest of the fishermen who didn't get fish to do science thought it was a terrible thing. We are looking at that issue as a committee.

Can you tell me what information you get from directing a fishery in an area where there's no fish--something that the fishermen can tell you before you send them--versus the information you get from keeping proper logbooks on species distribution and having an on-site observer or fisheries biologist on board?

[David Bevan]

Obviously we have to obtain information relative to distribution, and past patterns of distribution are proving to be remarkably unreliable in today's environment. We're seeing fish move into areas where they haven't been in the past, and they're not in areas where they have been. We need to keep information current by having those sets take place.

That is one reason why we have sentinel fisheries, where you direct people on where to go. Even when the fishermen are fairly convinced--and most of the time, they are right--we still need to be able to ensure that we have credible information on the distribution.

Logbooks are one source, but with sentinel fisheries you get the catch over time, through a series of data. You also get the samples, etc., that you need. The test fishing on the west coast is absolutely essential.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the deputy and to the officials for appearing.

I want to change gears a little bit. It appears to me there's a train coming down the track that could have a very serious impact on the Canadian fishing industry. I'm talking about the whole issue of eco-labelling; more particularly, the work of the Marine Stewardship Council.

It's my understanding, for example, that basically we'll be shut out of the European market unless we find some way to comply with the Marine Stewardship Council provisions. I understand that practically every retailer in the U.K., for example, will not be willing to sell our sockeye salmon and perhaps our pink salmon if we don't find some way to address this issue. The same is true of Germany, Holland, and Switzerland. That will have a significant impact for our west coast fisheries, but I'm guessing it will have a major impact on the east coast as well, before too long.

In terms of the sockeye and the pink, Alaska, which I think is a test case for the Marine Stewardship Council, does have certification at this point. We don't. So we know, I think, who will be selling the fish into those markets.

What can you tell us about that in terms of the department's approach and in terms of what it plans to do to reach those goals? Where in the estimates does it show the money that we're going to be devoting to this issue?

[Larry Murray]

Mr. Chair, that is an extremely important issue and is becoming a fundamental issue in the fishery in this country and in other countries. It is really a significant element of the change in philosophy that the minister outlined in his “Ocean to Plate” announcements in Newfoundland on April 12, and it's something we're trying to come to grips with in quite a meaningful way.

But I might ask Mr. Bevan to go into the details in response to Mr. Kamp's question.

[David Bevan]

Clearly, the Marine Stewardship Council or some other version of eco-labelling and attestation to the sustainability of fisheries is going to become a key factor in gaining access to markets. Wal-Mart has made its views known on this; they're going to require eco-labelling on all the products they handle. They're a major retailer in seafood in the United States. We already have the situation, as you noted, in Europe.

We have a number of fisheries that are going for certification or have achieved certification. The sockeye and pink salmon certification in British Columbia has been a very long process. While we've had certification of other fisheries much more rapidly and much more quickly in some areas of the country, that one has been very demanding. And while the Alaskan fishery has been certified, it's up for recertification. We are certainly hopeful that it will have the same kinds of criteria applied to it as are being applied to the Canadian fishery.

We are working with the industry to try to respond to the Marine Stewardship Council's demand for information. Moreover, we're also looking at putting in place a checklist for Canadian fisheries whereby we look at all the factors for sustainable fisheries in Canada, whether scientific knowledge, management objectives and regimes, or socio-economic factors. All of those will be evaluated in Canadian fisheries.

That will form a way for industry to provide an attestation to their markets that they are subject to sustainable fishing practices. If they seek Marine Stewardship Council or some other eco-labelling certification, that will be the foundation from which they can work. They'll have at hand a lot of the information that would be required to respond to these demands.

We're doing that for all fisheries over the course of the next year or two. And we are making sure that the public will be aware that we are introducing the precautionary approach and ecosystem-based management in these fisheries, and that there's a checklist to demonstrate what we have by way of our science knowledge, our management objectives, etc.

It's going to be a significant change for the industry in Canada. It used to be focused on TAC and quotas, and that was it. Now an awful lot more is going to be required to respond to these demands from the marketplace, and we're going to work with the industry to meet those demands.

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

Is the lead taken by industry to receive certification? Obviously the role of the managers is a big factor in whether certification is possible.

[David Bevan]

The decision to get or not to get certification should be one taken by the industry. What we need to do, though, is provide a lot better foundation from which all sectors of the industry can work. That's what the checklist is about. That's why we're working closely with science and with industry to move ahead with this kind of approach.

[Larry Murray]

To answer your question—and I'd ask Mr. Hegge or David to correct me—in terms of the estimates, fundamentally the money or the resources we're putting into this are largely A-base. In other words, we're changing how we do business over time.

Having said that, moving to an ecosystem science approach, which a portion of the new science money in the budget is all about, and some elements of the health of the ocean stuff, one could argue, move us in that direction. But the more precise answer, I think, is that it's part of what we have to do to do business, part of our A-base, and we need to figure out how to organize ourselves to do it.

[David Bevan]

We received some incremental money—I can't recall the amount—for science, for resource management. We got $1.6 million extra because of the added complexity these fishing plans are now going to have to encompass.

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

Could you tell me if the department is optimistic about the industry receiving certification for sockeye, for example?

I've seen some of the requirements the managers need to meet. Some seem pretty daunting to me. There is one with respect to relations with aboriginal groups, for example. There is one for a guarantee of all the funding necessary to meet the obligations, which seems a hard thing to guarantee.

Are you optimistic that in the future we're going to get past this and be able to sell fish into markets that require this certification?

[David Bevan]

The short answer is yes. The big question is on timing, and we're hopeful that it's going to come in time for this season.

[Larry Murray]

If I could piggyback on that, that is the one that I think really informed us, though, in the sense that it's kind of a moving target and we don't think it should be a moving target. We think the Canadian sockeye industry seems to be subject to much more stringent certification than Alaska the first time around. As David said, we're interested to see Alaska the second time around. But the reason we're doing this checklist is to arm industry with a way of doing business. We think if we do it appropriately and we work with industry appropriately, it should be, for a reasonable certification process, seven-eighths or nine-tenths of the way there so that we don't keep chasing these targets set by somebody else. So I think your question is bang on. We really need to figure out how to deal with this in a professional way.

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

Okay, if I can go in a different direction again, in the next few weeks we'll probably know whether the Fraser River is going to be in flood conditions or not. There's some confusion out there—I can tell you this for sure—on the department's role with respect to gravel removal. I don't see Ms. Kirby here, but can someone tell me what you view your role there to be in terms of gravel removal, and how have you discharged any responsibility that you think you might have?

[Larry Murray]

I'll start, and if someone else wants to leap in....

This is an area of considerable controversy. On this one, as usual, there is a view that gravel removal is essential to flood control. There are also great concerns about gravel removal in terms of salmon habitat.

In the context of some of these pressures, we've actually worked with the province and came up with an MOU a year or two ago—a little more than a year ago, in any case—to ensure that in fact we did address both of those concerns in an appropriate and professional way.

As far as I'm aware, for this year, from a DFO perspective, we were ready to move on some 800,000 cubic metres. Ultimately, I think a good portion of it didn't happen because of the economics of it, but the other point that the department has made consistently is that if there is a real flood risk, we're certainly prepared to put public safety first.

I do think there now is effort under way in looking at a flood control plan. I think dikes, and so on, from a flood perspective, are probably more important than gravel removal, as I understand it.

That said, we do have an MOU, we're prepared to work with the province, and we have been prepared to move on it this year. As I say, I think that will have a flood control plan superimposed on it shortly, and that would be quite helpful to everyone. I think governments also have to look at the economic aspect of this and figure out, is the gravel removal about flood control and therefore is it about the economics, or is it about flood control and therefore we figure out how to deal with the economics?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

Mr. Cuzner.

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

I'm going to start off with an unprecedented action here, okay? I'm going to say something nice about DFO. And Bill Casey, if you repeat this to any of the fishermen in Cape Breton—Canso, I'll have to deny it.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Just speak a little louder.

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

The action to take the crabbers out of area 18 and put them into area 12 I thought made all kinds of sense. It has played out that it was the right thing to do, and I want to commend DFO for taking that action in 2004.

Obviously, with the ever-changing industry, the outside line on area 19 was pounded pretty significantly, certainly with the additional access through the Marshall decision and then again with area 18 going into area 12. We know there were suggestions as to how to deal with the additional activity on the outside line. To start with, could I get an update as to what's going on with the outside line on area 19?

[David Bevan]

This year we had a number of proposals for that. We could leave it alone or also go to a buffer zone of some substantial size. The minister's decision was to make a compromise and put in place a one-nautical-mile buffer on that zone, which would remain until the end of the month of May. That was done to try to take some of the pressure off the crab that was on its way into area 19. It was less than what was requested by area 19 and more than was desired by other fishers. But that's the compromise.

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

Is it one on either side, Mr. Bevan?

[David Bevan]

I'll have to get back to you with the details on that. I think it's one mile in total.