Fisheries Committee on June 3rd, 2008

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cotton.

We'll now go to Mr. Stoffer, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming today.

Sir, have you had an opportunity to share these recommendations with local DFO people, like the regional director for the area? If you have, what discussion did you have with them on these proposals you've made?

[Jean-Pierre Couillard]

We wanted a political decision to be made to somewhat counter the scientific tendency. Immediately after having drafted the document, we went to meet with the scientists in Moncton, directly on the ground. It was, in a way, on enemy ground. We explained our approach to them. We told them that we were calling for a political decision, because we disagreed with them on their analysis of the health of the biomass. They listened to our demands, our point of view. Nevertheless, they disagree with us because they do not recognize fishers' qualitative assessment. They adhere strictly to a quantitative approach.

And yet, we know full well that from a scientific perspective, the quantitative approach accounts for neither socio-cultural and socio-economic components nor the impact felt by coastal communities. The impact is felt not only in the Gaspé, but also in Newfoundland. Not too long ago, we spoke about the disastrous consequences of the first moratorium in 1992 on fishing communities. In our area, we experienced the same situation as in the Maritime provinces. Villages were literally emptied of their inhabitants. In normal times, generations of young people would have decided on a career in the fishing industry because it is a culture, a world unto itself, a life that is completely foreign to that in the major centres. But all that has changed.

To some extent, that is what we are blaming scientists for, and that is why we went to Moncton to share our point of view with them. We told them that we would not do things in a clandestine manner. We tried convincing them to take part in a partnership project. Given that scientists' reading of the health of the biomass is in complete opposition to that of the fishing industry, which is really based on a qualitative assessment, we asked them to eventually assist us in conceiving a partnership project.

We have to realize that a partnership program involving the fishing industry and scientists is necessary, and that we can make a yearly assessment, and then changes. During the meeting, we told them that if they supported our approach, i.e., 4,000 tonnes over three years, the partnership program would allow us to clearly assess the health of the biomass. We also told them that if, at the end of the four-year assessment period, we also came to the conclusion that the health of the biomass was deteriorating, we would truly respect the precautionary approach and sustainable development strategy.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Before Mr. Stoffer asks his next question, I'm just going to ask committee members and our witnesses if we could please make our questions and answers more succinct and to the point. Mr. Stoffer's time has just about elapsed with one question, which was fairly short, and your answer. So could we try to tighten it up a bit, because I'm sure members want to ask as many questions as possible.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think my question was whether you had a chance to speak to the senior management levels there. But most importantly, has your organization had an opportunity to have independent scientists, outside of DFO, give an analysis of the DFO science's survey data, in terms of a peer review? Have you had an opportunity to compare in that regard?

[Réginald Cotton]

In keeping with our discussions with the office of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, i.e., with the science director, we are now considering the matter with an independent party in order to determine our next steps. We were told that a meeting would be held in September to deal with all that.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our witnesses.

There's been a fair amount of information discussed here today, and I certainly appreciate that. There were a number of statements made, certainly by my colleagues.... And I realize, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a question; this is going to be a statement, and it comes out of my time.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

You'll be joining the group, then, to make a statement.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I'm always disappointed when we have politicians who tend to try to drive a wedge between the scientific community and the fishermen. What we should be doing, quite frankly, is trying to get fishermen and the scientific community working more closely together, because they're your greatest ally. Rather than just taking someone's word for it, when you have more time go back and read the new Fisheries Act, and make your own judgments about it and what it does for the minister and the minister's ability to enforce the act.

We've been looking at the southern cod stocks in the gulf since I've been a member of Parliament, which has been eleven years. Everything we've seen has shown that the stock has been under pressure for that entire period of time. The cod are smaller; they're not maturing to the same size they used to.

I respect very much what they're saying, especially about the stock assessment in August. If there are no cod there in August, then we should do the assessment at a different time. And you should do that in conjunction with the scientific community out there. The other scientists on the water are the fishermen, because you observe that animal in its environment on a daily basis. So obviously you should be part of that assessment, without question. I'm not arguing that.

What I am concerned about is an economic argument about fish stocks. Using an economic argument is exactly what happened in the early nineties to the northern cod. We fished that species--the economic argument coming from the politicians and overruling, quite frankly, DFO and overruling science--to the brink of extinction. It caused horrific problems in our coastal communities and closed many of them down and shut the fishery down. So I have a real concern that the economic argument is being used.

I agree with you that if there are no cod there in August, don't do the assessment in August. But beyond that, frankly, we run the risk of this species being placed under SARA or under COSEWIC and put on a list and protected, and you'll never be able to access it. And that's a serious risk. I know that the short-term pain is horrific, but it may be the only option. Have you considered the economic argument--vis-à-vis what happened with the collapse of the cod in the early nineties--not being part of the equation?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Go ahead, Mr. Couillard.

[Jean-Pierre Couillard]

You can set aside the economic aspect and simply focus on the social side, but the two go hand in hand. The economic aspect is not disproportionate. Prior to the 1990s, the philosophy for managing and protecting fish stocks was determined primarily by corporate economic concerns. The Kirby report talked about large national corporations that dictated the management strategy to government. It is different today: there are teams made up of scientists and others that have been set up to represent the industry.

I fully agree that we must be concerned about the decline and the health of the resource. We discussed that at length in the document. We respect the sustainable development concept and the precautionary approach, and while we must make sure not to exaggerate, the scientific community must above all not forget the social side. That is my point of view.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

The other issue that's been discussed, and certainly I think it's a compelling argument, is predation. We see the same thing in Nova Scotia. We see the same thing on the north shore and in Newfoundland. There are more seals than there have ever been. Certainly in my area, in southwestern Nova Scotia, the problem seal is the grey seal. I'm assuming that it's the same problem, but you would have harp as well, I would suspect. How much seal predation is there? Have you a quantitative amount? Do you have any idea how much cod the seals are taking?

[Réginald Cotton]

I did read an article where a scientist stated that seals in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence ate 40,000 metric tonnes of cod.

I believe that what fishermen are looking for is a point of no return. That is why we are here today. Four thousand tonnes of cod in the south of the Gulf of the St. Lawrence is a drop in the ocean. It is not true that we will destroy the resource by taking 4,000 tonnes of cod.

I'm going to explain something to you. In the northern part of the gulf, at 7,000 tonnes, the harvesting rate versus the total biomass is about 20%. In the southern part of the gulf, at 4,000 tonnes, the harvesting rate would be about 2 or 3%. So we can't understand.

The scientists who will appear after us will probably tell you that in the southern part of the gulf there are no more large codfish. We know why they can no longer find any large codfish: it is because of the gear they are using. As I explained a little earlier, in the southern part of the gulf at present, zone 4T2 is closed, because people cannot fish flounder due to an overabundance of cod. They are using 170 square mesh size to fish flounder. But they are catching too much cod in comparison with their flounder catch. They are catching cod because there is cod. We are not asking for 50,000 tonnes, we asking for 4,000 tonnes, to understand.

Here is our question to the department: Can we give ourselves one last chance to work together? Let's work together for three years to develop a program that takes science into account. We need these people, because we are not scientists. But I fully believe that scientists also need our contribution, our knowledge and expertise. When I have a toothache, I go to the dentist, not to a barber shop. So people who are working in the fishery should turn to the fishermen.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I couldn't agree more. However, we have a serious problem here. We do have a seriously diminished biomass from where it was.

The other issue you raise was to treat the southern gulf the same as the northern gulf. The science we've seen, the catch records we've seen, tell us the catch is diminishing more quickly in the southern gulf than in the northern gulf. If you treat the two areas exactly the same, then you're going to run the risk of completely decimating that stock in the southern gulf.

I'm not saying every fishing zone is correct. I'm not saying DFO has never made a mistake in the past or won't in the future or scientific assessments can't be off, but that's what we have to work with. I think you're running the risk, quite honestly, of totally destroying the southern gulf biomass.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Mr. Couillard, go ahead, please. Quickly.

[Jean-Pierre Couillard]

I would like to comment on that. To my mind, one of the biggest threats to the health and assessment of the stocks is the disagreement between industry and the scientists. That is a key part of the issue. We are never able to create a working program or reach a conclusion on the state of the fishery and on what direction to take to improve it, because we simply cannot agree. One basic aspect that must be established is communication between industry and the scientists. If we are unable to solve that problem, some will attempt to exercise political pressure, as we are doing today, and others will use scientific assessments that are not at all like ours. We must resolve that problem to obtain better results.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you very much.

We're finished our first round of questioning; our time is just about up. We have a few minutes left.

I would like some direction from my colleagues. Do you want to go with one quick question per party? I'm asking your guidance here. Or we can finish it off and let this gentleman respond and end it there.

Let Mr. Cotton respond and finish? Is everyone okay with that? Okay.

Mr. Cotton, would you finish up with some closing remarks for us, please, either in response to Mr. Keddy or with something you want to say about the issue?

[Réginald Cotton]

I will quickly respond to Mr. Keddy.

You are talking about the biomass in the southern gulf and you are saying the same thing as the scientists. I am not holding it against you; that is what is available to work with. Mr. Keddy, for a year, I have been bringing fishers from the southern gulf together. It was an extremely arduous and difficult task. We came to the conclusion that we needed to give ourselves another opportunity because the snapshot that the scientists have taken is not accurate. It was not accurate a few years ago in either the northern gulf or the southern gulf.

We are simply asking the government to work with us, to give us a chance. A 4,000 tonne TAC for three years is not much, because the seals are eating 10 times as much as that. We should be given a chance. And if ever the scientists are right, I can assure that I will be the first fisherman to stand up and say that they were right. But if it comes to light that they were not right, Canadians are the ones who will benefit.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cotton.

Thank you very much for coming, gentlemen, and appearing before the committee.

I want to thank my colleagues for their involvement today.

I just want to say to you that we take your issue very seriously. We heard very similar comments and representations from the other part of the gulf just a few short years ago.

We will take a break for a couple of minutes to get ready for our next witnesses, please.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

I call the meeting back to order, please.

We're ready to entertain our next witnesses. We want to continue with our discussion on the southern gulf cod.

We have with us Mr. David Bevan, assistant deputy minister of fisheries and aquaculture management, and Mr. Sylvain Paradis, director general, ecosystem science.

Welcome, gentlemen.

I understand, Mr. Bevan, you have a statement to make. Go ahead, please.

[David Bevan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I have a very brief opening statement to put this whole issue into context.

We're managing fisheries now in a very different kind of environment from what we have had in the past. We're faced with the scrutiny that exists in the marketplace, where we have to demonstrate that fisheries are sustainable. We have our obligations internationally and within our own policy framework to exercise cautious management. We need to act with the available information and we cannot just delay because of uncertainty. We have to act based on what we have in front of us.

In the southern gulf, unfortunately we have a very grim picture indeed in terms of the population trends, and my colleague will no doubt be able to respond to the questions. That grim picture is unique in the gulf in terms of comparisons to the north, and we need to consider that, in taking decisions as to how we manage it. We have to also be cognizant of all the scrutiny coming from everything from species at risk through to the market demanding proof of sustainable fisheries. Those are issues we have to consider as well.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you, Mr. Bevan.

We'll go now to our round of questioning. Mr. Byrne, go ahead, please.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to quote one of my colleagues, I hate when politicians drive a wedge between fishermen and scientists. I tell you, there's a fair bit of self-loathing going on here in this room right now, I guess, if that's the case.

I'd like to ask you a question, Mr. Bevan, based on your own previous experience. DFO has had a track record of actually listening to fishermen when they present evidence that opposes a scientific point of view. And in fact there are numerous examples in recent history, current fisheries management plans, whereby that advice received from fishermen has been well-founded.

I can think of one example, on the northeast coast of Newfoundland, where scientific evidence presented to DFO, and by DFO to the minister, did not support an opening of a commercial cod fishery, or for that matter, to put it in a different tone, a test fishery or whatever. But the current minister made a decision to open that fishery, and in fact there does not appear to be any significant serious decline in those stocks. In fact the status quo seems to be prevailing.

We've had the situation in the northern gulf, where in 2002 we went from a quota of several thousand tonnes to a moratorium, and now just last year, three years later, we've gone to a situation where there is actually a very healthy fishery being prosecuted. In fact, DFO will be contemplating an increase in the resource.

Would you agree to this committee that there are problems with DFO science, that this advice is not necessarily well-founded?

In fact, in the northern gulf circumstance we know that the Alfred Needler, the DFO scientific vessel that was conducting those surveys, was actually out of commission for a long period of time, which actually brought us to the point where we imposed a moratorium in the northern gulf. The Alfred Needler was not in actual fact being.... The level of test fisheries that were being conducted was marginal, and in fact they were negatively affected by breakdowns and I believe a fire and the nets were getting snagged and so on.

Is the issue here one where either a lack of resources or difficulties within the scientific process can indeed be affecting the actual result of the scientific analysis and conclusions at the other end?