Evidence of meeting #73 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
I expect I know the answer, but on invasive species and the ballast water regulations, they're the same there as they are in the rest of the country. Is that correct?
12:25 p.m.
Acting Regional Director General, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes. Ballast water is Transport Canada's domain, not DFO's. We provide the science to support it. That said, yesterday some of my staff were providing presentations on ballast water exchange in the Arctic at a conference related to invasives across the international scope, and there was a lot of interest in the Arctic.
If we do mid-ocean and we do the Canadian standards for ballast water exchange, we're thinking that we're in pretty good shape. I think what we have to look at, particularly in the east as we're coming in—and it would be the same thing in the Beaufort because of the shallow waters in the near shore—you'd want to make sure that you weren't bringing in something that could survive.
As an example, the Mary River project, when it's up and running, is going to be taking a lot of iron ore between the Mary River facilities and Rotterdam. Rotterdam is known for being one of the highest invasive breeding grounds in the world, I guess, because of the shipping traffic. What we'd be looking for is making sure there was some kind of mid-ocean exchange, and then, as it got closer to the destination, potential treatment or whatever under the regulations that Transport would put in place. The science we have sort of says yes, that should be sufficient.
12:30 p.m.
Acting Regional Director General, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you.
I'm interested in what our coast guard search and rescue capacity is in the north at the present time. Could you could give me some indication of that and maybe some sense of how many missions there have been over the past few years? Also, what's the plan over the next 5 to 10 years in terms of that capacity?
12:30 p.m.
Acting Regional Director General, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think that would be a question we'd take back to the commissioner of the coast guard and my colleague Mario Pelletier, who is the assistant commissioner for our central and Arctic region. I've had a lot of time in the coast guard over my career, but I think it's inappropriate for us to speak for the commissioner on his program and mandate.
You know that we have some new vessels coming into the fleet, and obviously that will impact on our ability to have resources there. I think it's common knowledge that we have a fixed duration of season when we have our icebreakers in the Arctic, and fishers and others are prosecuting those resources for much longer periods of time. I'm sure the commissioner would provide a lot of good information on that to this committee.
The other aspect is that it's not just the coast guard; it's the Canadian Rangers. We have the territorial governments, as well as the assets of the Department of National Defence, that can all be brought to bear on these, but we are talking about some pretty remote areas, and it is an issue of concern for all of us. We're seeing more and more people who want to go to the Arctic. When they go there, how do we ensure that they're there...? I think the first part of it is that the mariners are always responsible for ensuring that they have the appropriate safeguards.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Okay. I don't know whether we ask for that information to be delivered or whether we're going to call in the commissioner, but it is a question that I think is appropriate to DFO. I appreciate what you've said, though, and would be quite happy to receive that information, maybe in writing, from the commissioner.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Mr. Chisholm, we're going to have a meeting beyond this to discuss steps forward, and I can suggest that we could bring it up at that point. We could discuss where we go from there.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
You said earlier in your presentation that resources are unknown to a large extent, that the stock assessment is incomplete. What steps are being taken by the department to make that information complete? What can we expect in terms of increasing effort in the north at a time when that information is incomplete?
12:30 p.m.
Acting Regional Director General, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'll start by saying that the reason it's incomplete is that it is an emerging fishery, and we're continuing to work. Particularly in the eastern Arctic, we share the resources with Greenland, so we do a biannual multi-species survey divided into two zones. Dave could probably give more information on that. We're partnering to ensure that we have the appropriate information going forward. As we see the potential impacts of climate change and movement of species and that kind of stuff, we're wanting to expand our research going forward.
It's a work in progress, and we partner with industry and our co-management partners to provide the resources we've put into it. We have had an agreement in place for the past five years that wraps up this year. We'll be spending this next year ramping up a new agreement concerning how we'll conduct our research going forward and how we'll allocate resources from the department and our partners to ensure that the work is done for the next five years.
Dave, do you have anything to add?
12:35 p.m.
Director General, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'll perhaps add a bit more context. As somebody in the business, I would have to say that stock assessment information is always incomplete. We can always use more information; that's always true. That said, as Dave has outlined, for the moment we have our main emerging fisheries covered: the offshore shrimp fishery, the emerging inshore fisheries for Greenland halibut and shrimp again, and the char fisheries.
It's not just a matter of our resources. It's a matter of the resources we have, plus what the partners we've talked about several times have, and of holding a solid conversation with them so that we are collectively making the right decision to ensure that we have the most important bases covered. That's a very important element.
It includes academia. ArcticNet is an academic national centre of excellence that is very well developed and matured now. They are playing an important role in having us learn more about the resources generally, which can be used for all kinds of purposes, including making fishery management decisions.
For the way forward I think I'd look back. What I mean is that the Pang project, which we talked about earlier, is a case in which we were clearly taking a decision with the folks on the ground in Nunavut to put in place some infrastructure that would aid in the development of the commercial fishery—in that area, at least. It wasn't just a wharf project; there was a science component of the project, specifically for the reason that we understood this was going to increase local fisheries pressure. I'd look back to that for a model for the future.
As these fisheries continue to emerge and develop, we'll need to clearly identify our needs to respond and, through partnership, make sure we can provide the advice.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have two questions, the first to Mr. Burden.
What government agencies have jurisdiction over this fishery?
The second, to each of you, is this. Looking ahead for a 20-year period, as Canadians, what would you identify as the one or two most critical issues you would like to see your fisheries committee address in a study such as this, which is quite remarkable?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Regional Director General, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The first part of your question depends on where we are in the Arctic and what type of fishery we're talking about. If it's the recreational fisheries, much of the fisheries management side of it is delegated to the territories. We provide the scientific research to support them; the enforcement is done by their folks with support from us.
When we're talking about the commercial fisheries and the science across the whole spectrum, that's a DFO responsibility, and again it's with our co-management partners, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board—or in the western Arctic, the Fisheries Joint Management Committee—and the territorial governments.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
In terms of sovereignty, there could be other issues involving such agencies as Defence and PMO and Indian Affairs.
12:35 p.m.
Acting Regional Director General, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
In anything we're doing in the Arctic, because of the land claims agreements, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is a partner that is always there. When we're into oceans management and some of the broader aspects of our mandate, the federal family is there, but the actual management of the fishery is with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
That's not to say that Transport, DND, and all the other departments don't help us. Earlier I mentioned enforcement activities and that kind of stuff. If the military is doing an overflight for sovereignty patrols, we will often put one of our conservation and protection officer teams on the aircraft to enable multi-tasking to address that aspect. It's the same thing on our coast guard ships, when they are up in the Arctic. If they are going into an area, clearly we would use that opportunity. With any asset that's available to us, my people are very good at networking and pulling out whatever stops they can to increase our span of coverage. We've been very successful with this.
Where would we like to be in 20 years?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
What are one or two issues you would like us to focus on? We've covered many. I love to ask, before we embark on something, what we are aiming to accomplish.
Mr. Gillis, Mr. Hodgson, maybe you can chip in one issue, and that will give Mr. Burden a chance to think of one or two.
Go ahead.
12:40 p.m.
Director General, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'll offer two.
We've covered one of them fairly well. From a science point of view—and it spills over into management and development, obviously—it's important to have a very strong table and a good, healthy dialogue among all the parties, including in this case in particular the northern residents, about their objectives for these resources and the area, and have that feed into a good prioritization and planning process, which we would have with them.
The other thing, from a science point of view, that I think all of us would really benefit from in 20 years is to be able to look back and see that we have been able to establish a sound and carefully designed monitoring system for ecosystems in the north, so as to ensure that we are in a position to support the decisions we want to make in relation to development, but also to see the changes we expect. It's to be able to see the effects of those over time.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
How much time do we have left?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Okay, so you have 30 seconds each.
12:40 p.m.
Acting Director General, Resource Management, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'll be quick, then.
I would agree with Dave's first point, concerning the interests of the north in the development of these resources and their perspectives.
I'll take char as an example. Char can serve as food; it can also serve as a source of revenue for recreational fisheries. It can also be for commercial fisheries. It's very much a choice at the community level of how they want to develop their resource to bring the maximum benefits to their community.
12:40 p.m.
Acting Regional Director General, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
From my perspective—we talked about the fisheries side—I'd look at how we balance the commercial and recreational components, as both my colleagues have said. But we want to be able to look at this question through the lens of resource extraction and what its potential is going to do. As you build infrastructure for it, you're going to open up access to lakes and areas that have not been prosecuted in the past.
The other area we've been struggling with and have made—but are going to have to continue to make—progress on is how we balance our core, traditional science information to incorporate traditional knowledge of the Inuit and use it to frame our management and scientific decisions. What we have found is that for a lot of the stuff we don't know about, their traditional knowledge has been proven right, when we have figured out what we need to know.