First, thanks for inviting me to present to you today, and apologies for not being there in person. I was unable to fly to Ottawa today, but I think that in light of the recent carbon tax announcement, flying less is likely a good idea.
I know we presented to you on your study on Atlantic salmon, but I'll introduce you to the Ecology Action Centre. It is Atlantic Canada's oldest environmental organization, founded in 1971, and the largest, with 35 staff and 4,700 members.
We're based in Halifax in one of the greenest office buildings in Canada, and we work at the scale where we can make a positive change to the environment for fisheries and marine conservation. This means we work regionally, nationally, and internationally.
We've been active on fisheries issues since the early 1990s. We're currently the only civil society organization from Canada that attends international fisheries meetings like NAFO and ICCAT, as well as related United Nations meetings. This gives us a unique perspective on how Canada manages its marine resources here at home.
Our marine work began immediately following the groundfish moratorium, when we realized that there needed to be an environmental voice for Atlantic Canadian fisheries. Perhaps we should have started about 20 years earlier, but hindsight is 20/20.
We work on fisheries policy, research, and advocacy. We work together with fishermen to increase the value of their catch, promote low-impact gear types, and ensure that these types of fisheries are rewarded in the marketplace. Our vision is a healthy ocean and vibrant coastal communities. We have published numerous reports over the past years, for example, guidance on how to fix the crisis in the groundfish fishery, a national review of fishing gear impacts, and how to create a seafood value chain.
Last year we published a paper in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, together with scientists from the University of Victoria, entitled “Missing the Safety Net”, which outlined the relative lack of protections under the Fisheries Act for at-risk marine fish in Canada that either have been listed under the Species at Risk Act or where a decision for their protection has not been made. Cod falls under this set of species.
On a personal note—and I think this is relevant—I've been working for the Ecology Action Centre full time since 2006 and on and off before that since 1995. I completed my Ph.D. with the late Ransom Myers, who some of you might remember. He died about nine years ago. He left DFO after the cod collapse, partly out of frustration that science was not being followed, but largely because he had violated a gag order put on him by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which did not allow him to speak publicly as a scientist. Luckily, we no longer muzzle our scientists.
I recently co-authored a report with my colleague Julia Baum, entitled “Canada's Marine Fisheries: Status, Recovery Potential and Pathways to Success”, which I believe you heard about earlier this week during a presentation from Oceana Canada.
Finally, I was born in Newfoundland. My father fished on the last two years of the Portuguese white fleet in the early 1970s. These are the last sailing vessels that fished on the Grand Banks for cod.
I want to outline a few gaps in the conservation for northern cod. It's rare, with a natural resource that we have so badly mismanaged, that we get a second chance.
We have a second chance with northern cod, but it will require a full admission of the mistakes we have made in the past and a commitment to not repeating them. Notably, cod recovery—and I'm sure you heard this in Newfoundland—is mired in the complexities of a much more valuable invertebrate-based fishery over the last three decades, as well as the ecosystem conundrum that we cannot recover shrimp and cod at the same time.
While fisheries science and management tools in Canada have arguably improved considerably since the cod collapse, the release yesterday of the Auditor General's report on sustaining Canada's fisheries makes it very clear that we have a way to go in implementing scientific knowledge and modern fisheries management tools.
Canada was instrumental in the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, which includes, among other provisions, an obligation of compatibility in management of fisheries in state waters. We are not currently living up to the ambitions of this international agreement. I'd like to give a few specific examples, some of which you've likely heard already, but northern cod does not yet have a rebuilding plan, 25 years after its collapse.
First, despite the development of the sustainable fisheries framework and its suite of policies that cover the application of the precautionary approach, rebuilding plans, bycatch, and the protection of sensitive benthic areas, to name a few, we don't have a rebuilding cod. Indeed, it has taken the efforts of an environmental group, WWF-Canada, to start fisheries improvement projects for both 3Ps cod and 2J3KL cod.
Second, there's not a complete set of reference points. While efforts have been made to establish science-based reference points, there is no upper stock reference point, and increasingly, the limit reference point is seen as a target. While the stock is slowly increasing toward the limit reference point, it is nowhere near what is required to sustain a fishery. There is no harvest control rule in place. This is a continued example of shifting baselines.
Northern cod stock was reduced by 99%. Recovering, as an example, to 10% of that former biomass is not a responsible management target. As of the latest assessment, of which I'm sure you are all aware, northern cod is only at 35% of its limit reference point. It is considered to be in the critical zone of Canada's precautionary approach framework.
Third, as an example, in 2011 the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, which comprises government-appointed scientists, many of them on the marine fishes specialist subcommittee or DFO or former DFO scientists, assessed northern cod as endangered. If cod were listed under the Species at Risk Act, there would be a prohibition on catch, no fishery allowed under its current status. Yet we rarely make the decision to list commercially targeted fisheries under the Species at Risk Act because of socio-economic concerns. We have some sympathy for that, but a do-not-list decision has become an excuse to do nothing.
Northern cod collapsed 25 years ago, and it's astounding in my view that this is the first time that members of Parliament are conducting a holistic review. I urge you to do what you can through this process to ensure that Canadians can be proud of the recovery of northern cod in the years to come, rather than feel ashamed of our systemic failure.
Additionally, I understand you're beginning your study of the Fisheries Act at the end of the month and I look forward to speaking to you at that time, but I encourage you to think broadly about the scope of that review and how it might be applicable to the northern cod. Our fisheries deserve better protection than they are receiving under the current act.
Moving on to the economic benefits of a recovered cod fishery, as you know the collapse of the northern cod was devastating for Newfoundland and its coastal communities. It required huge amounts of investment by the federal government in the TAGS program, social assistance, and retraining. Had we managed the cod fishery properly, we could have spent that money elsewhere. It's also very difficult to market an endangered species, and for now that is what the northern cod is. To maximize socio-economic benefit for coastal communities, this needs to be rectified.
Small-scale and low-impact gear types should be used and marketed as such. There's a growing demand for place-based traceable seafood, and northern cod can potentially benefit from this if it's managed properly. If cod's recovering, let's ensure the maximum benefit to the Canadian public and those communities with adjacency to the fishery.
To conclude on a very practical note, I have several recommendations that we hope will influence not only your process, but also the ultimate recovery of northern cod, as well as the other 15 marine fish populations identified by the Auditor General as in the critical zone, 12 of which have no rebuilding plan.
Our recommendations in order of immediacy are as follows. First, complete a rebuilding plan. A robust peer-reviewed rebuilding plan for northern cod should be a government priority. Consideration should be given to the lowest impact gear type. We know what high-efficiency bottom trawlers can do to the most abundant fish population on earth.
Second, request a reassessment by COSEWIC. It should be tasked with reassessing northern cod so we are not in the position of increasing quota, marketing, etc., for an endangered species. This puts DFO in a direct conflict of interest with itself, which it is in currently with 3Ps cod, which is considered endangered, but is also certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.
Third, modernize the Fisheries Act. Our Fisheries Act must be modernized to include, at a minimum, the following concepts.
First is key principles of modern fisheries management, including the precautionary approach and ecosystem approach, which are critical in terms of ensuring protection of key species and the ecosystems upon which they depend, including foreign species. I'm sure you have heard much about the capelin in Newfoundland.
Second is legal obligations for rebuilding depleted fish populations with targets and timelines. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in the United States does a good job of this and could be a model. Third is a legal obligation to report on the status of our fish population to Parliament and the Canadian public. It might strike you as odd that the only public reporting on sustainability of our fish stocks is being done by Environment and Climate Change Canada and not by DFO.
Fourth is adequately resourced fisheries management with a more of a view towards long-term sustainability and less towards short-term economic gains. Fifth is support and direction for the good people who work for the department to rebuild our fish populations. Proper resourcing would mean that the next Auditor General's report would be much more promising in terms of how DFO is achieving its mandate.
Finally, we need to rebuild public trust. The cod collapse, the recent Auditor General's report, the general sense that DFO is not doing its job, and the lack of transparency in decision-making data availability and management plans have all led to a significant erosion of public trust. Our fisheries are a public resource in Canada. They contribute to biodiversity, ecosystem function, economies, and our cultures. A commitment to doing things right with northern cod would go a long way to rebuilding the public trust of Canadians in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and in the Government of Canada in general.
Thank you.
