Fisheries Committee on Oct. 21st, 2024

[Alberto Wareham]

Yes.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Therefore, you would not agree with it.

Mr. Bonnell.

[Carey Bonnell]

Every pound of this quota is going to be harvested, processed and marketed by Newfoundland and Labrador entities—inshore, indigenous and offshore. It's every pound. That's an important point.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Therefore, this motion we're studying is false.

[Carey Bonnell]

I'm just giving you the facts on where we are and about our businesses. I want to make that clear.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you. It's because you're speaking for Newfoundlanders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

That expires our first panel.

I want to say thank you to Mr. Bonnell, Ms. Lapointe and Mr. Wareham for sharing their knowledge of the cod fishery with us here today.

We'll suspend for a few moments as we switch over to the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We're back.

I'll welcome our witnesses for the second panel. We have Lyne Morissette, doctor of marine ecology and fisheries and marine mammal specialist, M-Expertise Marine Incorporated. We also have David Vardy, economist.

Thank you for taking the time to appear today. You will each have five minutes or less for your opening statement.

Ms. Morissette, you have the floor.

[Dr. Lyne Morissette, Doctor of Marine Ecology, Fisheries and Marine Mammal Specialist, M-Expertise Marine Inc., As an Individual]

Thank you. My name is Lyne Morissette. As you said, I'm a marine biologist. I'm also the author of a book entitled Pêcheurs et Baleines en Gaspésie : sur le chemin de la coexistence, or “fishers and whales in the Gaspé Peninsula: on the road to coexistence”. Thank you for the opportunity to share my experience with you today.

I've taken the time to carefully read the brief on the reopening of cod fishing. While I'll leave it to the experts to discuss quotas and the technical aspects of fishing, my goal today is to talk about the approach. Beyond the numbers, we need to find the best recipe for effectively protecting our marine ecosystems and the resources that they contain. In the era of climate urgency and biodiversity collapse, we don't have the luxury of overlooking anyone's knowledge. We must integrate fishers and indigenous communities into the heart of the decision‑making processes in both Newfoundland and Labrador and across all Canadian fisheries.

What struck me most in this brief is the need to actively involve indigenous and non‑indigenous fishers in resource management. They're the experts on the ground. They observe changes in stocks, currents and reproductive cycles. These key elements often escape theoretical models. Their knowledge is invaluable. Without their participation, we lose our bearings.

I've had the opportunity to see the same challenges in other places—particularly among crab and lobster fishers—in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where we're working on the North Atlantic right whale situation. In this case too, the lack of dialogue, co‑operation and especially trust between fishers and decision‑makers has often adversely affected resource management, a crucial factor in the survival of this endangered species.

Over the years, I've come to understand that these fishers aren't opposed to resource conservation. On the contrary, they're the first to want to protect the resource that sustains them. However, they must be heard, respected and included in the process. Too often, decisions are made without involving them and their valuable knowledge. This creates mistrust and unnecessary tension. It isn't just an advantage to work with fishers. It's a necessity. Their local knowledge, based on generations of experience, provides invaluable insight into the dynamics of our fish stocks.

This was confirmed in the case of cod. The fishers themselves sounded the alarm on the stock collapse. Unfortunately, these warnings were ignored by the scientific authorities at the time, which led to the current situation. Today, we also have the opportunity to correct this mistake. The cod stock may be recovering. However, the resource can't be managed properly without the active involvement of fishers. This means that they shouldn't be seen as mere passive participants. Instead, they must be considered co‑managers of the resource. They're on the ground every day, observing changes in ecosystems. They can sound the alarm on anomalies or on anything going wrong. They often do so before science can.

We've seen this time and again. When fishers aren't consulted, mistrust builds and conflicts arise. This happens in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and other parts of Canada. Fortunately, we have a recipe called environmental mediation. It's more than just co‑management. This rarely used method helps to foster a real and constructive dialogue among all stakeholders—in this case, fishers and managers—so that they can find solutions together. It works. There are examples in Alaska, the Philippines and Australia. It works really well everywhere.

Inshore fishers aren't asking to exploit a declining resource. They understand that their future is tied to the health of ecosystems. They want to be heard and included in decisions. The best way to restore a stock such as cod is to work together. The pill is always easier to swallow when fishers play an integral role in the process. Without their support, any initiative—such as fishing zone closures or quotas—will be doomed to fail. In this time of successive crises, we can't afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. The knowledge of indigenous and non‑indigenous fishers is a precious resource that we must integrate into ocean management.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share these thoughts with you. I hope that this discussion will mark a turning point—I truly believe so—in the management of our marine resources and that emphasis will be placed on the systematic integration of inshore fishers' knowledge into decision‑making processes.

By working together, we'll ensure the sustainable future of our oceans, fisheries and coastal communities.

Thank you for listening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

Now we'll go to Mr. Vardy for five minutes or less, please.

[David Vardy, Economist, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the invitation to present here today to your committee on this very important topic.

My name is David Vardy. I'm an economist by training, and I spent most of my career as a senior executive in government. I served as president of the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as secretary to the cabinet of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I was a member of the negotiating team that negotiated the 1985 Atlantic accord, which established joint management of our oil and gas resources. I was also the deputy minister of fisheries on July 2, 1992, the day that the Honourable John Crosbie announced the northern cod moratorium.

I'm here today representing myself only. I'm a private citizen. On July 5, I wrote a letter to all MPs serving the province, asking that the decision announced by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on June 26 concerning the reopening of the northern cod fishery be reversed. In my opinion, the risks of reopening were too high, and the stakes were so enormous as to demand a full-scale public consultation process before such a momentous decision was taken. Unfortunately, it's now too late to reverse the decision for 2024; the fish have swum.

The essence of good public policy is the exercise of wisdom in balancing decisions between competing objectives. In fisheries management, conservation and sustainability must often compete with employment objectives, and prudence dictates that conservation must be the main priority. Sound public policy demands that we mobilize knowledge and experience and that we bring them together through shared management. Sound public policy decisions should be forged using the best governance model we can devise, one which shares information publicly and includes all stakeholders.

In reaching her momentous but flawed decision in June, the minister assigned greater priority to year-round jobs than to conservation. Sound fisheries management demands that sustainability and conservation must instead be the overriding priorities. In my letter of July 5, I pointed out that many experts recommended a completely different approach to management, one which integrates the decision-making powers of the federal and the provincial governments. Such a shared management process would harmonize decisions to balance conflicting policy objectives. Such joint management would also provide for a more transparent process by placing all the evidence in the public eye.

Independent science is essential if shared management is to succeed. Fishery science must become more independent of political influence, as was the case in Newfoundland with the old Newfoundland Fisheries Research Board, which began its work under a commission of government and which continued for years after Confederation. Iceland has long and successfully relied upon an independent fisheries research organization, as has Norway.

I am asking that your committee recommend that the quota and allocations for 2025 be capped at the 2024 levels or lower and that the Government of Canada join with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in appointing a joint royal commission into the future of the fishery. The royal commission should be given a broad mandate to advise on how the fishery, including northern cod, should be managed. The commission should review the scientific evidence and seek consensus on how the fishery should be managed. It would include advice on how to best control foreign overfishing. It would include advice on gear technology, on seal predation and on how spawning concentrations should be avoided.

In summary, I offer the following recommendations.

In the preparation for a management plan for 2025 for northern cod, the minister should cap the 2025 quota and the allocations at the 2024 levels or less. Canada should give the highest priority to the conservation, sustainability and rebuilding of depleted fish stocks as overriding public policy objectives. Failure to prioritize conservation will destroy, not create, long-term employment opportunities. Governments and stakeholders should embrace shared management of the fishery, beginning with a joint federal-provincial royal commission into the future management of the fishery, including northern cod and other straddling fish stocks. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should be invited to appoint one of these commissioners.

I thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation today. I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Vardy.

We'll now go to our rounds of questioning. We'll start with Mr. Small for six minutes or less, please.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. My first question will be for Mr. Vardy.

In 1992, Mr. Vardy, I was an inshore fisherman, and I remember the day that the announcement was made. I walked out on the wharf in Wild Cove to see the looks on the faces of my dad and his brother, Uncle Mark, who you probably knew well back in the day. However, court documents recently showed that the government made the decision to reopen the commercial northern cod fishery because it would yield political gain.

You've been a deputy minister several times in your career. Do you believe that this decision was made for political gain, based on your knowledge of the bureaucracy and government and how they interact?

[David Vardy]

My view is that politics and fisheries don't mix very well, and there's a need for a separation of politics from fisheries. That's exactly the purpose of a joint management board, to try to take the politics out of it, because there are so many occasions that are beyond counting as to how many decisions were taken that were injurious to the stocks, and perhaps even injurious to the politics as well at the same time.

With the offshore petroleum board, we have a good example of a joint management process that seems to have worked extremely well, where the two governments, the provincial government and the federal government, have worked together and the politics have, in fact, been largely taken out of it. I think it's been to the benefit of the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador—and all Canadians.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Getting back to the decision to convert the stewardship fishery to a commercial fishery, do you think that the northern cod fishery could have continued as a stewardship fishery with modest increases in quota without NAFO seriously knocking on the door to get access? We have minutes of NAFO meetings for the last five years, and there was, in fact, very little mention of northern cod in the minutes of the NAFO meetings.

Do you think there was a serious risk that NAFO would come for a few tonnes of northern cod, with the quota in the stewardship fishery being about where the commercial fishery is now? Do you think that was a real threat?

[David Vardy]

I think this is a very murky area in international law. I've read the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on this issue, and there is a principle at stake here with regard to any uncaught fish that should be opened up to other stakeholders.

This is a stock that's managed by Canada. Unlike other straddling stocks, this is one that's managed by Canada, and it's one where I think that Canada could have continued on with the stewardship fishery. However, once we get into raising the quota above a certain level, it seems to me that it becomes a commercial fishery.

I've not seen anything in the NAFO convention that actually creates a trigger, an actual trigger point as to what constitutes a litmus test for transition from a stewardship to a commercial fishery, but it does seem to me that, when you move beyond where we were in 2023, we're inviting questions to be raised at NAFO. As to whether there were pressures from NAFO, I don't really know.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Do you think that maybe the government should have pushed the envelope here with a modest increase, because the exploitation rate is extremely low as compared to acceptable exploitation rates in the North Atlantic, which are typically around 20% in cod stocks. We're down around 5% or 6% here. Do you think that the government should have pushed the envelope and worried about NAFO when the time came?

It appeared the other day when we questioned assistant deputy Burns that it had been a foregone conclusion by the minister that NAFO was coming for their share, without it hardly even being discussed at the NAFO meetings based on the minutes, Mr. Vardy.

[David Vardy]

I think there's a compelling case for not pushing the envelope. My sense is that the stock has been in a stalled situation, that it's been flatlining since 2016, so I think it was risky. Whether NAFO was on the table or not on the table, I still think that, from a precautionary standpoint, it was going too far, pushing the envelope to do that, particularly in light of the fact that there was a high probability that the stock was going to decline with or without an increase in fishing pressure.

I think NAFO adds to the complexity of this whole issue, and I think that the other thing in terms of NAFO is that, when you open up the whole door on NAFO, it raises other considerations because I think there's a bit of an illusion that we can control—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Vardy. You could add more on that in writing.

The lower reference point was moved in the fall of last year. It's been said around Parliament Hill that there was a heavy lobby by the offshore fleet before that happened. Do you think the lower reference point could have been moved as part of a plan that took place way back last fall to reopen this fishery as a northern cod fishery? Do you think the moving of that lower reference point was part of this political plan?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Vardy, perhaps you could give us that in writing, with the remainder of the answer to the previous question, because the time is up for Mr. Small.

We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for six minutes or less, please.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I'll start with you, Ms. Morissette. You mentioned the Alaska fishery. There's something positionally unique about the Alaska fishery when it comes to Pacific salmon. They get first crack at the fish coming back to spawn. The circulation of the fish is basically clockwise, and it comes down to Alaska. The Canadian fishers are kind of left with whatever is left over.

Is the Alaska fishery a good model to look at when we're considering northern cod?

[Dr. Lyne Morissette]

The Alaska model is a good example of co‑operation between management authorities and indigenous communities.

This has helped to implement more ecosystem‑friendly fishing practices. Alaska's approach is noteworthy for showing that inclusive management is both possible and also the key to resilient fisheries in coastal communities.

I know that the management authorities work closely with indigenous communities to try to understand the ecosystems on a scientific level through the implementation of measures. It also tries to do so in other ways, in particular by drawing on knowledge that remains less common in the eyes of the scientific community, but that holds considerable value.

This is one example where a different management style works well for certain species—

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madame Morissette. I must move on, because I have further questions.

Mr. Vardy, I'm not as familiar, obviously, with northern cod as I might be with salmon stocks. I'm a west coaster. Do the fish we don't catch in Canada end up in nets in Iceland?

[David Vardy]

Historically, of course, the amount of foreign fishing in our waters was extremely high. I appreciate that NAFO has been more successful in recent years, but the danger is that, once there's a bigger presence offshore, there would be more pressure on the resource and more likelihood of offending.

I remember in Newfoundland and Labrador, the year before the northern cod fishery.... I was also the deputy minister when we declared a moratorium on salmon fishing. In fact, I remember that at the time, with the salmon fishery, there was a $100-million program for compensation to salmon fishermen. I said to myself that it would be amazing if we had to do the same thing with cod. A year later, that's exactly what happened.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Yes. As it turns out, that's exactly what happened.

When we talk about mixing science with the knowledge of indigenous and non-indigenous communities that are actually out on the water, there is a conflict there. We could see the fishing communities exercising what you might call enlightened self-interest. They want to go out and catch fish to make a living. Who can blame them for that? At the same time, our experience in British Columbia with science, particularly around aquaculture, is spotty. There's that old quote that you can lay all scientists end to end and they'll never reach a conclusion.

Do we actually know enough, from credible enough sources, to conclusively determine whether or not a fishery is valid, Mr. Vardy?