John M. Cummins

[Question No. 45, February 28th, 2003]

Following the Mefloquine adverse event monitoring report received on August 26, 2002 by Health Canada indicating a murder and an attempted suicide: ( a ) what investigation has been carried out by Health Canada and other government agencies; and ( b ) what was the result of these investigations?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, the member raised the issue of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes fisheries. Indeed they are important contributors to the economy of Ontario and they are fisheries which should be encouraged and developed to achieve their potential.

The member discussed invasive species. One of the problems I have in these debates at times is trying to understand totally from where government members may be coming from on some of the issues that are raised. On invasive species, we did, as the member suggested, discuss this matter in committee. What I have not yet heard clearly from the government side is a definition of invasive species. What do we mean by invasive species? Once we have established a definition, I wonder if the hon. member could tell me if Pacific salmon in the Great Lakes are an invasive species? Are Atlantic salmon, which are escaping from fish farms on the west coast, an invasive species in the eyes of the government on the west coast? If the answer is yes, that Atlantic salmon are an invasive species on the west coast, why has nothing been done on this matter as far as putting in place regulations by government?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments were reasoned, well thought out and sincere.

One issue which he did not address, and I wonder if he would care to, is the issue of enforcement.

In its January 2003 report on groundfish stocks in the Scotian shelf and the Bay of Fundy, the FRCC notes that there is a problem with discarding and unreported landings. It says that while the type of activity has been relatively limited, it is important and it can have an impact on the fishery. It goes on to recommend that DFO create a small task force to deal with this issue and suggests potential improvements for the surveillance and enforcement systems in various regions in Atlantic Canada.

I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on that particular finding of the FRCC.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Confusion is an operative word when we talk about the hon. member. He started out as a Tory. He should have known that there were problems with the fishery. Then he jumped ship.

I would like him to know this. The council, the FRCC, reported that there were two million seals in the eighties when there was an abundance of cod. It estimates now that there are at least eight million of them. That is why the FRCC recommended that certain areas be designated as seal exclusion zones. The FRCC was very clear. It said:

Reductions in seal populations are required in areas where groundfish spawn and on juvenile groundfish nursery areas. Unlimited, unhampered and unrestricted seal predation on highly vulnerable groundfish cannot be allowed to continue if groundfish stocks are to be allowed to rebuild.

It is very clear that the FRCC is recommending a very substantial cull of seals. There is no question about it. It would be far in excess of the minimal amount that the minister has allowed this year. It would be far in excess of that.

It does not take a genius to figure this one out. If we have eight million seals and we are only culling 300,000, we are not going to be eliminating some of the herd. We are not going to be cutting it back down to the point where we have maybe two million, three million or four million seals. It is simply not going to happen. They talk about seal exclusions. Any fool knows, or should, that seals do not read. They may read better than some on the other side, but we should understand that some drastic action has to be taken. If the member is not certain about what the FRCC means by seal exclusion, he should ask the FRCC. It means a drastic elimination. I would like the member to comment on that.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. referenced some comments I made earlier, which I think showed some confusion in his mind about the impact that seals have had on the fishery. Certainly his comments just now in response to my friend on this side show that the confusion persists, that it is deep within him.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I certainly appreciate the member's comments. He is a great member of our fisheries committee and is very knowledgeable on these fisheries issues.

I would like to ask him a question. I have a report from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Science Branch, the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, which is “not to be cited without permission of the authors”, but I guess in this place that really does not matter. It is an assessment of the cod in the southern gulf of St. Lawrence. It states that the directed cod fishery in the southern gulf of St. Lawrence was closed in September 1993 and states:

The trend in the research survey index since 1993 suggests there has not been any increase in the abundance of the stock. Weights-at-age appear to be increasing but are low and natural mortality...appears to remain high...The stock assessment indicates population biomass remains low, similar to the mid-1970s, and is near the lowest seen since 1950. The spawning stock biomass in 2002 is estimated at 84,000 t[onnes] compared to 87,000 in 2001 as estimated in the previous assessment...Rebuilding of spawning biomass over the next 2-3 years is unlikely.

To me this suggests that we have a problem that has been longstanding. The member has suggested in his comments that the government has ignored the fishermen in the area, the people who have an interest in the fishery. Here we have the government's science department saying something very definitive and very clear. In his estimation, why has this message not been getting through to the government across the way?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, again, I cannot understand the way the Liberals do the numbers over there, but the Auditor General evaluated the Coast Guard fleet at $2.4 billion. She said that if we were a private owner, if we were the former finance minister, that we would invest about 4% a year in fleet revitalization and replacement. That comes out somewhere around $40 million a year. We have not been doing that in the last few years.

In fact, the Auditor General also noted that even moneys that were designated for fleet revitalization were siphoned off elsewhere so they were not dedicated. That is part of the problem with the structure of the Coast Guard where it is part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The problem is that it cannot protect its own budget because instead of reporting to the commissioner here, it reports to the director general on the west coast and elsewhere in the country.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I thank the hon. member for the question and I will not presume to answer for the government. I am also mystified on why there has not been more done in the way of science on most species of fish on both coasts because there is a dramatic need for that.

Since the moratorium, we are now pursuing species that we ignored pretty much in the past. We are exploring new opportunities on the west coast as well and yet we are not doing near enough science. But on this issue of the seals, the science has been done, and it is pretty darn clear and a matter of common sense that there is a huge problem.

The FRCC, which is a science-based organization, understands the science of the fishery and the impact of seals. It has clearly, time after time, pointed out that there is a huge problem with the seals and yet it is saying it has been ignored. As late as January 2003, in the latest report, the FRCC said last year's recommendation of evaluating Bird Island as a seal exposure zone for the protection of juvenile ground fish is still deemed necessary. Its recommendation even now is not being followed. That is the problem here. Members are ignoring reality across the way.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the serious questions posed by the minister.

I understand full well that there is not an inverse relationship between the number of spawners that hit the spawning grounds and the returns four years hence on sockeye. However, I understand clearly that if we were to overcrowd the spawning grounds we would get less fish back. That is simply a fact. I do not think there is a scientist familiar with salmon on either coast who would argue with that. I have seen it.

When the fish come back in appropriate numbers they dig in the gravel and lay their eggs. The gravel remains relatively undisturbed after the eggs have been laid. If we were to have wave after wave of fish coming into a spawning area the ensuing waves would simply dig up the area where the eggs have been laid before. The fish try to lay eggs on top of that and there is mass confusion, and we end up with fewer fish the next time. Fewer fish survive, fewer eggs hatch and we end up with less fish. That is simply a given. Whether anybody has determined what the ratio is on that, I do not know, but it is a given fact.

The department did allow a slight increase in the allowable catch over the summer. However, let us not forget that the total commercial catch last summer was only 2.18 million. There are probably 6 or 7 million more that could have been caught and still allowed for an adequate number of spawners. Not only an adequate number of spawners but an optimum number of spawners. That did not happen.

The issue was not protecting the early arriving late-run sockeye stock. We had expert testimony before the committee a year ago last spring. Dr. Ian Todd of the Fraser panel and the international commission said that we should not sacrifice our fishing opportunities on the mid-summer runs to save these late early arriving fish runs because they are going to die anyway. He added that if we do not harvest those mid-summer runs to the optimum level, then we are going to overspawn. In conclusion, he said that we are going to have problems not only with the mid-summer run, but we are not doing anything to help the late summer runs. That advice was given prior to the 2001 season and it was ignored by the minister's predecessor.

I know the minister was new on the job then, but that was the case again this year. It was a drastic error and a huge cost to the British Columbia economy and it will continue to be.

I understand there have been some steps taken toward stopping seal predation. However, the fact of the matter is that if this country is interested in protecting the fish stocks on the east coast, we will have to take a strong stand on the seals regardless of what the international outcry will be. The way we will accomplish that is to take control not only of the Grand Banks themselves within our 200 mile limit, but we must take control of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, and manage that fishery for the people of the world and for Canadians. That is what has to happen. Until that happens we will continue to have those problems.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity this evening to discuss fisheries issues in Canada.

Fisheries issues are extremely important both on the east coast and the west coast of our country. They are and have been the economic engine on both coasts in various periods in history. In many respects they still should be. In fact they still would be if they were managed in an appropriate fashion.

I would like to address two areas of concern this evening. The first area is the mismanagement of the Fraser River fishery this year. The second issue is the impending cod moratorium.

The government reorganized the fishery in 1996. It reorganized the fleet on the west coast of Canada in 1996. Fleets were cut back drastically. The number of boats fishing the Fraser River in any one opening decreased from about 1,500 to 1,800 prior to 1996 down to only 400 licensed vessels now. Previously a small boat fleet could fish from Washington State all the way to Alaska, any water, any fishery. After the reorganization in 1996 they were restricted to one of three areas.

The end result of all of that was that in 1999 for the first time in history there was no commercial fishery on the Fraser River. In 2000 there were about three days of fishing. In 2001 there was no fishery again. This past year there were only three days of fishing.

What was especially tragic about this past year was that there were 15 million sockeye returned to the Fraser River. The 15 million sockeye represented ample opportunity to fish regardless of the problems with late run stock. We do not stock fish in the middle of the year to protect the late run fish because the early stock comes back early and are going to die anyway. We have been through those numbers and there is just no percentage in doing it. The cost to the economy of British Columbia this year was close to $200 million.

To put that in perspective on how poorly this was managed, for the gill net fleet in 1987 where there was a return of 12 million fish, there were 7,800 boat days of fishing. This past year with the return of 15 million fish, there were only 1,300 boat days. In 1987 with the return of 12 million fish there were 780 same boat fish days. In 2002 with the return of 15 million fish there were only 48 same boat days.

That is a tragedy in any man's language. It is a huge cost to those people who made huge investments to maintain their vessels and to fish. It is a tragedy as well because when there is overspawning we do not get more fish back four years later. When there is overspawning there is going to be less fish that come back.

As an example, in 1989 the department allowed an escapement of 3.1 million sockeye and in 1993, four years later, over 24 million came back. In 1993 it allowed an escapement of 6.4 million and 16.4 million came back. One can see that the numbers are dropping. That 1993 number was the highest previous escapement on this series in the Fraser River.

In 2002 there was an escapement of 11.3 million fish. My bet is there will be a drastic reduction in returns in four years. It just does not pay. The loss to the economy in British Columbia is not only the $200 million that were lost this year but it is going to be tens of millions of dollars four years from now.

On the issue of the cod stocks, there is a huge problem because when we talk about cod stocks we are not just talking about the fish. We are also talking about it being the economic engine that drives Newfoundland and Labrador. No other province has been harder hit by the moratorium than Newfoundland and Labrador.

The fact of the matter is that since 1992 according to the FRCC, the numbers of cod are down. That is the best estimation of the scientists and the fisheries professionals who are involved in the FRCC. However, they have not been asleep.

The FRCC has made recommendations on catch numbers. The minister and others have heeded the catch numbers that the FRCC has recommended. Where they have failed, and failed miserably, is in the cautions the FRCC made about matters like seals. Let me read from the May 2001 report on 2J3KL cod:

The FRCC has grave concerns that seal numbers have increased substantially in Smith Sound in the past 2 years, and that this one remaining aggregation [of cod] may become the target of increased seal predation. That seals should be able to depredate the last remaining large aggregation of northern cod is unconscionable and unacceptable to the FRCC.

Yet the government did nothing about that. The report also states:

The FRCC recommends that areas be identified where cod are aggregated during winter or where seals are inflicting high mortality on cod, and these areas be designated as seal exclusion zones. Within these areas, measures must be taken immediately to protect and conserve cod.

What the FRCC meant when it said seal exclusion zones was no seals, none, zero, nada. We must get rid of them. We cannot allow them to attack the spawning stocks. We have to protect those very precious spawning stocks.

The government failed to heed that warning. That is a tragedy. That is why we are at the brink today, because the government has repeatedly failed to address the issue of seals.

The FRCC spoke many times on this issue. In the April 2002 report for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, it said, “Predation by seals is now the dominant source of exploitation on groundfish in the gulf”. It is the dominant source of exploitation and what do we do? We set catch limits. Yes, we listen to that, but we ignore the dominant source of exploitation. That is simply unconscionable. There is no excuse for ignoring that.

Dr. Daniel Lane said in that report:

Reductions in seal populations are required in areas where groundfish spawn and on juvenile groundfish in the nursery areas. Unlimited, unhampered and unrestricted seal predation on highly vulnerable groundfish cannot be allowed to continue if groundfish stocks are to be allowed to rebuild.

How much clearer can it be? There is a problem here and the government has repeatedly refused to address the issue. There is simply no excuse for it.

Our science and knowledge is limited. Granted, we have been fishing the fish for 500 years, but there is a lot we do not know. However, when a group like the FRCC can make a very distinct recommendation, then we know that something has to be done.

It is not that these seals just eat the whole fish. I know there are some who say they only eat so many pounds a day. I have seen the damage that seals inflict on salmon on the west coast and I suggest it is probably the same on the east coast. They take a bite out of the belly and leave the rest. They go for the liver and stomach and do not want the rest. They do not want the filling; they just want a bite out of the belly. They kill the fish, time after time. That is a huge problem.

We have an issue here that the government has ignored. It has ignored the recommendations of the FRCC on seismic activity. It has ignored recommendations on increasing surveillance of fisheries and so on. It is a tragedy.

We have to remember that even if the FRCC comes down and recommends that a small fishery be allowed this year, the horror of a closure is still going to be hanging over our heads, because these stocks are not going to recover over night. Dramatic action is required by the government and it has to happen soon. It should have happened 10 years ago but it has to happen soon.