Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 23 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 3, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 9:00 a.m. to examine the expenditures set out in Fisheries and Oceans Votes 1, 5 and 10 of the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. Before I call on the witnesses for their opening statements, I would like to make a very short presentation. I must leave a little before 10:00 a.m. this morning.
One of our members will be retiring this summer. Sister Peggy Butts, you will not be with us here in the fall. You have been a valued and much-appreciated member of this committee and an articulate and charismatic spokesperson on behalf of the coastal communities that you call home. We will miss you here in the Senate and in this committee, and we hope that your retirement from the Senate does not mean you will retire your strong voice for social justice.
Your very great and valuable influence on all of us has been very much appreciated. On behalf of the committee, we would like to present you with a little memento of our thanks. Notice that we had it wrapped in a lighthouse, with a little wharf in the background, where we hope it will stay.
Senator Butts: That may be the only lighthouse left.
The Chairman: I will read the inscription, Peggy.
Presented to the Honourable Peggy Butts in recognition of her retirement from the Senate and in recognition of her valuable contribution to the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, Ottawa, August 15, 1999.
Notice that we put in the date of your retirement. On behalf of the committee, thank you very much. I should note we will be having cake a little bit later on to celebrate.
With us today, colleagues, is Mr. Larry Murray, the Associate Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who will introduce his colleagues and proceed with an opening statement.
Mr. Larry Murray, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: We are very pleased to appear before the Senate Committee on Fisheries to discuss the Main Estimates of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We thought it would be useful to have expertise in all areas. With me today is Dr. Bill Doubleday, Director General, Fisheries and Oceans Science Directorate; Mr. David Bickerton, Director General, Finance and Administration Directorate; Ms Liseanne Forand, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy; Mr. Jacque Robichaud, Director General, Resource Management Directorate; Ms Michaela Huard, Director, Habitat Policy and Program Development Branch; and Mr. Bill Elliot, Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard. We hope that we have enough expertise here to respond to questions, and obviously we will follow up if necessary.
The DFO is planning to spend $1.4 billion in 1999-2000. This compares with $1.05 billion approved in the 1998-99 Main Estimates. The majority of that $305 million increase is related to the Canadian Fisheries Adjustment and Restructuring program, or what we refer to as CFAR.
Many of you are aware that DFO is currently undertaking significant measures to try to assist the fishing industry in achieving a better balance between available resources and the number of people who depend on those resources for their livelihoods. This is one of the most critical priorities in meeting our conservation objectives on both the East and West Coast.
Out of the total $250 million for CFAR, approximately $100 million will go towards retiring groundfish licences this fiscal year under the Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program. This is a significant component of the government's post-TAGS strategy. As the Auditor General has pointed out in his review of the TAGS program, licence retirement provides permanent, measurable adjustment within the fishery. Since 1992, voluntary licence retirements and licence policy reforms have reduced the number of Atlantic groundfish licences by over 30 per cent. An additional 1,578 licences have now been retired under this program, which is not yet complete.
In British Columbia, after two rounds of salmon licence retirement, 746 commercial salmon licences have been removed, bringing the total reduction since 1996 to approximately 38 per cent of the fleet. We expect this progress to continue as DFO works towards its goal of a 50 percent reduction in the B.C. salmon fleet. On the advice of an independent advisory committee that has been assisting with the process, the department has decided to hold a third round of licence retirement on the West Coast after the conclusion of the 1999 salmon fishing season.
[Translation]
One objective of the restructuring program as a whole is to reduce the dependence of individuals and coastal communities on fluctuating -- and in some cases, threatened -- Pacific salmon stocks, and to improve the viability of the fishery for those who choose to remain. Adjustment assistance is being provided to those who have retired from the fishery.
In addition to fisheries management, DFO is also committed to provide Canadians with accessible ocean and inland waterways and harbours.
Other reasons for increased spending in the 1999-2000 Main Estimates relate to these responsibilities, including the staffing of lighthouses, as well as remedial action and contingency planning related to the Year 2000 date issue.
[English]
In regard to the year 2000, our top priorities include the continuity of four crucial business functions; namely, search and rescue, Maritime traffic safety, environmental response, and fleet control.We are also preparing for year 2000 problems in other important business areas that support services such as stock assessment, fisheries licensing, and enforcement. We are making good progress in all areas and have engaged in several year 2000 consultations and communications activities to assess and promote the readiness of the fishing and marine industry as well.
DFO has been busy preparing for the future well beyond the year 2000. Under Minister Anderson's leadership, we are working to give substance to his vision for the fishery of the future. I have already spoken about one aspect of this -- permanent reductions in excessive resource dependency through licence retirements. However, we realize that DFO must also work at renewing our relationship with those who remain in the fishing industry. As the minister mentioned yesterday, we are undertaking policy reviews on our East and West Coast to try to enhance consultation and improve fisheries management.
For the East Coast, DFO has formed a working group to consult with the fishing industry, provinces, and other stakeholders to review Atlantic fisheries policy and to provide a more coherent and consistent framework for decision making.
On our Pacific Coast, the Allocation Framework for Pacific Salmon is another good example of DFO's efforts to move towards more open, transparent, conservation-based decision-making. The framework includes a proposal for an independent board to advise and make recommendations to the minister on allocations.
We believe DFO has turned the corner in making the difficult adjustments that were needed when conservation became the top priority. We still have much work to do. However, the common thread running through these policy reviews is that once conservation is assured, we will try to lay out a reasonable, balanced approach to allocations. It will be a transparent approach, based on fairness and shared responsibility with industry, to ensure greater stability and self-reliance for those who continue to depend on the fisheries for their livelihoods.
As an aside, Mr. Chairman, in the context of your discussions with the minister yesterday on the balance between economic and social issues and so on, it is certainly one of our main aims, as part of this effort, to try to provide greater specificity, clarity and transparency on how the minister makes decisions relative to those issues. We agree with the Auditor General's view that we must be clearer on how those decisions are made.
[Translation]
DFO is also committed to the protection of marine and freshwater habitats. We recognize that important work on habitat is also being done by provincial governments, local governments and local volunteers.
To ensure that these efforts are effective, we also have to get it right on the harvesting side, so that sufficient numbers of fish return to these environments to spawn.
I want to highlight the importance which DFO attach to the use of an overall ecosystem-based approach to conservation and to renewed research.
To ensure the biological sustainability of marine resources, we recognize that we have to move away from a crisis-by-crisis and species-by-species approach to management of ocean resources. Adopting a more integrated approach is crucial. We all have to work together, pooling our different resources and different areas of expertise, in order to maximize the overall benefits of our conservation efforts.
[English]
In support of this work, DFO is committed to working with stakeholders. As indicated in these Main Estimates, we also plan to transfer approximately $10 million of science funding to the new oceans sector, which was created to achieve an integrated-ecosystem approach to the conservation, protection, and sustainable development of oceans and their resources. Our science capabilities will be further complemented by our recruitment initiative to bring new blood into our organization, with skills and training in the latest technologies.
Senator Stewart: Consistent with some of the past work of this committee, I want to discuss social policy. On August 26, 1998, your department told the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the other place:
A reversal of current fisheries management policy principles and a return to a social fishery to accommodate former TAGS recipients would result in an increased conservation risk, decreased industry viability, and greater costs to government in the long run in the form of higher management costs and greater access to the EI.
Now, the department speaks of a return to a social fishery. First, when did the department cease to regard the fishery as a social fishery? Second, under what authorization was that change in policy made? Let us leave out the question of whether the policy change is good or bad. When did that change take place and on the basis of what authority?
Mr. Murray: You discussed this issue with the minister yesterday. Certainly I was recently at the Public Accounts Committee with the Auditor General on this subject. It is a question, in my view, of terminology. From our perspective, the fishery of the future, and indeed the fishery that we are currently working towards, is ecologically sustainable, economically viable, and resilient.
The term "economically viable" is where we become hung up. You quoted a statement last night to the minister that might have been made in the same session as Senator Stewart is referring to, where the term "social fishery" was used. As I explained to the Public Accounts Committee, and as I believe the minister indicated yesterday, there is no question but that this minister, and indeed all ministers of the Crown, make decisions that must take into account economic, social, and all other relevant factors. That is true of the fishery. However, his primary responsibility is to preserve the resource.
Senator Stewart: I asked two specific questions; namely, when did the department, under the direction of the minister of that day, cease to regard the fishery as a social fishery, or at least as having a social fishery aspect? Second, under what authorization?
Mr. Murray: As far as social factors impacting on the minister's decision making is concerned, that has never ceased, Senator, in my view. There are no decisions that I am aware of, virtually none in the last year and a half since I arrived in this department, where social considerations have not been part of the minister's decision making. I suspect that that has always been the case.
Senator Stewart: You spoke to the Public Account's Committee about a reversal of the principles and a return to the social fishery. Now you are telling us you are still in a social fishery.
Mr. Murray: I am not saying we are in a social fishery. I think that phrase refers anecdotally to a fishery that tries to provide employment for as many people as possible for as long as they need to collect employment insurance or whatever. It is not based on providing human beings with a sustainable, dignified way of life and a viable living for them in the fishery. In other words, an economically viable fishery is, in my view, one where human beings make a living as fishermen. They do not make a living collecting EI based on the minimum hours. I think when we use the term "social fishery," that is, in a broad sense, what is referred to. That does not mean for one minute that this minister and previous ministers have not tried to take into account the needs of citizens.
Senator Stewart: I ask this question because today on page 2 of the prepared text, you state, in referring to the committee:
Many of you are aware that DFO is currently undertaking significant measures to assist the fishing industry to achieve a better balance between available resources and the number of people who depend on those resources for their livelihoods. This is one of the most critical priorities for meeting our conservation objectives on both the East and West Coast.
What you say there is consistent with what you just said.
However, the statement to the Public Accounts Committee would seem to indicate, at least to the ordinary reader, not a bureaucrat, that you were concentrating on the fishery primarily as an economic enterprise. What you are saying is that the term "social fishery" is highly elastic and means different things to different people, but that the present view of your department is that the conduct of the fisheries does have a very important social aspect.
Mr. Murray: That is correct, sir. You, the Auditor General, and the chairman are right. There is too much ambiguity around those phrases and we acknowledged that at Public Accounts about two weeks ago. Part of what we are trying to do is formulate better definitions so that people understand what we are saying.
Senator Stewart: Looking at the fishery -- and I have occasion to look at it quite closely by reason of where I live -- I find it difficult to see how the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can take adequate cognizance of social aspects of the fishery, given the fact that so much of the social part of a community's life is under provincial jurisdiction. One of the roots of the problem is that there is an overlap. I am sure the lawyers could explain that there is not. In practice, there is an overlap here that makes it very difficult for your department to have a consistent policy, not only from place to place, but from time to time. Is there any validity in that analysis of the problem?
I have watched the department now for almost 40 years, and it seems to me that its role has been changing constantly. New duties have been imposed upon it without anyone -- certainly I would guess without a cabinet, for example -- ever saying, "Where in heaven's name will we end up"? Hence, incremental steps are made. There are probably unnecessary problems as a result of that change in activity.
Mr. Murray: That is a fair point. As the minister said yesterday, we have tried to renew the relationship with provincial ministers. A provincial agreement was signed recently to ensure that we do, certainly in areas like aquaculture, create a better working relationship. In other areas though, if I could use the example that you referred to -- the response to the current downsizing -- we have tried to clarify issues within the federal government and work very closely together. In that program, for example, we are responsible for the allocation of the resource and the licence retirement program, but Human Resources Development Canada is responsible for the early retirement program and various economic development agencies are responsible for that component of the various programs. We have been working closely with the provinces involved on that whole package. It is a complex area.
We are striving within the limits of human capability. In fact the most recent Auditor General's report on TAGS was positive, indicating that the program is being implemented reasonably well, but it does require the provinces and the federal government, and many within the federal government, to work together.
Senator Stewart: Do we not have too many commanders-in-chief in this area? That is my impression. You are trying to do the best you can, as is Human Resources Development, but there is nobody really in charge.
Mr. Murray: Well, in the context of the first TAGS program, and this one, we have learned some lessons. It is complex and there is a risk, in combining too many mandates, that will you lose sight of the individual responsibilities. In the context of the fisheries resource, as Minister Anderson said last night to this committee, his primary responsibility is to ensure the continuity of that resource for Canadians into the future. We do work very hard, and there is an identified leader on these varied programs, but it is difficult and complex.
Senator Stewart: My next question relates to wharves and dredging. When did the department start to privatize wharves and turn them over to local groups?
Mr. Murray: It was the result of program review decisions, and that would have been in the 1994-95 budget.
Senator Stewart: Was that subject to any parliamentary discussion?
Mr. Murray: It was certainly a program review decision and taken by the government to control the national deficit and debt. In most parts of the country, it has been greeted relatively positively as it has unfolded.
Senator Stewart: By your answer, you seem to imply that, to your knowledge, this new policy was not a matter of parliamentary debate or decision.
Mr. Murray: If I can correct that, it was a decision made by the executive branch of the government as part of program review.
Senator Stewart: The reason I mentioned Parliament is that your department is referred to by some of the fishermen whom I know as the Rideau Canal fishermen, made up of economists and the like who sometimes might be able to distinguish between a crab and a lobster. Clearly, that is a caricature.
It seems to me that when you must work directly with a clientele, it is very important that the rationale behind decisions is made public and an effort is made to have the clientele understand what that rationale is.
Is this privatization of wharves -- and I do not want to go into the legalities of it -- in effect a privatization in the sense that you have turned over title, for example, to specific persons at law?
Mr. Murray: My understanding is that for the most part, we are dealing with municipal authorities and that sort of body.
Mr. David Bickerton, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: To my knowledge, we are looking to turn some of the recreational fisheries over to harbour authorities and have them manage the harbours and wharves.
Senator Stewart: Did you say, "the recreational fishery"?
Mr. Bickerton: Yes.
Senator Stewart: I must be specific otherwise we will go nowhere. Let us take a couple of wharves about which I used to know a great deal. One is in Arisaig in Antigonish County on the Northumberland Strait, and another, Ballantynes Cove, is just about 20 miles away from Arisaig. I understand that there are local authorities composed of fishers. If I refer to someone as a "fisher" down where I live, they will say, "You are calling me a nasty little animal." These have been turned over to local fisherperson authorities. Are these incorporated bodies?
Mr. Bickerton: I do not know the details concerning those two specific areas.
Mr. Jacque Robichaud, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: From experience in management in the region, I know of a similar site in Seven Island. They had to incorporate themselves, and the responsibility was turned over to them.
Senator Stewart: Are you still spending money on the facilities at places which have already been turned over to local authorities?
Mr. Murray: In the context of the turnover agreements, normally that is sorted out at the time of turnover. In other words, we do whatever we do as part of the initial agreement.
There are two types of harbours for which the department is responsible. I am referring to small craft harbours. One type is recreational harbours, and the other is fishing harbours. We have an ongoing relationship with regard to fishing harbours.
As to the particular docks you mentioned, I would prefer to respond with a specific written answer to ensure the information is correct.
Senator Stewart: Am I correct in assuming that, once the department has performed any repairs or dredging that it undertook to do at the time the turnover took place, the department no longer has a responsibility to maintain that facility?
Mr. Murray: In the case of recreational harbours, I am relatively certain that is the case. In the case of fishing harbours, there are ongoing arrangements, particularly in relation to dredging, but I would want to confirm that.
Senator Stewart: I hear comment about some fishery authorities collecting funds from their members for the preservation of the facility, and that in other places, they are careless with regard to the future. When you adopted this policy of turning these facilities over to local authorities, did you anticipate that they would hire business managers or that you would be dealing with fishers who are deeply involved in other activities and should not be expected to have great management experience or capabilities with regard to running and maintaining a wharf? Did the department take this into consideration or was it assumed that, in 15 years or so, the wharf would have decayed and the fishery there would be gone and more fish would be available for the big companies?
Mr. Murray: That was not of course what happened.
Senator Stewart: Is it part of a long-term strategy?
Mr. Robichaud: From experience going back four or five years ago when there was the early transfer, yes, a professional manager with expertise was hired, and he had a plan to set out, for example, what fees would be charged and many other components.
Senator Stewart: Let us say that you are a fisher and that your local authority has decided that you are to contribute $2,000 a year to a fund for the maintenance of the facility or facilities that you use. Is that deductible for income tax purposes?
Mr. Murray: I presume it is, but I do not know.
Senator Stewart: Does anyone from the department know?
Mr. Robichaud: I would think that a fisherman could deduct storing fees which go towards the maintenance of a facility, just as he would deduct fuel and other expenses.
Senator Stewart: Could you provide a precise answer?
Mr. Murray: Perhaps the committee would want to have our Deputy Director General, Small Craft Harbours appear before you and provide detailed answers to your questions concerning small craft harbours. It is an important subject across the country.
The Chairman: We could consider that.
Senator Stewart: That is a good suggestion because, when we talk about coastal communities, we are very often talking about these small harbours. I am convinced that, regardless of whether the fishery is successful, many of these small coastal communities make great contributions to Canadian public life. In the area of transportation for example, the men from Guysborough County who went into the hydrography survey to man the ships made a tremendous contribution. They had already had their training.
Senator Meighen: Is there a distinction between small craft harbours and other harbours; and between a recreational fishery and a commercial fishery? Are there not harbours where both occur? If so, how do you classify them?
Mr. Murray: Our department is responsible for small craft harbours. The Department of Transport is responsible for large ports. Within the small craft harbour definition, harbours are defined as either recreational or fishing harbours. That definition is driven by the preponderance of the nature of the activity. In other words, in central Canada, the vast majority of the harbours tend to be recreational harbours. There are few fishing harbours, although there are some on the Great Lakes. On the coast the harbours tend to be fishing harbours. We handle each one somewhat differently. It would be important for the committee and us if we could give you a better understanding of that process. They are defined as one or the other, based on the preponderance of the activities.
Senator Meighen: A written response to that would be appreciated. Are you running into any jurisdictional overlap? If so, how do you deal with that? I am thinking of a harbour on the East Coast where there is both commercial fishing and recreational boating activities.
Mr. Murray: We would probably define that harbour as a fishing harbour which has a higher priority than a recreational harbour. The fact that recreational vessels are there, means that it is probably defined as a fishing harbour. I would rather have experts here to confirm that.
The Chairman: It might work out well, if members are agreeable, to hear witnesses next Thursday morning. Since we have yet to receive any word on our budget, it has made it almost impossible for the steering committee to plan any meetings of our committee.
Senator Stewart: That suggestion is a very good one.
Mr. Murray: We will provide a briefing on the divestiture program and where it is headed. My understanding is it is generally positively received, but I would like to provide a detailed briefing of the facts.
The Chairman: We will look forward to that next Thursday morning.
Senator Butts: The important question to me is an offshoot of what Senator Stewart was talking about, that is, the social fisheries. As I read the documents, and especially the plans and priorities, I am struck by how many times the term "co-management" is used. In looking at the aboriginal situation, I see that there are co-management boards. It is stated that, in the Arctic, stocks are assessed by co-management authorities. You refer to fisheries management plans in your plans and priorities document.
Are there authorities, boards or client groups? Who form this co-management? Are there parameters around how this is to be done? For example, how would one set up a co-management system in Louisbourg or on the north shore of Cape Breton?
Mr. Murray: In relation to co-management, I would follow up on the comments I have heard to the effect that DFO is perceived as fishermen on the Rideau. The reality is the department is largely decentralized, with 9,000 in the regions, but there is a sense that we have been too autocratic, that we have not engaged with stakeholders or the industry. We have not involved them as we should have in the management of their resource and the resource of all Canadians. Co-management is all about trying to come to grips with that reality and involve the fishermen more in the management of the resource.
There have been concerns. Indeed, the minister, as he mentioned to this committee yesterday, delayed introducing amendments to the Fisheries Act relative to ingraining partnering and co-management in the act because of the concerns that have been raised, and the need for further communication based on the study he had commissioned by Mr. Donald Savoie. While he recommended delaying ingraining partnering in the Fisheries Act until there had been more dialogue, his committee strongly supported the department's ongoing efforts in co-management, having looked at it from outside the department.
Mr. Robichaud: I would define co-management in two ways. One is related to land claims and natives. In any land claim there is legislation. There is provision for a management board. With the department's advice on harvest levels and other factors, they provide for the development of integrated fish management. That is provided for under the legislation.
There is also another form of co-management and that falls into two types. The first is with a native community where there is no land claim agreement. In that instance, an agreement is signed with the community and, in cooperation, harvest levels and so on are established. The community ensures that the set amount of lobster or salmon is harvested, and they appoint guardians and provide reports.
The second type of co-management is where other licence holders, such as commercial fishers of any type, fixed in groups, in fleet segment, and all within a community, in order to have a greater say, as I explained yesterday, agree to work with the department to establish objectives for conservation. They also agree on the sharing of the resource. The also agree to share the responsibility and, of course, the accountability for the resource. There are over 30 of these types of agreements.
We can provide documents that may be of some assistance. For example, if members of a community are interested in associating with a group, we can provide documents that help them to know how to arrange co-management.
Finally, there is integrated fish management. There need not be a co-management approach. We work in an integrated fashion with various stakeholders of the province: the provincial official, the processor, the harvester, and the habitat sector, depending on the species, to develop this integrated fish management plan. We have some 103 management plans of which close to 50 are fully integrated at this time. They are the key, major plan.
I hope I have explained the various components. There is very easy reading material available.
Senator Butts: Perhaps you would send me the material that is available.
The Chairman: All committee members should have copies.
Senator Meighen: In reviewing the material and the information you have given us this morning, I will leave here with the hope that the situation will improve. One cannot help but be struck by the fact that many of the problems we are dealing with this morning were highlighted in the 1989 report of this committee.
For example, the report urged the department to take further steps to involve the fishermen in the resource assessment, and in the consultative and decision-making process. The report recommended that the DFO significantly increase its support of fisheries research to ensure that, at its disposal, was a pool of highly qualified scientists. The committee recommended that DFO substantially increase the level of funding for research on new methods of fertility control on seals, and stated that, if a solution to the increasing seal population is not forthcoming in the next two years, the federal government should proceed with a cull. This all sounds very much the same.
I wonder whether much has changed and whether, notwithstanding your statement, it would be fair to say that, perhaps quite understandably, the department's focus has been the collapse of stocks.
Is the $10 million which was transferred to science funding $10 million new dollars, or is it a transfer from some other sector within DFO to the oceans sector? I understand it was to be used to achieve an integrated ecosystem approach to conservation and protection, and sustainable development of oceans and ocean resources.
You also mentioned a revised focus on science, that is, moving from a crisis-management approach to a more integrated approach. How will that come about? Crises will continue to happen. Does this involve additional funding? I read in your statement that it involves additional recruitment. Does it involve the expansion of research stations on the East Coast or on the West Coast? Does it involve, in your estimation, being able to come up with a definitive answer to the seal question?
Senator Mary Butts (Acting Chairman) in the Chair.
Mr. Murray: I will try to provide an initial response and then ask Dr. Doubleday to what is being done in the department and across government to come to grips with the need for more science capacity, both within government and in partnerships.
It is fair to say that the department has moved from crisis to crisis -- and there have been real crises, as you are well aware. That is part of the explanation of why the department is where it is. It is not the result of very dedicated and very good people not striving mightily, but they had to deal with many crisis situations.
In the last year and a half we have been trying -- and I think we are making some progress -- to provide an overall strategic plan as where the department is heading. We can call them "better" or "more coherent" management practices. We are trying to ensure that we manage most situations normally and deal with crises that exist as such. That is our goal across the board, not just in the science area.
In that regard, the department does have a responsibility. In my view, Canada led the way in 1994 through 1997 in coming forward with an Oceans Act. We were one of the first countries to introduce such legislation. One of the requirements of the Oceans Act is for this department, specifically our minister, to go back to Parliament next year and report on progress towards the formulation of an oceans management strategy, which includes all the activities that impact on the oceans and all the stakeholders. There are 23 federal departments and agencies, most provinces and territories are stakeholders, and there are countless other stakeholders involved in one way or another. In terms of formulating an overall oceans management strategy, our job is to bring some coherence to that, such that there are transparent processes in place for dealing with natural gas, shipping, fishing and other activities.
About six or eight months ago we decided that, in order to bring some coherence to that, we had to bring some very capable people together in an ocean sector environment to try to lead the way on that. That included people from the policy group, people from habitat, as well as science people. That is the reason for the reference to the transfer into science. We have a small staff in this headquarters and in the regions trying to bring some coherence to this, and trying to move forward in a timely manner to produce an overall oceans management strategy.
It is clear to this department and to a number of other federal departments -- in particular the regulatory departments -- that we must come to grips with the basic science capacity. A number of initiatives have been taken to come to grips with that.
Most of the funding referred to in this document has been made available through a tough internal reallocation by giving science a higher priority. We are recruiting 82 new science people, including technicians. We need people with a fresh approach. Before we started this recruiting, we had not recruited a full-time scientist since 1992. That is unsatisfactory, notwithstanding all the downsizing and the fiscal constraints. The Auditor General is strongly in support of that initiative. In fact, there is a lot support for it, but to get it moving we had to bring some reality to it.
Mr. William Doubleday, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Mr. Murray has outlined most of what is happening regarding science capacity in the department.
I believe we have made progress in some of the elements outlined in your 1989 report. We now routinely invite fishermen to participate in our stock assessment review process. We include university-based scientists in that as well. We have opened up the stock assessment review process and we have benefited from that.
We are also benefiting from partnering with the fishing industry to obtain information about the fish stocks. When the fishing industry either finances or carries out surveys, it provides the data collected to the department. This has given us valuable material to work with.
We successfully completed our project on the fertility of seals. That went on for a number of years. We have a vaccine which is an effective birth control measure for grey seals. It has been tested on harp seals as well. That research did come to a successful conclusion.
Senator Meighen: Could you explain how you encourage them to adopt this practice?
Mr. Murray: That is a little more challenging.
Mr. Doubleday: Administering the vaccine, you are quite right, is the most difficult practical issue. In the case of grey seals, what we have been doing is injecting it into the muscle of the seal when they come on land to breed. The vaccine is long lasting so that if it is injected into a female with a pup, it becomes effective the following year and then remains effective for several years after that. It can be applied in practice, although anyone who has worked around seals, particularly larger ones like grey seals, realizes that there are some risks associated with approaching them.
We have established that seals are eating a substantial amount of fish, including commercial species such as herring and cod. We have steadily refined the estimates, taking into account the distribution of the animals and improved means of reconstructing what they have eaten. We have made substantial progress in a number of those issues that were raised years ago.
With respect to the present and the future, we recognize that we must provide conservation advice without complete information, and we are now frequently including information on the uncertainties of our estimates in our stock status reports so that, when decisions are made about harvest levels and conservation measures, those who are taking the decisions realize how solid the information base is that they are working with.
We recognize the need to renew and strengthen our science capacity in the department. We are taking first steps by recruiting 82 new scientific staff, and we foresee a need for further hiring of new staff in the coming years in order to provide us with the capability we will need in the future.
Senator Meighen: This would apply to any area of research, including medical research for that matter. Does the department endeavour to assign areas of specialization to its various stations around the country? I would like to know what the scientific concentration will be in a place such as Brandy Cove in St. Andrews.
I recognize that figures can be changed depending on what you want to establish, but am I correct that the science budget of DFO will decrease from $115.7 million in fiscal 1999-2000 to $103.9 million in fiscal 2001-2002?
Mr. Murray: I had a similar discussion at the Public Accounts Committee, and that is why we added the oceans portion at the end of this presentation. The change in the funding in science, is because we are putting a focus on science. We moved a portion of science, the environmental science component, into the oceans sector to make that a more coherent sector. Science continues, but it continues within the oceans sector.
The sentinel fishery is funded for a certain period of time at the moment, and then ceases to be funded. The new recruiting also theoretically, the window two or three years falls off, clearly decisions must be made to carry on with sentinel fisheries, to carry on with rejuvenation.
The budget in relation to sentinel fisheries will depend on the results. In the case of rejuvenation it will continue.
That is the essence of the financial side.
In terms of science, we tend to specialize relative to the geography of the country and the separation of the institutes. St. Andrews does specialize in aquaculture.
Mr. Doubleday: We are generally organized by regions so that we have divided the geography of the country. Each region typically has responsibility in science for study and assessment of the fish resources that are in that geographic area. We have, for example, scientists who study herring in Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and on the Scotian Shelf. The three regions will all have someone who is working on herring.
With respect to some functions like aquaculture, we have more specialization. In particular, the St. Andrews Biological Station is our primary centre for fin fish aquaculture, science in the Atlantic and the Gulf Fisheries Centre in Moncton is the primary focus for shell fish aquaculture. We also have a capability in the Pacific region to deal with Pacific species. There is significant specialization but, generally speaking, if a region has management responsibilities for fish resources, then there is a corresponding scientific capability to study those resources.
Senator Mahovlich: With regards to search and rescue and marine traffic safety, are you quite satisfied with the monitoring of your search and rescue? Do you work with the armed forces on that or do you have your own rescue systems?
Mr. Murray: The search and rescue system across the country is integrated. Our primary responsibility is marine search and rescue. The Department of National Defence's primary responsibility is air search and rescue, and indeed in terms of land search and rescue, it is the responsibility of provincial police forces, or the RCMP where they are responsible for policing in the province. Command and control of the whole system is integrated. That is located in rescue coordination centres at key armed forces facilities across the country commanded by the armed forces regional commander, but co-manned by armed forces personnel and by our Canadian Coast Guard personnel. It is very much an integrated and coordinated system with our focus principally on marine search and rescue.
Senator Mahovlich: You are satisfied with that?
Mr. Murray: The issue is always a difficult one, given the climate, the ruggedness and the vastness of this country. It is fair to say that, in terms of some of the necessary decisions relative to program review, we do find ourselves, and have found ourselves recently, somewhat strapped in the context of search and rescue. We are in the process of revisiting that. On the air side you would be aware that the government has made the decision to replace the search and rescue helicopters. The Coast Guard has a major initiative underway. Marine safety at the moment is one of the minister's top priorities, and we are working at putting forward a proposal to the government that would see not so much enhancement as a reconfiguration of search and rescue to make it more effective across the country, taking into account the knowledge we have gained over the years as to where the incidents happen. This is in an effort to make sure the response we need is there. That initiative is underway.
We are tying it in to some enhancement of our hydrographic chart production, as well as the new initiative on boating safety. It is a combined package, so we are moving forward on that to try to do a better job in that area, and to close some of the gaps which a variety of changes in shipping patterns and other changes have created, not just budget reductions. The fishery has changed, as have other things, so we are trying to update the system
The Acting Chairman: I met some of your department people who worked on the Swiss Air disaster. Did that come under your budget or did Swiss Air pay for it?
Mr. Murray: From the perspective of our department, Canada and the Canadian government responded to that disaster. I am not sure of what transpired during the legal discussions between Swiss Air and the Government of Canada, or between Swiss Air and the families of the passengers. We responded in a major way. Indeed, the Canadian response, and that includes the people of Nova Scotia, was superb. The interdepartmental cooperation was superb. The fishermen participated, as did the Coast Guard auxiliary. It was a moving example to the world of a national and a community -- in the case of Nova Scotia -- response.
I am unaware of the financial relationship between Swiss Air and the government. I believe for the most part, as in most disasters like that, it would be principally the responsibility of the government of the country in which the disaster occurred, in this case Canada, to respond to the disaster.
There are other issues to be resolved, however, such as the impact on local fishing areas. Arrangements are being made between Swiss Air and fishermen, and we could provide a detailed update on the status of those.
The Acting Chairman: I talked to some members of your department who were seconded to that operation for some time. They probably need some psychological help after being through it.
Senator Stewart: How is the observer program set up on the East Coast? Does one company provide the observers, or are those provided by two companies? How many observers are actually at work? I know that people may take months off and then go out for a long period, that is why I put my question in vague language. What is the cost of the program?
Mr. Robichaud: I will be able to respond to only part of your question. The overall costs have decreased gradually as the industry and the fishermen have been offsetting some of the costs of observers at sea. I can confirm that it is in the neighbourhood of about $2 million for the administration. It is a core administrative component that decreases the cost of an observer per day. We contribute the administrative component. The rest is provided by the one who is hosting the observer on board.
The level of observer coverage varies from 100 per cent for example in the northern shrimp fishery, to levels of 10 to 15 per cent. Observer coverage on small vessels is very difficult simply on account of space.
Observers are hired by private companies. They are not employees of the department. They are third-party, arms-length observers. There are a series of companies which do this. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for example, three companies can provide observers. They are accredited. They must meet certain standards, both in training the observer as well as in providing data. In a nutshell, that is how the observer program operates.
Senator Stewart: What is the cost to your department, including all aspects of management and pay to those companies that provide the services?
Mr. Robichaud: As I indicated, it is in the neighbourhood of $2 million, but it is a core funding for the administrative component of the program for different companies. For example, if it is $300 a day, 24 hours, for an observer, it reduces this amount to the company or the fisher that must pay for the fee.
I do not have the overall figure, but we could provide it.
Mr. Murray: I suggest that we provide a detailed written response to be sure we are giving you the correct information.
Senator Adams: Could you give me some further information on the birth control measures being used on the seals? How long does the effect of the injection last?Is it experimental? How is birth control achieved?
Mr. Doubleday: This is an experiment which was carried out over a number of years on Sable Island on the Scotian Shelf, south of Nova Scotia. The main focus was on grey seals who produce their pups on Sable Island. It is one of their major breeding areas, typically in January. We would send a team out to Sable Island and they would administer the vaccine to the animals when they were on the island.
When the vaccine was administered, the mother seal would also be marked visibly. The following year we could determine whether that same seal returned, and whether she had a pup. Administering the vaccine with a syringe, which involves having a team of people hold down the seal, was about 90 per cent effective. Nine out of ten of the adult females that were administered a vaccine would not have a pup the following year.
We also supported work to try to develop an easier way to administer this vaccine. We used an air rifle firing a pellet. It is also be effective, but not as certain as using the syringe. The effectiveness of that method was around 60 per cent. The advantage of the air rifle was you could stand back from the seal and you were less likely to be bitten by it.
Senator Adams: Do the injections last for one year?
Mr. Doubleday: I am not familiar with the latest information on this, but last I heard was that some of the animals had been first injected about four years previously, and they were still not producing pups.
A similar approach has been used for some domestic animals like horses, and he effect can last for five years, possibly longer in some cases. It is quite long-lasting.
Senator Mahovlich: What does Greenpeace have to say about this?
Mr. Doubleday: I do not believe Greenpeace has said anything about it.
Senator Mahovlich: Do they know about it?
Senator Adams: Is it only the grey seal that is found on Sable Island?
Mr. Doubleday: There are four main species of seals in the Atlantic. The most abundant is the harp seal which spends the summer in the Arctic, mainly in Greenland waters, but also in the Eastern Arctic. A few of them come into Hudson's Bay, but not in large numbers. The hooded seal is the second most abundant. It is mainly found in offshore waters in Newfoundland. It also occurs in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It too moves north in the summer and goes south in the winter to breed. Next in abundance is the grey seal and, finally, the harbour seal. They come south to Newfoundland waters and the Gulf of St. Lawrence to breed.
Grey seals breed on the Scotian Shelf and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence around January. It can vary plus or minus a couple of weeks. In the summer, they disperse and grey seals are seen all the way from Cape Cod to Hamilton Inlet in Labrador, but there are relatively few around southern and eastern Newfoundland. They are mainly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Scotian Shelf.
Senator Cook: We might have a new tourist industry in Newfoundland because right now seals are being spotted in the rivers. Last week there was one in the river in the heart of the city. There was quite a furor and everyone went out to see the seal. It did not help the conservationists because it ate all that wonderful salmon smolt they have been putting in, in trying to rejuvenate what was a dead river. The seal was a fine specimen, sleek and fat, so I guess he had a good meal.
On page 4, paragraph 3, you state that, once conservation is assured you will lay out a reasonable, balanced approach to allocation. Could you enlighten me as to when that might be? I gather it is not happening now. What is your projection?
Mr. Murray: It depends on the species. What that phrase is intended to indicate is that the top priority, and the priority that the minister must always consider, is conservation of whatever the particular species is, whether it is lobster, groundfish, or salmon on the West Coast. We must determine what is the state of the stock ergo our desire to have more science.
Basically the point that that tries to make -- and maybe it is ambiguous -- is we need to ensure ecologically sustainable fisheries, so the minister had to make some tough decisions last year in relation to the Pacific salmon for example. Once we have determined, based on scientific advice, the state of the stock, then other factors come into play. He tries to take the best decision he can relative to that scientifically accepted level of stock, whatever the stock. Obviously in the case of the groundfish, as per your discussion with the minister yesterday, that is a very difficult area.
Senator Cook: I gather I should interpret the word "once" to mean that the process is ongoing, that there is movement. I saw "once" there as being static.
Mr. Murray: We could have used better wording. We have 140 fisheries underway in the country each year, and each of those must consider the conservation of the stock. There is input from people like Dr. Doubleday as to the status, and we move on from there.
Senator Cook: Nothing comes to a stand still until everything is acquired and moves.
Mr. Murray: The decision relative to the harvesting of each stock takes into account the state of the stock in a conservationist sense. The other decisions are made about the management of the stock, how it is to be allocated, and that sort of thing.
Senator Cook: If a problem is identified during a fishing season, do you move in and take the necessary conservation measures; and could those measures flow from one season to the next?
Mr. Robichaud: Yes. I would refer to the recent announcement regarding groundfish. An analysis was done by scientists as to the stock status, and that was provided to the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. They then consulted on what would be an appropriate level. This level must ensure conservation, depending on various conditions of the stock and so on. After this level is given to the minister, there is consultation with the industry to establish the allocation principle of the resource. This formulates the integrated fish management plan I talked about earlier.
During the process, there are measures within the plan to ensure conservation. In lobster, size is important. They must be big enough to lay their eggs. Conservation measures can be adjusted during the season if there are too many small fish being caught. In a salmon run, there is an expectation of a certain level of return. If that does not happen, then you close the fishery.
Conservation measures change for each year, and they can be changed during the season after the plan has been established. Conservation is not static.
Senator Stewart: What is the state of the snow crab stock in the gulf? What is the state of the lobster stock in the gulf?
Mr. Doubleday: I cannot give a precise answer today, but I could send you the stock status reports for snow crab and what we have on lobster.
In general terms, my recollection is that the gulf snow crab is at a relatively low point. It may be starting to increase, but it is at a low point compared to recent years.
With respect to lobster, the situation is somewhat complicated. Several areas have noticed a reducing lobster abundance over the last several years, but others have maintained a high level. Generally speaking, lobster increased over a wide area from Labrador to Maine from the mid-1970s until about 1991. In the early 1990s, the lobster resource and lobster catches were at the highest level in 100 years. They have been declining in most areas since then. Some have gone down quite a bit, others less so. If you are seeking information on a specific geographical location, then I may not be able to tell you what the status is offhand.
Senator Stewart: We had evidence here some time back concerning the lobster stock from Labrador to Maine. We were told that the only area where the pattern that you described had not applied was the eastern shore in Guysborough County. In other words, from Halifax roughly to the Strait of Canso. Is that still the case? Are you now in a position to give any more precise an explanation for that abnormality?
Mr. Doubleday: Unfortunately, I cannot answer that question today, but I would be happy to provide a written response.
Mr. Robichaud: I have reviewed the plan we set up last year. As Dr. Doubleday indicated, there is indeed a concern because we reach highs in landing the likes of which we have not seen for a long time. The industry expressed concern. Last year was very difficult. You may have read in the papers that some group objected to the measure, the challenge, that the minister imposed on the industry to increase or double the egg production in each lobster area. Some groups did achieve that goal, but many did not. There is still a lingering concern about this on the part of some groups, particularly in the area mentioned by Senator Stewart. It is the second year, and they feel that, perhaps, they do not need to increase the size because the landings were good. Measures were introduced to increase the size of the catch, to leave the lobster in the water. It was part of a plan, over four years, to double the egg production in each of the areas from Labrador down to Maine.
Two areas have been performing quite well, and that is why it is difficult to understand why you should take measures before it goes down. One of the areas is Southwest Nova Scotia, from Halifax down the coast. The landing was very good for the fisheries later in the year. They had a good start in November. We do not know the reading for this year, but they had a good fishery last year. That was also the case in the southern gulf, Prince Edward Island, and the north coast. Increasing the size by about the thickness of a credit card resulted in increased landings. That was the first increase in the year. The measures are in place. Certain areas are still having some good landings, but they have a four-year program in which the minister wants, at all costs, each area to double egg the production.
Senator Stewart: I hear uneasiness expressed in my part of the gulf, the lower end down toward the Strait of Canso, that certain fishers in New Brunswick are using bigger traps which, of course, allow bigger lobsters, potential producers of eggs, to be caught. What are the facts?
Mr. Robichaud: Trap limits are set. There was a tradition of using a form of trap made of wood, and it was a certain size. There is a limit by regulation. More and more people have moved into a form a metallic can trap, it is more square in shape, but it is still within the overall limit. What is important is the escapement area which we did allow to be increased in certain area in the Strait.
Senator Stewart:Was it increased in size?
Mr. Robichaud: They increased it to allow a lobster of a certain size to be able to exit. You have different size limits in different areas. That is a most complex area. Some may be moving away from the two-and-a-half-inches limit. Others may be already two and three-quarters in size. In the area of the southern gulf you have four or five different limits so you have four or five different regulations.
It is difficult to have a standard limit across the board because the productivity of each area is different. Some of those measures did succeed, over the years, in producing the highest levels of landings. However, the fact is that production everywhere is still too low and that is why we must take these measures and leave large lobster in the water.
Senator Stewart: When you say "production" do you mean the production of eggs?
Mr. Robichaud: Yes. That is where everyone needs to improve. We want the egg production to double at the end of those four years. That means leaving large lobster in the water in certain areas because they are big producers.
Senator Stewart: I notice again and again witnesses this morning have referred to the "industry." I do not know whether they realize this or not, but in the eyes of many fishers, the expression the "industry" tends to imply that there is no concern for social policy. That would be contrary to what we were told earlier today.
For many people, the term the "industry" means the big companies, that is, Fisheries Products International, what used to be National Sea, and Clearwater. When you talk about consultation with the "industry," it means talking to the head of Clearwater. Is there some way that you can find another term, one less misleading to a large part of your clientele?
Mr. Murray: That is a fair point. When we use the term the "industry" we mean everybody who is a fisherman. In the context of the consultations ongoing on the East Coast, that is probably something we do need to bear in mind and be a little more careful, given the concerns with regard to industrial concentrations and that sort of thing.
Senator Stewart: We had reference earlier by Senator Meighen to reports that this committee made 10 and 11 years ago. I remember that, insofar as fish stocks were concerned, we had a very different reading from two different groups. The so-called inshore fishermen were telling us that the groundfish were becoming scarcer and scarcer. The industry was telling us no, that it was fine. I do not think the latter were lying. The truth of the matter is that their technology was so good that they were able to catch fish even though fish were becoming more scarce. What is meant by the "industry" can have a very serious impact on departmental policy.
Mr. Robichaud: As Mr. Murray indicated, "industry" can be perceived to mean various people in the chain. When we consult on a fishing plan, we include the people who harvest, the people who process, as well as provincial representatives and so on because they have a direct input into licensing a processing facility. We can also include other interest groups.
Now industry can be vertically integrated. You can have a processor who also has harvesting. There are a few, and some of them were mentioned by Senator Stewart. Generally speaking, the largest amount of fish -- about 90 per cent -- is harvested by single owner-operators. Some are companies, though, because they have vessels of 64 feet and 11 inches -- under the limit of 65 feet -- that cost more than $1 million. They form companies themselves. They register their company and they manage that one enterprise. Those are mobile-gear vessels or fixed-gear vessels which harvest a large number of traps. Generally speaking, few big companies also harvest and are vertically integrated.
Most processing companies buy from owner-operator fishers across the Atlantic.
The Acting Chairman: I thank the witnesses for being so helpful.
Mr. Murray: You may have heard that an announcement relative to the Pacific Salmon Treaty is imminent. The minister would want me to pass on to you that, as soon as an announcement is made, members of the committee will receive a full package. He would be very pleased to come and brief the committee as soon as his schedule allows that. I would not want the committee to be surprised by that.
The committee adjourned.