Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 1 - Evidence, March 20, 2001
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 20, 2001
The Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7.00 p.m. for its examination of matters relating to the fishing industry.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We are welcoming tonight a group of witnesses who will inform us about the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations. A meeting was to be held last fall, but unfortunately, it had to be cancelled because of the elections. It is then the first time that the representatives of the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations meet with this committee. Gentlemen, you are welcomed.
[English]
First, I should like to introduce Mr. Rick Misner, who not only is the Chair of the Canadian Responsible Fisheries Board but also is the Chair of the Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association.
Please proceed, Mr. Misner.
Mr. Rick Misner, Chair, Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations, and Chair, Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries. By way of introduction, I come from a small fishing town in southern Ontario called Port Dover.
The Canadian Responsible Fisheries Board was appointed by fishermen and their organizations from across Canada. Our job is to oversee the ratification of the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Operations and to promote its implementation. I had the honour to be appointed chairman of our board by my colleagues from other regions of Canada. I am joined tonight by Mr. Patrick McGuinness, who represents the Atlantic offshore fishing enterprises on our board, as well as Mr. Henry Copestake, who is from the board secretariat.
I believe that honourable senators have all been given kits that include copies of the code, lists of the ratified organizations, information on the Roméo LeBlanc Awards for Responsible Fisheries and information on responsible fisheries initiatives that exemplify the implementation of the code by our industry. Most of the information is available in both French and English. The code itself has also been translated into Inuktitut. I believe these editions have been provided for Senators Adams and Watt. I understand that this translation is mainly in the Central Baffin dialect. I apologize in advance if it is not their dialect.
This evening we would like to give an overview of the code history, how it has been received by the fishing industry and how we would like to see it being implemented by both industry and fisheries management in the future. I hope to keep my presentation brief, which should allow plenty of time for my colleagues and I to respond to any specific questions or points of interest afterward.
Our board is now at the end of an initial three-year mandate. I think you will agree that the code has now been widely ratified by the Canadian commercial fishing industry. As you can see in your kits, over 60 fisheries organizations have now ratified or endorsed the code, and others are continuing to join.
On the international stage, Canada and our fishing industry have been seen as world leaders with this type of responsible fisheries initiative. The next step is to ensure that fisheries management and industry work together to implement the principles and guidelines of the code.
Over the past three years, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has provided the secretariat support and funding to allow our board to function and fulfil our mandate. We will be asking for your support in continuing this type of assistance for the promotion of responsible fishing practices within our industry.
While some sectors of our industry are able to, and indeed do, fund such activities on their own, other sectors are much less able to fund these initiatives. The success of our board and the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations is that it includes all commercial fish harvesters, large and small, from all fleets and regions. This grassroots involvement has garnered ratified acceptance by the vast majority of Canada's practising commercial fishermen. However, some continuing support will be needed to continue promoting the implementation of our code.
The concept of the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations first arose at the international level in response to the need to improve management of world fisheries. At a United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization conference in 1995, an international Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries was adopted; it was ratified by the Canadian government. However, in 1994, at the minister's round table on the fisheries sponsored by then Minister Tobin, the Canadian fishing industry recommended the development of a code that would address the diverse needs of Canada's fisheries. With the support of the federal government, industry consultations were held across Canada, culminating in a national fisheries industry workshop in 1998.
The workshop, with over 60 representatives from all fishing industry sectors, agreed on the text of our consensus code. This was probably the first time that representatives of the fishing industry from across Canada and representing all fleet sectors ever met together. It was almost certainly the first time that they ever agreed on something.
The workshop delegates also appointed our Canadian Responsible Fisheries Board as the governance body to oversee the ratification of the code at the grassroots level and to oversee the implementation of the code.
The code is made up of nine conservation principles and 36 operating guidelines, covering issues such as the protection of the resource and the environment, fishing gear and responsible fishing technologies, vessels and vessel safety, access and enforcement, cooperation and partnership, education and research, and public awareness.
The code, conceived and owned by fishermen, provided a basic set of rules that reflect the individual commitment of fishermen to the goals of conservation and sustainability. By helping to implement the code, fisheries managers increased the involvement of harvesters in fisheries management, improved conservation efforts, improved overall fisheries management, and ensured that cooperative partnerships between industry and government evolve.
As I mentioned earlier, the code has now been ratified by over 60 fishermen's organizations from across the country, representing over 80 per cent of the commercial fish harvested in Canada. I believe that the diversity of fisheries that have ratified reflects the commitment from across the Canadian fishing industry to conservation and the sustainable harvest of fishery sources. As you can see, ratifying organizations include inshore fishermen from groups such as the Eastern Fishermen's Federation and the gillnetters and trollers of British Columbia.
Large vessel operators such as the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers in the Atlantic, the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of British Columbia, and the Deep Sea Trawlers' Association have ratified. The Alberta Commercial Fishermen's Association and the Ontario Commercial Fisheries' Association have also ratified. In the Arctic, a number of hunters and trappers organizations that are active in commercial fisheries in both Nunavut and Arctic Quebec have ratified as well.
As a grassroots fishermen's initiative, we have sought the ratification of individual fishermen through direct voting within their organizations. This process has had to fit the diverse schedules of many organizations. It has therefore taken time, and it continues.
However, ratification of the Canadian code of conduct strongly signals the commitment of Canadian fishermen to conservation and the sustainable use of the fisheries resources. More than any other group, our livelihoods depend on sustainable access to fish resources. That can only be achieved through proper resource conservation.
The relationship between fisheries managers and the fishing industry is often viewed as a relationship of conflict. In accordance with our code, we have asked both federal and provincial ministers of fisheries for the commitment of fisheries managers to also work in a cooperative manner with the fishing industry. We believe strongly that fisheries managed in accordance with our code can allow both the fish resources and our industry to survive and thrive in a sustainable manner.
As mentioned, the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Operations is made up of nine principles and 36 guidelines that show how these principles should be applied. However, the code was always conceived to be a living document. To bring life to the code, the principles and guidelines must be applied to each individual fishery.
Throughout the process of drafting the code, fishermen continually expressed concern that fisheries managers acted inconsistently between individual fisheries and regions. During the ratification process, that same refrain has continued: "If we adopt the code, how can we be sure that the fisheries managers will apply it consistently?" The Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Operations provides a tool to both industry and fisheries managers that can assure a consistent and cooperative approach to sustainable fisheries management.
By ratifying, the fishing industry has agreed that this code offers a consistent and comprehensive framework to establish management measures for their commercial fishery. For each individual fishery, those measures would be seen as an annex to the code that reflects how the code is being applied. This implementation effectively brings life to the code. However, that life is only created through a partnership between the industry and the fisheries managers. Cooperation depends on the code being adopted as a framework for management by both parties -- the industry and the managers.
I know that in Atlantic Canada fisheries policy is currently being reviewed to try to bring about greater consistency and industry participation in fisheries management. We would like to suggest that, in matters of fisheries management, the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Operations will provide a framework for a consistent management policy. As such, we would like your support and endorsement of this code as an appropriate basis, or framework, for cooperative fisheries.
Furthermore, I hope that you will encourage the government to support implementation of the code by all ratified sectors of the fishing industry. As discussed, this may require financial or administrative support in some circumstances.
In some sectors, implementation is already taking place. The code has been cited or applied in the development of some conservation harvesting plans and fisheries management plans. The code has become an important element of fisheries training and professionalization in some provinces. The application of the code addresses the "green" concerns of many environmental groups, and it can help protect the position of the Canadian fish products in the international marketplace.
Research and development work is continuing across Canada to make fishing gear more selective and to reduce its impact on bottom structures and other fish habitat. Stronger cooperation between the fishing industry and fisheries scientists in some sectors and fleets is providing better knowledge of the fisheries resources and the impact of the commercial fishing.
Some groups have expressed interest in using the code as a tool for dispute resolution, dealing with fisheries infractions before they warrant criminal charges. We can provide examples of these initiatives in our ongoing discussions. These types of projects require cooperation between the fishing industry and government as trustees of the resource. We hope that you will agree that these initiatives warrant the ongoing support of the Canadian government.
Part of our mandate in the Canadian Responsible Fisheries Board has also been to promote the public image of commercial fishing. As you know, in the news media it is very difficult to find positive news about the fishing industry. It seems that there is an even greater reluctance for the popular press to report on the positive contributions that fishermen often make to the conservation of the world's marine and freshwater resources. Yet, within this committee, I am sure that you are all aware of examples of individual fishermen who work closely with resource managers and have made particular efforts to ensure that the fish harvesting industry operates in a sustainable manner.
The Canadian Responsible Fisheries Board is also aware that these individuals often go unrecognized. As such, we asked the Right Honourable Roméo LeBlanc to be the patron of the Roméo LeBlanc Medal for Responsible Fishing. The first such awards were presented at Rideau Hall last April. The final selection of this year's laureates will take place later this week at our own board meeting. The award is given each year to one active fishermen from each of the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic and freshwater fisheries who is recognized by his or her peers as having made a special contribution to the promotion of the responsible fishing practices. From these four, one is selected as the winner of the Roméo LeBlanc award and medal. Here is a photo of last year's winners.
Fish harvesters from across Canada are committed to sustainable fisheries practices and have expressed that commitment in the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Operations.
Other industries in Canada are promoted and supported by government departments. The high technology industry is promoted by Industry Canada and its provincial counterparts. Agriculture Canada and provincial agriculture departments act as advocates for the agriculture industry across Canada. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a primary responsibility for the conservation and sustainable use of Canada's marine resources.
We hope that your committee will encourage DFO to continue to support industry initiatives such as ours that promote partnership in managing Canada's fisheries resources in a sustainable manner.
We welcome any questions that you might have at this time about the Canadian Responsible Fisheries Board, the Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Operations or the implementation of responsible fishing practices as articulated in the code.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Misner. You mentioned the sense of stewardship that needs to be present in our communities. However, I noted in your presentation that you did not mention the concept of bringing communities along with the industry in promoting stewardship. Do you have a place for communities beholden to fisheries and the conduct that your group is promoting?
Mr. Patrick McGuinness, Canadian Code for Responsible Fishing Operations, Fisheries Council of Canada: As you know, the fishing industry is a somewhat difficult and disparate group. Our first initiative was to get the various sectors of the fishing industry at a point where they understand the message and are committed to it. We believe that we have accomplished that process. The next stage is the implementation of the code and, as you say, the expansion of our community of people who support responsible fish harvesting. We hope to expand that family to include communities. As well, we want to test our accomplishments in terms of our principles and guidelines, not only with communities but also with responsible environmental organizations.
You are right. That is a good question. It is something that our board has considered. We are not ready to take that active step, but we certainly look forward to doing it.
The Chairman: You can be powerful allies.
Senator Graham: I was intrigued by two words that you used, Mr. Misner, in your opening remarks.
Incidentally, I want to congratulate this organization for the work it is doing.
I am familiar with the situation in Atlantic Canada. We have lived through the groundfish crisis. We have followed the horrific tales of the Pacific salmon fishery as well. The fishing industry, in the community in Nova Scotia from where I come, has meant a great deal to the incomes not only of fisher families but of the mainstream public generally. We have all suffered from the setbacks that have occurred in the fishing industry.
I was here, as Senator Corbin was, when Roméo LeBlanc was the Minister of Fisheries. We lived through the interesting suspense that occurred at the end and the beginning of each year as the minister went home and reflected upon what the total allowable catch would be for the coming season.
I commend you for your work.
Having said that, I said that I was intrigued by two specific words that you used: one, that you were "appointed" to your position as chair, and the other, that the board itself was "elected."
Mr. Misner: For clarification, I was one of 13 board members who were elected to represent his or her regional areas. In turn, I was elected chairman of the board.
Senator Graham: Technically speaking, you were elected?
Mr. Misner: Yes, I was elected by the board of directors to represent the board as chair.
Senator Graham: I was interested as well in reading about your principles and guidelines.
In February, the Minister of Fisheries released a discussion paper that was intended to form the basis of public consultations as part of the Atlantic fisheries policy review. I presume you have gone over that discussion paper. What has been the impact of that on your work? Will the proposed changes enhance the importance of the code of conduct?
Mr. Misner: In that regard, as I said already, each individual area, for example, Atlantic Canada, deals primarily with its own issues. It would be more appropriate to have someone like Mr. McGuinness respond. He represents a large faction of the fisheries in Atlantic Canada. He is more aware of the current status of those management programs in Atlantic Canada than I am, sitting in the centre of Canada, giving partial information from all directions.
Mr. McGuinness: The Canadian Responsible Fisheries Board we will not be commenting on the discussion paper because, as Mr. Misner correctly points out, that is a discussion of the various sectors of the Atlantic fishing industry.
The only thing I would note in response to your question is that one of the segments in the discussion paper presented by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans deals with encouraging the industry to take more responsibility in terms of decision making, of developing a shared stewardship approach to the resource. In that context, the discussion paper actually compliments the initiative of the responsible fishing code of conduct and looks towards encouraging that activity. It is a specific identification or discussion point in the document.
We believe the discussion paper will be very beneficial to us in the sense that it recognizes what we have accomplished so far and expresses hope that the Atlantic industry can fully support the initiative.
Senator Graham: I was reading as well in your Canadian code of conduct booklet, the consensus code, in the section on principles, guideline 2(1):
Develop protocols (including, when practical and appropriate, the use of selective fishing gears and practices) regarding the catch of non-targeted resources which jeopardize the health of stocks.
What do you mean by the phrase, "when practical and appropriate"?
Mr. Misner: To phrase something that will suit every fishery across Canada, you must deal with these initial stages. The principles have to be somewhat generic. You have to allow for the fact that some fleet sectors are much more industrialized or advanced technologically than others.
Some fisheries may not actually be doing a lot of harm to the resource, but perhaps there is not a lot they can do to improve where they are. That is why, as we mentioned, as we fine-tune the code, it must apply to each of the individual fisheries, dealing with their regional area and their gear types. If we can, we recommend a way for them to do something better. There is a lot of experimentation taking place. A lot of fishermen have made voluntary attempts to develop new technologies or to find ways to improve their old technologies to make them more environmentally friendly, if that is an acceptable term.
In many cases, however, it is not a simple thing to do. There are many things being done. With certain species, there are different reactions. Someone with a small open boat -- perhaps someone you know from your home area -- might have made minor changes, such as escapement slot holes in a lobster trap. However, the trap is basically the same technology that has been in use for many years. Minor things have been done, but not everyone can make huge gains in what they are doing.
These principles had to encompass the smallest to the largest operator. It is recommended that when we go on to the next stage, as the plans are implemented into regional areas, they become more specialized, trying to improve every fishery and every method of catching fish.
Mr. McGuinness: That is an excellent question. In terms of negotiating these various principles and guidelines among the various fleets, this is one of the more delicate principles we have had to deal with. The guidelines was worded in that way to accommodate the Grand Manan Fishermen's Association, in the sense that, as Mr. Misner pointed out, they are involved in a weir fishery for herring. That fishing technique is probably the oldest in Canada, and maybe in the world. Surely, we would want them to be on board in terms of a responsible fishing technology. It is a passive fishery, a weir fishery. They capture small herring and sell it to Connors Brothers to provide that delicious snack called Canadian sardines.
In that type of fishery, mackerel would often come into the weir. Mackerel is not a targeted species, it is a bycatch species. It is a stock that is in plentiful resource status or condition.
Selectivity is fine and avoiding bycatches is fine, but when you have a traditional fishery -- one that is totally responsible -- that has a bycatch of a robust stock, which provides important and essential incremental income, you must be able to say, "Why should they not catch that stock?"
Therefore, to answer your question, we developed wording that suggested using selective gear, where practical.
With respect to a weir fisherman, the guideline basically says that if a fisher is catching a bycatch and the stock is in a difficult situation the fisher should be doing something about that. In the case of the Grand Manan fishermen, when they are catching a bycatch of healthy stock, that is additional and important income for the fishermen.
Senator Callbeck: You spoke about 60 organizations having ratified the code, and that that comprises about 80 per cent of fishermen. Looking at the list, I see that the Seafood Processors Association of Prince Edward Island has ratified the code. What does that mean to a member of the Seafood Processors Association?
Mr. McGuinness: The Seafood Processors Association, which is a member association of the Fisheries Council of Canada, is an endorsing organization. The only organizations that have ratified the code are fishing fleets such as the Grand Manan Fishermen's Association or the deep-sea shrimp industry.
For the processing sector, it is an endorsement of the initiative of the responsible fishing practices and an encouragement to continue that. From a processor's point of view, we are selling fish and seafood products around the world. What we are finding in Europe, in particular, is keenness on the part of consumers and distributors in Europe to determine whether the industry is part of the solution or the problem with respect to responsible fishing. Fishery resources around the world are, in many cases, in difficult situations. What we are finding in the marketplace is that consumers in Europe, in particular, want to have some sort of attestation that the industry is part of the solution and not part of the problem.
The Seafood Processors Association of Prince Edward Island has endorsed the code and encourages the various fishing fleets of Prince Edward Island to become members and to ratify the code in terms of responsible fishing operations.
Mr. Misner: Part of what we have asked you for, in asking for your support or your endorsement of what we are trying to do, is the same thing that many of the processing companies are seeing happen on the global market. As a result, they are encouraging fleet sectors that may or may not have ratified the codes yet to take that step, to become involved, to get on the bandwagon and work towards this goal.
Some of the processing organizations may be more aware of the marketplace than some of the small fishermen in outlying areas. They are actually passing the word on and saying, "If you want us to be able to sell your product in the future, you need to be part of solving the problem rather than being part of the problem." They are encouraging some of the gear sectors to become more involved. That is where their endorsement comes in.
Senator Callbeck: When did the first organizations ratify this document?
Mr. Misner: We began this process approximately three years ago, and some organizations started to ratify very quickly after that. I believe Ontario was the fifth organization to ratify, and we ratified almost one year later.
We then had to get the code out to a great number of organizations across Canada and give them a chance to talk. We have had to travel to various areas to talk to fishermen and point out the benefits of the code. To some fishermen, the code is an imposition. Some feel that it just mean more rules. We had to convince them that it was a good set of rules, rules that were developed by fishermen for fishermen. We were not forcing this on them. We were seeking their opinion on wording and how to formulate the process.
It took a while. I believe Ontario was the fifth organization to ratify. It took almost a year. Ontario has only one meeting a year where the entire industry comes together. We only had one opportunity. The first workshop was tacked on to our convention in Toronto three years ago. The two were held together. It was one year later before we ratified.
Once we got out to the individual organizations, and representatives from different regions got a chance to talk to their fishermen, they were able to accept that the code was a good thing.
I find the easiest way to explain the code to fishermen is by outline, that if we do not take care of the resource, there will be no fish, and then there will be no fishermen. We must take care of the resource.
Mr. McGuinness: The fastest acceptance of the code was in British Columbia and Ontario. In my assessment, that was because the fishermen in Lake Erie and the fishermen in the Pacific have large metropolitan centres such as Toronto and Vancouver with very active media that write positive, sometimes negative, reports on the fishing industry. The fishermen in Ontario and British Columbia, because they are bombarded on a daily basis with media issues on fish resources, were the quickest to see the light as to what this concept was.
The process has been slower in Atlantic Canada, but it is moving quite well at this time.
Mr. Henry Copestake, Code Secretariat, Canadian Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing Operations: Honourable senators, it is important to understand that when we say we have organizations that have ratified the code it is because organizations represent fishermen. However, we asked those organizations not to consult their board of directors or executive director, or whatever, but rather to put the code before their annual general meeting so that fishermen could discuss it. This was very much a grassroots movement and such movements often take some time to build.
The other thing to remember is that the code is not designed to be a club or a weapon of some sort. The code is designed to be an enhancement or a training tool for fishermen to consider how they can better protect their own livelihoods through conservation.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned some 60 organizations that joined three years ago. Have you seen significant change within those organizations in that period of time?
Mr. Misner: We have seen change in some organizations more than others. With respect to the overall spectrum, the experimental work to develop new technologies to help the escapement, we are aware of them because there are videos that explain the concepts and many of the experiments that have been conducted across the country to develop new technologies to allow for escapements.
In some cases, the allocations of those fish that were allowed to be targeted by the industries were a direct result of the governing bodies seeing that the new technologies were working in a better way than in the past.
In my own case, using what we call a square mesh cod-end to allow the escapement of juveniles of one particular species, we found that there was a lower bycatch of juvenile fish, which you do not want to target because they have not had a chance to get into the spawning cycle.
Allowing that escapement, getting it down to something less than 5 per cent of the fish we caught in the one species by using the new technology, means that most of the juveniles were escaping in the water, on the bottom, which is their natural habitat, so they have a much higher success rate of survival than if they had been brought to the surface. That means those fish go back into the system. They may be caught one or two years later, but, by then, they have contributed to the development of the population by spawning.
These kinds of experiments have been conducted multiple times, 15, 20 or more in B.C., and probably that many or more in Atlantic Canada. Different things have happened in different places. Virtually every gear technology that has been used in Canada has been examined by the users to see if something can be done to improve it.
Mr. Copestake: It is not only in gear technology that this is being done. It is also in the realm of planning the execution of your fishery. Mr. Misner was telling us today how they have decided that, for a particular species where there is an abundance, where the quota has a opportunity to increase largely, they have offered to hold back the increase and to close off a spawning season for the yellow perch.
An example of a good situation is the Atlantic Canada scallop industry, where a level of cooperation between fisheries management and scientists has developed. Instead of conducting the annual setting of the TAC, there is a six-week rolling of the TAC because the reporting is so precise now that they are able to know much more accurately what is going on at the bottom, on Georges Bank and Browns Bank. They are able to operate more effectively, with a great deal more knowledge and with much less impact on the bottom.
There are success stories similar to that throughout Canada.
Mr. Misner: As far as research, probably Canada-wide, one of the biggest advantages for the managers and the scientists is that, by using the private sector to do much of the work, they are probably getting three times the information they had in the past, at probably less dollars than it cost them in the past.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We shall now give the floor to Senator Corbin. We are very happy to have him back in this committee after several years of absence. Welcome to this committee.
[English]
Senator Corbin: Are you wholly government-financed? Where do you obtain the money to operate?
Mr. Misner: The funding for making copies of the code and for sending out brochures was completely funded by the government in the initial stages. We believe the code can become partially self-sustaining in the future because we have found some ways to accomplish that goal. However, in areas where there is a small industry, as has been suggested in coastal communities, their portion of the economic pie may not be large enough to pay for an experiment to be done in their area. Therefore, it may take additional funding to help with some of those.
Mr. McGuinness: The big issue is implementation of the code. Much of that relates to capacity capability of the organizations or the fleet. One of our member fleets is looking at conducting an internal evaluation or audit of the performance of the fleet in accordance with the code. The funding for that will be covered by the industry.
As Mr. Misner mentioned, the production of the brochures, and so on, was government-financed. However, the actual work of responsible fishing and the implementation of that will be done by the industry and the industry resources.
Having said that, there is no question that some of the fleets that are members of our organizations are perhaps more sophisticated and larger and can undertake that with their own resources right now. As we have said, we have 60 fleets that are ratified -- and some of them are quite small. One of the big challenges will be capacity-building of those fleets so that they can implement the code, its principles and guidelines, in a practical fashion as their own undertaking. For certain fleets, there will be an initial need for some form of capacity-building so that they can get to the level achieved by some of the larger fleets and can undertake this work on their own, without government assistance.
Rest assured, the Fisheries Council of Canada does not receive any money for its ongoing operation from the Government of Canada, nor does Mr. Misner's organization.
Senator Corbin: You have partly answered the next question I was going to put to you. You said that 80 per cent of the fishermen have ratified.
Mr. Misner: No. Something in excess of 60 organizations have ratified, representing 80 per cent of the capacity of the fish being caught in Canada. There are organizations that are on the books that have had no members for 10 or 15 years; however, they still exist so we had to send the information out to them. It was very awkward to pin down exactly how many organizations existed in Canada.
In the process of doing that, most of the larger organizations have recognized that this is a good thing. Others organizations may not hold meetings because there may be only two fishermen, perhaps on some small lake somewhere in the middle of the prairies. So although there may in fact be an organization, it may not hold meetings. A particular organization may have had a representative at the workshop who thought it was a good idea for them all to belong.
Senator Corbin: How many of the people who fish would be on the ratification side and how many would not have ratified? I appreciate the formula you use, but I like to talk in terms of real people.
Mr. McGuinness: In British Columbia, it is probably in the area of 70 per cent of the actual fishermen on the waters. In Newfoundland, there is the FFAW, which represents quite a few of the Newfoundland industry in terms of its bargaining capability. We do not have the P.E.I. fishermen's association yet ratified. The eastern fishermen's federation has participated throughout the Maritimes. In Quebec, there is the midshore groundfish fleet and the midshore crab fleet. A large number of people have ratified.
As I said, we have most of British Columbia, most, if not all, of Newfoundland, and a good part of Quebec. On the freshwater, we have about 80 per cent of the freshwater fishermen and we have strong representation in the Maritimes.
Mr. Misner: Sometimes, a situation occurs where an individual belongs to three organizations, signs on and ratifies through one organization, assumes that he has already ratified the code and does not bother to pursue it with the others. Therefore, we do not always have all the individuals listed in one organization.
Senator Corbin: On the display board, you have listed the Native Brotherhood of B.C. In terms of native fishermen in the east, have any of the native groups ratified this code?
Mr. Misner: Christine Hunt, who is the representative from B.C., was elected as a member-at-large representing the aboriginal community in Canada.
Senator Corbin: We should cover the Atlantic coast.
Mr. Misner: To some extent, the last couple of years may have changed the way they feel about some of the issues, but Ms Hunt was originally elected as representative-at-large for all the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. She just happened to be from B.C.
Mr. McGuinness: To this point, in terms of the native bands in Atlantic Canada, none has ratified yet. As you can appreciate, the perception of many of these bands being part of the commercial industry is only starting to mature. It is our objective and their objective to have the Aboriginal bands in Atlantic Canada fully integrated into our commercial fisheries in Atlantic Canada.
There has been a special project to try to communicate the meaning of this code with respect to responsible fishing operations. There has been quite a bit of dialogue. If we decide to have meetings in Atlantic Canada on the responsible fishing operations code in various regions, we will certainly be inviting the 30 to 34 bands to participate as observers, with the hope and aspiration that they become ratified members. There is no question that we want them with us. We want them to be part of our responsible industry in Atlantic Canada.
Senator Corbin: Are you telling us that for the time being there are more pressing matters for them to resolve before they get to that point?
Mr. McGuinness: Yes.
Senator Milne: I am from Ontario. I am standing in for Senator Adams, and I am new to this subject.
This is a most impressive list of groups that have ratified. How does the ratification process actually work? Do these groups have an individual member saying, "Yes, we should ratify," or have they voted for this at annual meetings?
Mr. Misner: Yes.
Senator Milne: I believe Mr. McGuinness has answered my question in advance. I gather then that the whole thing is self-policing. Is there any follow-up after ratification to determine whether they are actually trying to do something?
Mr. McGuinness: Mr. Misner's opening comment was that our first initiative was to get ratification. Now that we have ratification, the challenge for us is how to make this real not only for us in the industry but also for environmental groups, governments and our customers? That is a big challenge. There are a number of options. One is education. For example, a vessel captain would need to have some form of education with respect to the principles and the guidelines.
The other extreme would be to have a third party audit the plan. That is a step that some groups may be prepared for. Other groups would find that frightening. The issue here is not to separate ourselves. We want to move ahead together as an industry. Your question is one that we hope to answer ourselves during the next year.
There are a number of options, from the soft option to the hard option. We have not come to a consensus yet. One of our member groups has recommended a mid-way option, namely, that somehow we do an internal policing.
You must remember that this book represents two tiers of a hierarchical structure, the principles, which are the broad motherhood issues, and the guidelines, which are an outline of how those principles should be applied.The third tier will be created by each individual fleet or fishery. It represents their fishery management plan, or the conservation harvesting plan, if there is cooperation from the government to do that.
Senator Milne: Your people who are doing weir fishing, then, will be able to develop their own plan that fits in with this as much as possible?
Mr. Copestake: Precisely. They would develop their fishery management plan saying that they have addressed principles 1 to 9 in a particular way. In Atlantic Canada, for instance, the department develops conservation harvesting plans in consultation with the industry. Ratified organizations, in both British Columbia and in Atlantic Canada, have asked that those conservation harvesting plans, or fishery management plans, for their individual fisheries be based on this as the framework. The third tier will be that fisheries management plan, or that conservation harvesting plan for that particular fleet.
Mr. Misner: The new mandate must be the implementation of the code.
Mr. Copestake: That would be how it is implemented. Then, whether it is done by audit or self-policing or whether there is a cooperative structure with the department to do it -- in some cases fleets have talked about using it as a dispute settlement mechanism.
Senator Milne: That is an intriguing thought.
Mr. Misner: As someone who is a commercial fisherman, one of the amazing aspects of this process is that other countries are looking to us as the model. We find that if the government puts a regulation in place, says, "You will do this," the first thing the fishermen do is try to figure out how to get around the rule. Instead of thinking how to constructively work within the rules, they usually spend their initial efforts trying to find a loophole.
When the fishermen get involved, it make the rules theirs. The concept is to get the fishermen involved so that the guidelines and principles, and the application of this code for the industry, is done by the fishermen. There are many more of us out there who can enforce the rules than there will ever be money for government to pay for monitoring everything. If there are 50 fishers in an area, one person will do the wrong thing all the time. We must build a system of implementation and credibility so that it can be monitored and we can self-police.
In Ontario, we have already gone to that stage. We have heard the terms "rat" or "squeal," but now the fishermen are starting to see it from a different perspective. We are not squealing on anyone, we are reporting someone who is doing something wrong and endangering our resource, our industry, our livelihoods. That is the way it will work.
Senator Graham: You talk about policing yourselves. How would that apply, for instance, to lobster poaching in Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Misner: There is no question that if you know that someone is doing something wrong the first stage is to try to deal with it internally.
If the code becomes totally accepted and acknowledged by all the fisheries, then you will try, by moral suasion, to convince someone that they are doing something wrong. If that does not work, then we also need the backup from the government so that we can at that point say, "Fisheries officer, we know that individual X is doing this, this and this."
Senator Graham: Is that actually happening in Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Misner: I do not know how much it is happening in Atlantic Canada, because I do not live there, but I have heard bits and pieces of things that have been said, so I know it must be happening. I think it is happening to a limited extent so far. I do know that it is happening in different places in small amounts. We have not reached the point of implementation where we are trying to get the code in use and everyone acknowledging its use. When we get to that stage, I think it will gain strength and credibility, and then we will be seeing more of that. Right now, because there is no implementation, fishermen are aware that there are people doing some wrong, and they are already starting to say, "Hey, you are doing this wrong." They are trying to do it on their own. From what I understand from some of the fishermen, there have been some cases where anonymous calls were made reporting instances of problems.
Senator Milne: At one time there was quite a thriving fish farming business in Saskatchewan and in the Prairies. I do not see them down here as freshwater members. I see a few from Ontario, however.
Mr. Misner: Most of the fish that are taken from the freshwater lakes across the prairies are bought and marketed through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, a Crown corporation. They are usually very small and very limited fisheries. Most of them do not provide a full-time income, usually an auxiliary income. The fishers may drive a bus and do fishing on the side. Saskatchewan and Alberta do not have big fisheries. If a fishery is in proximity to a large city, they are being pushed out by many of the other users who are claiming that they should have more rights.
Mr. McGuinness: Essentially, this code is for the wild fisheries. We are now calling upon the aquaculture industry to develop its own code of responsible fishing.
Senator Milne: It will probably be a different code.
Mr. McGuinness: It will have different elements and different aspects, yes.
Mr. Misner: They are using our code as an example. In three weeks, I am to make a presentation to the Ontario Bait Association, which is a large industry in itself. They are getting to the point where they want to develop as code as well. We have been the first, but now other organizations are seeing the merit of having a code that dictates the proper ways to do what they do as opposed to being without controls. Other aquaculture organizations, such as bait industries, are starting to see the benefits, and anyone else who uses the resource should develop a similar set of rules to govern themselves.
Senator Milne: I do not often get a fisher from Lake Erie in front of me. You do not realize it, but I am your senator. What is the state of the fishery in Lake Erie right now? It used to be so healthy, and then it was completely shut down. I am encouraged to hear that it is coming back.
Mr. Misner: It has never been shut down. The fishery has never been completely wiped out. However, one species becomes more dominant than another, and some are more popular than others. Sometimes you get more trash fish, sometimes more attractive fish. The public may have a perception of having lost their most treasured fish. That does not mean the fish are not still in the water, just that perhaps that fish is suppressed in population for a period of time.
Senator Watt: My first question was already answered, namely, the fact that you are partly funded by the DFO.
With regard to the first statement in the Canadian code of conduct, I would imagine that was done by the private sector. Is that correct?
Mr. Copestake: I will describe the process of how the code came about. Is that what you mean?
Senator Watt: Yes. This Canadian code was established by the private sector, such as you. Is that correct?
Mr. Copestake: That is right, yes. It was entirely written by the private sector, but the funding to have the meetings came from DFO, as agreed by Minister Tobin at the round table in Montreal.
Senator Watt: Do you have a specific agreement with DFO with regard to that first round and preparing the code of conduct? If so, how have the individual associations or the fishermen or the industries ratified this? How have they partaken in the development of the code of conduct?
Mr. Copestake: Each minister since 1994 has agreed to continue providing secretariat support through fisheries management in the department. The board itself and the operation is entirely done by the industry. There is not an organization bigger than the board. The board represents the industry at large on the code.
Senator Watt: The notion of going ahead with this code of conduct and getting the fishermen more involved daily in their livelihood rather than having the Government of Canada doing all that for them is a move, I believe, from the department -- you may not want me to use this word -- toward privatization. Is that correct?
Mr. Misner: In all fairness, this process will always be a partnership. The government essentially employs the scientists. They must belong to one entity that is not affected by a regional group or gear sector. They must be a group that is not biased in any direction.
I said previously that you are probably getting three times the amount of information on the fisheries across Canada today that you were getting five years ago, and it is probably for the same amount of dollars. That is a pretty good economic saving.
In terms of my developing new technologies, the federal government has expended X number of dollars. However, I personally have probably expended the same amount to develop these kinds of things, and I am from a relatively small fishery.
Mr. Copestake referred to the scallop fishery on the East Coast. They spent millions of dollars developing their information and technology. As a result, DFO received more information than ever before on the scallop abundance and populations, where they were and the sizes, to the point where DFO actually gave out a substantially larger allocation on scallop because they had more information than ever before. When DFO gives out a larger allocation, the result is an increase in revenue to people and more jobs for people. If there are more people working, more taxes are collected.
Mr. McGuinness: To answer your question, senator, it is legitimate that the Government of Canada is involved. It started from the Government of Canada ratifying the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. That was brought back to Canada and was shown to the fishing industry, and we thought that elements of that code were totally inappropriate to our Canadian context. We then told the Government of Canada that although it had ratified the code in an international agreement we as the Canadian fishing industry are the ones actually responsible for fishing operations. We said that it is fine for Canada to ratify codes internationally, but when industry is expected to implement it, it had better be industry owned and driven. Therefore, we have demanded that, if it is going forward in terms of the best interests of the fishing industry, the fishing industry will lead the project.
Having said that, it is totally legitimate and appropriate that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has become a partner in terms of us moving forward. Their partnership role is to help with the initial phases in terms of the secretariat. We hope that at some point we can implement it and also generate some self-sustaining revenue vehicles.
Senator Watt: Nevertheless, you are going in the direction of eco-management?
Mr. Misner: Yes.
Senator Watt: If that is the case, there still must be some concern with regulatory functions. The government authority would remain intact?
Mr. Misner: Yes.
Senator Watt: A lot more information would go into that department to assist in scientific or allocation decisions. The department's responsibility for law making would remain intact?
Mr. Misner: Yes.
Mr. Copestake: Yes.
Senator Watt: Could you elaborate on what you foresee at the stage of implementation? You have said that you are only at the development stage, that you are not quite ready to deal with implementation, but give us a brief overview of what you foresee in that next stage.
Mr. McGuinness: We are considering options. One option is that each fleet would undertake to have the vessel captains undergo some documented education with respect to the principles and guidelines of the code. Also, in terms of developing their conservation harvesting plan, they would be able to identify and document how their conservation harvesting plan meets these requirements.
Others may want to go a step further. If they have a large enough association, they may have a technical officer who would do a form of self-evaluation out in the water to ensure that the fleets are adhering to their conservation harvesting plan. With respect to lost gear, they may have a protocol on what to do if there is lost gear and ensure that they are following that protocol.
Other organizations, in order to be as pristine and transparent as possible, may want to hire outside consultants experienced in fisheries management to do a separate audit and make an official report on what is and what is not working right.
Those are the four avenues that can be pursued. Various fleets will choose different approaches.
Senator Watt: To return to my first question, you said that the Government of Canada is the sole funder at this point. Will the various agencies that have ratified the code of conduct pay a membership fee? How will that work?
Mr. Copestake: The mandate of this board was for three years. The next stage is to gather the people, in particular those who have ratified, to make an assessment of where we should go from here. This will take place over the next couple of months. We were initially planning to have another national workshop, but because of the expense of that we will probably do a number of regional workshops. Bringing people to one central location in Canada is very expensive. We are having a board meeting at the end of this week in Halifax to finalize the plans for that.
Senator Watt: But there will be a membership fee?
Mr. Copestake: The board may decide that. It will be up to the groups that have ratified to decide how they want to proceed. As Mr. McGuinness has said, some groups can afford it and others cannot.
Senator Watt: You should know by now who can and who cannot afford it.
The Chairman:There has been a movement for some years to promote the concept of owner-operators of vessels in order that they can be the beneficiaries of the resources of the sea. Two of the main advantages proposed for the owner-operator concept is that the people become stewards of the resources as they have a more direct stake in the fishery. As well, they tend to be more careful with regard to safety issues. Since they are owner-operators, they become more responsible for themselves and their crews rather than having to respond to an absentee owner. We heard about this out West in particular.
Be it inland or saltwater, fishing can be cold and difficult in an unforgiving environment. An owner-operator tends not to take as many risks or chances as he would if he were working for an absentee owner. I imagine that a sustainable fishery, which is being proposed by the owner-operator, as well as safety of crews, would be concerns of your group.
Are the disadvantages of absentee owners something you might want to tackle? I am not referring to the big offshore companies in this regard, because they have been there for years and I do not include them as absentee owners. I am referring to what we heard about on the West Coast -- for example, an optometrist in Thunder Bay owning a vessel that fishes off the Queen Charlotte Islands. This kind of problem was brought to our attention on a number of occasions.
Anyone who has seen the movie The Perfect Storm will know exactly what I mean by "taking chances." If you do not get out there and fish and bring the owner his return, you are out and he will get someone else to do it.
Have you tackled this issue? Those are two majors concerns that you could be considering.
Mr. Misner: You are partially correct and partially wrong in what you suggest. In reality, owner-operators are no better and no worse than the other way around. I am an owner-operator, but I have more than one boat so I have employees as well. At the same time, when the bank is pressing them, many owner-operators take risks to maintain their livelihood. Every dollar they ever had is tied up in a boat. I have seen them take more risks than anyone being pressured by an owner will take. I have been out in hurricane force winds, and those are not nice times. I have seen the fishermen drive themselves every bit as hard as an absentee owner can.
Another part of what you are suggesting has been discussed at some point. I think that it was in Southwest Nova, in your area, that they received ratification from a captain's organization -- not owner-operators -- that they also want to do this for the right reasons. There is a danger in your suggestion because there are good and bad in every group. There are good and bad owner-operators as much as there are good and bad absentee owners.
The Chairman: I want to clarify that an owner-operator can be just as bad as an absentee owner. Thus, is it correct to say that an absentee owner, in that case, is not necessarily a bad thing to have?
Mr. Misner: I suggest only that there should not be a blanket categorization of absentee owners as the bad guys. I do not suggest that there are not some of them, as in The Perfect Storm. Parts of that movie were ridiculous. However, at the same time, I saw some things happen that made my hair stand on end. Things happen on boats, and they happen instantly.
The Chairman: I do not want you to trivialize the fact that I brought in The Perfect Storm.
Mr. Misner: That is why the group in Southwest Nova has ratified this process themselves.
The Chairman: I did not suggest that this was not a perfectly valid code of professional conduct.
Mr. Misner: It is an issue.
The Chairman: Have you looked at the concept of owner-operator versus absentee owner? Did you see this as a way of possibly meeting some of the principles that you were trying to attain? I have had my response in the words that owner-operators can be just as good as absentee owners.
Mr. Misner: They can also be just as bad.
The Chairman: I question some of that, but we will raise that in the future.
Mr. Misner: Additionally, we tried to develop this and decided that we would never get involved in trying to make decisions about which type of owner or which gear sector should receive a difference in allocation. Thus, we intentionally avoided this issue, because it was too derisive. We had too many different points. If someone represented a large amount of landed fish, and was an absentee owner, we did not want to alienate that owner. We wanted him to buy into the concept of doing all of these things, which included safety, the maintenance of the boat and how it is being fished. In reality, I know of more instances of government regulation that caused more sinkings than absentee owners did.
The Chairman: In your request to buy everyone into the code, does that mean to include absentee owners? As an example, an optometrist in Thunder Bay who owns the vessel that is operated off the Queen Charlotte Islands becomes part of our very honoured group of owners.
Mr. Misner: I understand your message, but only if the absentee owner is honourable as well. Because he is an absentee owner off the Queen Charlotte Islands does not mean that he is a bad operator. I cannot condemn him if he is a responsible owner, maintains his boat, does not push his crews, and maintains safety levels. I know some owner-operators who do the worst job possible and they try only to get a bottom-line profit. I do not argue that it does not exist.
The Chairman: That problem has been less of a problem in my region. Absentee owners tend to be mindful of their vessels, their crew, their gear and the way in which they operate, including in what kind of weather they operate. I am less familiar with the other extreme of individuals to which you refer.
Mr. Copestake: On the second page of the code it states that "nothing in this code will serve to justify or impose any allocation or sharing of freshwater marine resources." It was fundamental to the process.
As Mr. Misner alluded to, in Southwest Nova the mobile gear fleet experienced exactly what you are talking about. When that fleet got together, the licence holders ratified the code but also arranged and paid for a meeting of all the employee captains to have their own meeting to decide just how they wanted to deal with it. That is where this idea of having the code used as a mechanism of arbitration and dispute settlement came about in Southwest Nova. The code could be used so a captain who was told to go out in gale force 10 had some recourse. That is what they are working on within their region now.
Senator Graham: I will return to the purposes of your informational material. The question is asked: "How was the code developed?" This issue was canvassed earlier. I want to be perfectly clear, because you state that, in 1994 the Canadian industry first recommended creating a Canadian code that would build on an international code, and then, in parenthesis, "which was later adopted by 80 countries including Canada in 1995."
Mr. Misner, you said that other countries were looking at Canada as the model. This would seem to suggest that Canada was the first country to develop a domestic code of conduct. Is that true?
Mr. Misner: No. Other governments have made a code. The United States, for example, has a code that was made in Washington; there was no input from the industry. They fight daily with it, just as I mentioned. The fishermen are doing everything they can, including going to court, to try to avoid the code.
Canada's code was developed more slowly. However, because it is a grassroots code, because it is the fishermen who are involved, it is their code. They want it to work as opposed to wanting to fight it.
Mr. Copestake: Canada was first to have its own individual code, but Canada also ratified the international code.
Senator Graham: Who provides the model? What was the genesis of that?
Mr. Copestake: The FAO had their code, which was generic for everything from a dugout canoe to the biggest industrial vessel in the world. They were required to make their code wide-ranged.
The first time we talked about it was two weeks before the cod closure. I was at a seminar in St. John's, Newfoundland, on sustainable fisheries where we were talking about trying to develop new technologies to help take care of the resource. At that time, the fact that the FAO was developing a code came up in a workshop, and the question was asked about whether Canada should have a code of its own and whether to use the FAO model? However, our code had to be formulated differently, to deal with the Canadian points of view and different fisheries that existed in Canada, rather than the world fishery.
Senator Graham: Has the United States has signed on. Has Iceland signed on? Are they among the 80 countries?
Mr. McGuinness: Senator Graham, the process was simply this: The FAO developed what they called the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which has 15 chapters -- one in terms of fisheries management, which governments should be doing; one is in terms of aquaculture, which the aquaculture industry should be doing; one with respect to post-harvest responsible operations; and one with respect to fisheries operations.
The 80 countries, including Canada, United States, Iceland, Norway, and most members of the FAO, ratified that very comprehensive code. It was brought to Canada and the fishing industry was quite clear in saying, "We are not responsible for the management of the fisheries but we are responsible for how we operate on the waters." What we developed was a unique code. We simply took one chapter -- chapter 12 of the FAO comprehensive code -- and said that we want to develop a Canadian code of responsible fishing operations, that is, how we manage a vessel on the waters.
The FAO code deals with how Fisheries and Oceans should be managing fisheries, what aquaculture should be doing. Chapter 12 of the code has certain principles that we think are good and that we should take onboard here in Canada. Some, however, are not applicable. We held various meetings to develop our own particular code, very narrowly focused. It is narrowly focused on fisheries operations but, in our view, it is doable. I believe we are the first to develop that specific type of limited but, we think, very important code.
Senator Graham: Mr. McGuinness, when you were asked to give an example of the kinds of organizations that belong, and you talked about the specific geographical areas, you paid particular attention to British Columbia and Newfoundland. You said Prince Edward Island was not on board, that you did not have any organizations in Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Misner: Not Prince Edward Island as one entity; but many of the fishing groups, people who fish in P.E.I, are a part of the Eastern Federation.
Senator Graham: Nova Scotia has the Eastern Fishermen's Federation.
Mr. Copestake: The Eastern Fishermen's Federation includes all three Maritime provinces and Quebec.
Senator Graham: It includes the midshore crab fleet in Quebec.
Mr. Copestake: It is in New Brunswick as well.
Senator Graham: Have any fisheries organizations objected to this organization? I think it should be recorded that you shook your head to the fact that there have been no objections.
Mr. Misner: There have been many questions.
Senator Graham: There have been no actual objections from any fisheries organizations?
Mr. Misner: No organization I have talked with or that I can think of while we went through this process has out-and-out said, "No, we do not want to belong to it."
Senator Graham: I presume, then, that you are under a continuous state of recruitment?
Mr. Misner: Yes. We may be at 80 per cent participation now, but we figure we have to reach everyone, or 100 per cent.
Senator Graham: How many full-time employees do you have?
Mr. Copestake: None.
Mr. Misner: I cancelled my day's work on the lake tomorrow so that I could be here tonight.
Mr. McGuinness: My organization volunteers my time to participate in the activities of the Board.
Senator Graham: Do you have an office?
Mr. McGuinness: I have an office. I represent the Fisheries Council of Canada.
Mr. Copestake: The board does not have an office. The secretariat is provided by DFO at 200 Kent Street and the staff of DFO.
Senator Graham: I am going back to Guideline 2.4, which indicates conduct in consultation with the relevant sectors. It states:
..."research to assess fishing gears," and the promotion and utilization of "new fishing gears and practices which are consistent with sustainable fishing practices."
That is a very interesting principle. Can you give us an example of any recent initiatives in that respect?
Mr. McGuinness: One really significant success is with regard to our northern shrimp trawlers. As we found new resources off Newfoundland and Labrador, exploring for shrimp, there were bycatches of redfish and cod. Of course, as you can appreciate, senator, in terms of the conditions of those groundfish stocks, any bycatch was really one too many.
With considerable work by that fleet, and with assistance from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the fisheries management organization developed and introduced a grate with a system which enables the small redfish and cod to escape without being killed. That has been further developed. With modifications to that particular gear, that fleet can harvest shrimp and the smaller shrimp, which have a lower value, are allowed to escape. This also allows for the regeneration of the resource.
This has been a real success.
Mr. Misner: Some of these innovations are quite simple. One example is to put an escapement hole in a lobster trap so that an immature lobster can get out of the trap and not be harvested. Such a lobster would not yet have participated in the spawning.
Another example is a gill net. Some species swim very close to the bottom, no more than the height of the table to the floor. It may be an endangered bycatch that you do not want to catch. In that case, a net that clears the height of the ceiling will be used because they want to reduce the bycatch that swims six feet off the bottom.
Other experimentation was done using different sizes of hooks and bait. The size of the bait seems to become the determining factor when they set these miles of hooks in the water, as in The Perfect Storm. By using smaller pieces of bait you catch smaller fish. By using bigger pieces of bait you tend to catch bigger fish. It does not work in every case, but it does in the majority of cases.
If you are targeting a species in a particular area, there are many different considerations. We have tried to make recommendations with regard to every gear sector. The seine fleet for salmon on the West Coast has an escapement panel built into the seine that allows a juvenile salmon to escape. That is used in virtually every kind of fishery we have in this country.
To some degree, there has been work done to try to lessen the bycatch of fish that is not targeted, for whatever reason, whether the fish are juveniles, an endangered species or whatever. We have been experimenting everywhere in Canada trying to develop technologies that would protect that resource for the future.
Senator Corbin: Principle number 2 reads in part:
...fish harvesters will take appropriate measures to pursue the ecological sustainability of Canadian fisheries.
I notice what to my mind is a very pertinent comment in the introduction, the statement that, in developing this code, Canadian commercial fish harvesters expect that other users of marine and freshwater resources will develop their own codes of conduct within the FAO framework to contribute to the sustainability of these resources.
That leads me to ask why you do not call yourselves "Canadians for a Responsible Fisheries," so as to encompass all users of the ocean resources.
Mr. Misner: It is a relatively simple answer.
Senator Corbin: I just want to ensure that you understand what I am coming to. Other users would include sea bottom extractors, whether it is by mining or some other means. Eventually there may be thermal power production, oil production, and other resources that the future may reserve for us. In other words, we are talking about a Canadian resource in respect of which we all share a responsibility. However, every one of your principle paragraphs begins with "fish harvesters." There is also an onus on me, members of my family, my relatives, whoever uses the coast and the sea, to ascertain that there will be responsible extraction of all ocean resources. Therefore, my question is: Have you undertaken any contacts with other marine exploiters to coordinate your whole effort?
Mr. Misner: No, we have not done so.
Senator Corbin: Why not?
Mr. Misner: I will explain why. To begin with, we are dealing with a broad spectrum of people across Canada as fish harvesters. We are only dealing with commercial fish harvesters at this point. We know that, in numbers of people, there are more recreational fishing people in the country than commercial.
I also know off the top of my head that something like 8 to 10 per cent of the population of Ontario do fish recreationally. We also know that something like 65 per cent of the population eat fish. That means 55 per cent of the people do not get fish by catching their own. The problem for us was that to try to get every user of the resource together at one time would not be possible; we could not do it.
We also felt that until we cleaned up our act, to a point where we could actually use ourselves as an example, we had no right to point fingers at any other group to tell them they should be responsible, because we knew what the reaction would be.
The first priority for us was to make a code, get the people in the industry to buy into it, implement it and get it working as an example. We have cited cases already where other organizations are starting to feel that this is a good thing. They want to develop their own codes.
Senator Corbin: Are you working with them at this point?
Mr. Misner: At this point, our priority has been to get our industry to buy into the concept.
Mr. McGuinness: Senators Graham and Corbin know well that in Atlantic Canada our industry is in negotiation with the oil and gas and telecommunications industry with respect to ocean use and development.
You can rest assured that when we go to the table for discussions with these other sectors, we are proud that we can say that we are working on being responsible. We are coming to the table in that sense. We are working toward our commitment of being responsible. We are trying to achieve that dialogue with the telecommunication industry. In terms of laying cables, perhaps there are better places to do so. Perhaps they can shift the location 10 miles and thus show responsibility not only with respect to how they perform but with respect to our rights.
You are right, senator. This is a tool that we think we can use not only in terms of bettering ourselves but also by bringing people to the table in a collaborative spirit of responsibility.
Senator Corbin: I appreciate that this is the initial, all-out effort to get your house in order.
Mr. Misner: We have had many discussions about getting other people on board. In all fairness, we wanted to get our house in order first.
Senator Corbin: I appreciate that. I was not criticizing you; on the contrary, I was complimenting you. However, it is incumbent on this committee to ascertain that other players take up their responsibilities as well.
The Chairman: This will be discussed by this committee. That is a good point.
Senator Milne: Gentlemen, you have made a responsible and impressive presentation here tonight. You tell us that Canada has already ratified the FAO version of the code and that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has ratified the Canadian version of the code. What is it that you want from this committee?
Mr. Misner: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not being a fishing entity, has not ratified the code, because only fishing groups can ratify it.
Senator Milne: Those groups are listed here.
Mr. Misner: Fisheries and Oceans has endorsed our code and supported our efforts in order to get everybody to ratify the code and to buy into it.
We need support from the DFO to help us through these initial implementation stages, to take us to whatever the next mandate is in the next two or three years.
Senator Milne: Are you referring to monetary support?
Mr. Misner: I am referring to monetary support inasmuch as we need support to sustain the secretariat and to be able to have meetings, to further promote what is going on and why we are doing it, and, now that we feel we have made substantial gains in the fishery, to help to promote the code to other users of the resource.
That will not be our main thrust, but we are very much aware that other organizations and users need to participate. It does not do us any good to take care of our part if no one else is doing their part.
We need to have that support and assistance to help to provide some of the scientific information that we still have to maintain. We will do our part to try to reduce costs for DFO, by doing work at reduced rates and using our own fleet sectors to accomplish much of that work, which DFO would previously have funded but would not be able to afford to fund today. We will need support to carry this on, to get to the next stage where, it is hoped, we can develop further. We have some ideas as to how to generate some funds, as has been suggested, and we hope that to be self-sustaining within three years. However, we must get to that point.
Senator Watt: Do you see the code of conduct having some influence on subsistence needs, such as hunting, down the road?
Mr. Copestake: That is an interesting question.
In developing the code, there were workshops across Canada, including the Arctic. In the Arctic version of the code, it was recommended strongly that the code apply to everyone who was a user of the resource, including both recreational and subsistence fisheries. Obviously, the subsistence fishery is a larger fishery than the commercial fishery in many communities.
In the end, the idea was that people who are commercial fish harvesters own this code, and that group has been fractious in the past, as everybody from Atlantic Canada knows. To get them all in one room, from across Canada, and to agree on something, without pointing fingers, to focus on what they as commercial fishers could do was our goal.
The idea of moving to subsistence has been very much endorsed by the Arctic communities and by a number of hunter and trapper associations. For them, the subsistence fishery is as much a part of the process as the commercial fishery. They are seen as intimately linked and being one and the same thing.
Senator Watt: I have already discussed the community level. What benefit do they see for subsistence users?
Mr. Misner: There were comments from many people that they already do many of the things that are in this code. To have it written down and supported by all Canadians doing the same thing was an added bonus.
Mr. Copestake: The other part that was important is that, in the Arctic, as you know, there is a significant amount of encroachment of other people taking Arctic resources. Thus, certainly in many of the Baffin communities, Northern Quebec, and in Labrador, the idea was for everybody to buy into it.
Senator Watt: There is the subsistence issue. They would benefit by getting involved because they could influence the conduct.
Mr. Copestake: Exactly. In fact, the idea of co-management is well established in many Arctic communities, where the actual hunters and trappers association in the individual community has a direct input into how management is done.
Senator Watt: Do you not think there must be a direct reference to the code of conduct? The subsistence needs are not well understood even by the bands in the community. It is sort of a new term.
Mr. Copestake: I guess it would be more important in other communities. It works well in the Arctic.
Senator Watt: I guess what I will be getting out of this is the fact that development continues to go on in that field.
Mr. Copestake: Yes.
Senator Watt: I strongly believe that you must have specific reference to the code of conduct. Otherwise, they will not be able to differentiate between the two.
Mr. Copestake: Many Arctic people refer to this as writing down an already unwritten code for themselves.
The Chairman: Before I thank our witnesses, is it agreed that the material presented by the Canadian Code of Responsible Fishing Operations be filed as an exhibit with the clerk of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I wish to thank the witnesses. Their presentation has been excellent. You can tell from the interest around the table that you have elicited the interest of the members of the committee.
In particular, I would like to thank your group because you are volunteers. As I understand it, Mr. Misner must fly back out tonight.
Mr. Misner: I am on a ten o'clock flight to Toronto. Then I will drive for an hour and 40 minutes, and tomorrow I will be back loading gear on the boats.
The Chairman: We offered Mr. Misner a stay in a hotel tonight, but he refused, saying that he had to be back at work tomorrow. That shows the dedication of your group. We appreciate that very much. Your dedication is apparent, in the kind of work that you are doing. It brings honour to your council that this kind of dedication is put forward. It speaks well for the future.
You have been convincing before this group tonight, and I think you have won a lot of solid support around this table. I hope that support manifests itself in a concrete way. At this point, we cannot say what we will do, but I believe that you have made some converts here to your proposal. I hope we were able to help in some way.
Mr. Misner: Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. McGuinness: If there are any further questions, remember, we are volunteers; we are available should you have any further questions.
Senator Graham: How big is your boat?
Mr. Misner: My largest boat is 80 feet long by 28 feet wide.
The committee adjourned.