Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 4 - Evidence - Meeting of April 27, 2004
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 7:00 p.m. to study on matters relating to straddling stocks and fish habitat.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Tonight, we are fortunate to have with us Mr. Geoff Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who was appointed on December 12, 2003.
Traditionally, Mr. Minister, this committee invites the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to appear before it to share his vision of the fishery and/or the priorities for the department. In June 2002, the former Minister of Fisheries stated, ``My ultimate goal is to leave the department stronger than I found it.'' Among other things, in 2002, the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea was ratified. Mr. Thibault's predecessor, Mr. Dhaliwal, made his priority further development of Canada's aquaculture; prior to him, Mr. Anderson emphasized the importance of oceans in setting policy for the department. He also initiated the Atlantic fisheries policy review in 1999.
Generally, we invite the minister to appear before us as soon as possible after appointment to the portfolio, to set out his priorities and vision for the fishery. Mr. Regan, please proceed.
[Translation]
The Honourable Geoff Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Honourable senators, good evening.
[English]
It is a pleasure to be with you this evening to discuss my vision for Canada's fisheries and oceans resources and to give you a broad overview of the current efforts of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in accordance with this vision.
I should like to introduce my parliamentary secretary, the Honourable Shawn Murphy, who will take part in the presentation as well as answer questions. Also, with me are Deputy Minister Larry Murray, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister David Bevan, Assistant Deputy Minister Sue Kirby, the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, John Adams, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister for Science, Serge Labonté, and Director General for Small Craft Harbours, Robert Bergeron,
Following a short presentation, I will be happy to respond to your questions with the assistance of Mr. Murphy and the officials.
[Translation]
First, I would like to thank every one of you for your dedication to Canada's fisheries and oceans.
[English]
The detailed work of this committee in every region of Canada is helpful and important. For example, the committee's recent report on Nunavut touched on a number of important matters, including infrastructure issues, quota allocations and scientific research. Like honourable senators, I believe there is room for growth in the fishery in Nunavut.
I wish to begin this evening by stating my vision for Canada's Fisheries and Oceans resources. The department's objective is to ensure the sustainable development and safe use of Canadian waters. This vision specifically encompasses healthy and productive oceans, lakes and rivers for our fish and other marine life. The vision also includes aquaculture in the fishing industry and waterways that are safe and accessible for all. I am committed to founding all major decisions on the principles of sustainable development, that is to say, to ensuring that economic opportunities are supported always by means that conserve and protect Canada's marine environment and its precious living resources.
[Translation]
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans pledges to utilize the full range of legislation, programs and services at its disposal to ensure adherence to sustainable development.
[English]
My stated vision for DFO has two long-term goals. The first is to effectively manage our oceans' resources. To realize this goal, the department will put into place the oceans action plan, accelerate the renewal of management of our fisheries and modernize the Canadian Coast Guard. The second goal is to streamline environmental and regulatory processes. By doing this, we will increase efficiency and effectiveness for our environmental regulatory role and responsibility in freshwater.
I should now like to explain in detail how the department is planning its actions to achieve these two long-term goals.
The first activity towards the goal of effectively managing our oceans' resources is to put in place an oceans action plan. Last December, Prime Minister Paul Martin asked my parliamentary secretary, the Honourable Shawn Murphy, to develop a new oceans actions plan. I am pleased to have Mr. Murphy with me today. I would invite him to comment on this important work.
Hon. Shawn Murphy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with special emphasis on the Oceans Action Plan: It is a pleasure to be here today. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words.
As the minister has mentioned, the government is committed to effectively managing oceans resources. In December, Prime Minister Martin asked me to undertake the development of a new oceans action plan. I am working on it; however, if someone on this committee could release me from the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, I would certainly be able to work much harder on this project.
Today, the fishery is just one of the many industries that use our oceans. We are seeing more and more aquaculture, oil and gas development, cables and pipelines, and tourism, to name a few. As the level of activity increases, so does the impact on the health of our oceans.
Through a new oceans action plan, the Government of Canada wants to maximize the opportunities that our oceans have to offer, while increasing our efforts to manage them wisely and sustainably. In the Speech from the Throne, the government highlighted that this should benefit all Canadians and, particularly, should increase regional economic development opportunities.
We are working with all ocean users to do just that. DFO is leading in the development of an ocean-wide oceans action plan. This government-wide plan focuses on four key areas: establishing Canada's international leadership as a responsible steward for marine resources; improving the health of our oceans; managing Canada's coastline and offshore areas in an integrated manner; and finally, developing new ocean science and technologies.
Honourable senators can rest assured that, throughout this process, and as we develop a broader action plan for our oceans, Canadians and the standing committees for both the Senate and the House of Commons will be consulted. We will use this collaborative approach to address our user conflicts, ensure a healthy environment and take advantage of the economic opportunities that oceans offer.
One example of this collaborative approach can be found in the Magdalen Islands, where integrated lagoon management communities were created in 2000. The mandate of these communities is to enhance the lagoons, which cover an area of 118 square kilometres, in a manner that respects users' interests and environmental values.
To date, the lagoon management committees have a number of achievements to their credit, including the establishment of a user dispute resolution mechanism, participation in the development of community management of soft-shell clam beds, rationalization of access to water resources, compilation of information in the form of an atlas, and implementation of activities designed to raise public awareness of activities associated with the lagoons.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, this is just one example of what can be achieved when we work together. Honourable senators, Canadians have a special appreciation for the importance and the vast potential of our three oceans. They are keenly aware that Canada's oceans offer tremendous opportunities and potential. The oceans action plan is the government's way to ensure that everyone's needs are met, while at the same time protecting our oceans for our children and our grandchildren.
I would be pleased to take your questions at the conclusion of Mr. Regan's presentation.
Mr. Regan: The second activity toward the goal of effectively managing our oceans resources is to accelerate the modernization and management of our fisheries. We want to promote an ecologically sustainable fishery and an economically viable industry supported by a modern fisheries decision-making structure. I think honourable senators will agree that there is great need for this. The intent of this modernization is to bring greater stability and predictability to Canada's fisheries. Doing so will transform the annual planning process for fish harvesting into a multi-year consultation framework that incorporates a precautionary approach.
As a first step on the East Coast, I announced last month a policy framework for the management of the Atlantic fisheries. This framework sets out a vision of a sustainable, stable fishery where resource users participate in decisions that affect them.
[Translation]
I also announced the stabilization of existing sharing arrangements of 29 fishing plants on the East Coast for the year 2004. This is consistent with our broader intention of creating a stable access and allocation approach thereby reducing the past unfortunate annual cycle of disputes over shares.
[English]
On the West Coast, we are seeing more collaboration between DFO and industry. For example, last week, I announced the total allowable catch for this year's sablefish fishery. This fishery has operated under an individual vessel quota — IVQ — system since 1990. This system requires allocating the shares of the total allowable catch, TAC, to each licensed vessel and has resulted in a safer, more profitable year-round fishery. In this instance, the agreement provides for joint research, stock assessment and enforcement activities. I would like to see more of this type of collaborative work, which is designed to suit each sector or each part of the fishery appropriately.
[Translation]
A parallel priority for our fisheries management is to improve the framework for aquaculture development. Supporting a safe and sustainable aquaculture industry requires the best regulatory framework to capitalize on the growing potential of aquaculture as a key component of the fishery and to provide industry certainty.
[English]
Finally, our third activity towards the goal of effectively managing our oceans resources is to ensure increased marine safety and security through a modernized Coast Guard. We must support national marine security and oceans management priorities through an efficient and viable Coast Guard. Revitalizing the Coast Guard, modernizing fisheries governance and a new oceans action plan are key elements of my first long-term goal, which is to effectively manage our oceans resources.
My second long-term goal is to streamline environmental regulatory processes. By this, I mean to increase the overall efficiency and effectiveness of DFO's environmental programs. Such programs affect industries like oil and gas, forestry, mining, hydro-electric power generation and agriculture that operate in or around Canada's aquatic environment. Obviously, these industries are major drivers of the Canadian economy. I am committed to ensuring our regulatory programs protect our social and environmental interest and also enhance conditions for a competitive economy. This is the broader balance we must achieve.
I understand your committee is studying fish habitat, and I look forward to reading your report in the context of long-term planning.
My key message is this: DFO is committed to working with Canadians to deliver the best possible service and to protect our oceans and their resources. My vision and our vision for Canada's fisheries and oceans resource is to ensure sustainable development and safe use of Canadian waters. I am confident that this new vision will ensure that our ocean resources are used in an efficient manner that focuses on results for Canadians.
Finally, I would like to thank the committee for being a strong and active voice in matters involving the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The department and I will continue to rely on your committee and others to help us achieve our challenging mandate. Mr. Murphy and I would be happy to take your questions.
[Translation]
We would now be happy to take your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister Regan and Mr. Murphy for your excellent presentation. We will begin the round of questions with Senator Cook.
[English]
Senator Cook: It is rather late in the day to be dealing with a tricky subject such as fisheries but we will give it a go.
I have two questions, one for the minister and one for the parliamentary secretary. My question to the minister is this: The DFO March 2004 policy framework states that, in exceptional cases, the department may reconsider and revise current sharing arrangements before establishing them for a longer period. The reasons given include the need to meet conservation objectives, the need to revise the existing fisheries management plan to conform to legal requirements and the need to settle issues that have historically generated considerable differences. What are the legal requirements referred to above, and what are the historical issues to which you refer?
My question for the parliamentary secretary is in reference to the oceans action plan. As you both know, I am a Newfoundlander and passionately concerned about enforcement, especially on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, and how we achieve that. With respect to the management of the resource on the nose and tail — and I realize it is outside the 200-mile limit on the slope to deeper water — what options are there in the oceans action plan that you are putting together?
Mr. Regan: It would be best to turn to my officials to deal with the legal requirements. That is a detailed question and I would ask Mr. Bevan to help us with that.
Mr. David Bevan, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: As you are aware, there are always ongoing court cases, legal challenges to some of the decisions that are taken. In the event that those are successful, then there must be some response to them. We have had, in the past, a number of challenges, and we need to have the flexibility to respond to those, whether it is an Aboriginal rights kind of case or it could have been an allocation decision taken that is challenged. Sometimes — I would say rarely — those are successful and we have to be able then to respond.
As to the historical issues, there could have been participants in the fishery at the beginning and as it grew other participants came in. If it shrinks again or if there is a cycle of abundance, we do need to look at a number of factors in determining how to allocate a reduced or shrinking resource base. We must look at that from time to time, and factor in who developed the fishery, how it was started, and the allocation decisions that were taken over a period of years as the fishery grew, taking into account that you are now into a situation where it may be shrinking. We face those issues from time to time as well.
Mr. Regan: When we speak about legal cases, we think of the more recent ones involving First Nations such as the Marshall decision that required the department to open up parts of the fishery to First Nations. It meant that we had to make some adjustments in terms of where we would find licences and so forth. A variety of situations would cause us to make adjustments. That has happened in the past.
Mr. Murphy: I am certainly aware of the importance of this issue and we are certainly reminded of it by your colleagues in the House of Commons, Mr. John Efford and Mr. Bill Matthews on a daily basis. Lately, the subject has been raised quite regularly in the House of Commons.
A number of recent developments are positive. Although it remains a very contentious issue, as the honourable senator is aware, last November, Canada, after a long period of negotiations, signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Another positive development that occurred in December of last year was that the European Union, which includes Spain and Portugal, signed the United Nations Convention relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Agreements such as this give the department more tools to work with on this important issue that has been debated in this committee and in the House of Commons committee for quite some time. I would probably agree with the sentiment of most people that it has been going on too long.
The minister made two recent announcements of which Senator Cook would be aware. There has been a fairly increased level of air surveillance through provincial air. That announcement was made in January of this year. There will be $57 million over the next five years for increased air surveillance. That was accompanied by another announcement of a fairly significant increase for at sea surveillance at the same time: The actual amount was $17.5.
There was a motion before the House of Commons to take custodial management over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We can never rule that out, but at this point in time I think we should give the international fora one last chance to see what can be done.
The Prime Minister has made this a priority. He met with the president of the European union and this was the number one item on the agenda. He raises this matter any time he gets a chance, and he sees positive results. We will keep working at it very hard and, hopefully, we will see positive results from our efforts.
Mr. Regan: For me, this is a major priority. I give a lot of my attention to this issue and in trying to find ways to deal with this issue as effectively as possible. One of the ways is through measures like boarding and bothering the ships that are engaged in this sort of thing, and finding whatever ways we can to advance this issue. It is one that is very troubling, no question.
Senator Cook: We all know it took a long time for everyone to sign on to the Law of the Sea. Mr. Minister, the surveillance package you announced in Newfoundland was another great first step. Now we know, because we have more planes out there, just how much overfishing is taking place.
Without enforcement, however, we can go out and look until we are blue in the face and as blue as the water below us and the sky above us. Nothing will change without some kind of enforcement, regardless of whether it is by consensus, but we cannot wait. My island needs that resource. We cannot wait for as long as it took to sign on to the Law of the Sea — I am sorry — before we do something.
We are told — and this is my sixth year on this committee — that the nurseries that breed that stock are on that slope outside the 200-mile limit. It may be anecdotal for me — I do not know what your scientists say about it — but we are told that that is where the nurseries are. Time is of the essence. I agree, your surveillance program is a great first step, but without the enforcement that needs to follow that, we have not moved very far.
Mr. Regan: One of the things we have now that we did not have before is that the EU has now signed on to the United Nations Agreement on High Seas Fisheries — UNFA — which does contain some tools we believe that are useful to us. Do they contain everything we want? Certainly not. The ideal situation would be to have Canadian control of that area and for us to be managing it, obviously. However, for the moment, what we have achieved is the agreement on UNFA and the ratification of it by the EU. This will allow us to take different kinds of approaches, different measures, in terms of not only boarding, but if flag states do not respond within 72 hours, it allows you to bring the ship, we believe, into port. We are working on it.
We have to develop these measures. By that, I mean that we have to exercise them a bit, get them into use, to establish them more firmly. That is our objective. I can tell you, senator, that I share your concern. This is an absolute priority for me.
Senator Cook: Minister, I am sure you hear my frustration. I just hope that your department keeps this as the number one priority. If not, there will be nothing left out there.
Mr. Regan: I am gravely concerned about that.
Senator Cook: I do not pretend to understand the Fisheries Act, which is very comprehensive. When you talk about legislation, are you talking about introducing new amendments or new legislation? Are you reviewing the current legislation that we have with respect to the Fisheries Act?
Mr. Regan: I am talking about the Fisheries Act, which, of course, has not really been overhauled since 1868, or is it 1869?
Mr. Bevan: The year was 1868.
Mr. Regan: There have been a couple of attempts to overhaul it. On one occasion, it died on the Order Paper, at prorogation, and at another time it did not pass. It seems to me there are reasons to overhaul and bring some changes to the act.
Senator Cook: Do I understand you to say, then, that the priority is to review the current Fisheries Act in the context of modern-day technology and fishing?
Mr. Regan: That is a fair way to put it.
The Chairman: Obviously, they will probably not overhaul section 7.
Senator Cochrane: Minister, I want to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to be here. I am also pleased that you have an understanding of the Senate. I understand that you did work for Senator Graham at one time.
Mr. Regan: I should have mentioned that, as a matter of fact.
Senator Cochrane: I wish to follow up on Senator Cook's question in regard to the $17.5-million strategy, over five years, to increase fisheries patrol. I am talking about the East Coast, of course. This is expected to increase the amount of time patrol ships spend at sea by 40 per cent. In addition, $51 million was announced for air surveillance.
Mr. Minister, could you be specific in terms of the actions you are prepared to take on this issue?
You did say that you would bring in those vessels that are overfishing. Here, I am thinking about the Spanish ship, the Estai, which was brought into St. John's port in 1995, I believe; however, that is about all we did. I am told that our own government even paid for them for their catch — for overfishing.
I should like you to be specific as to the type of action you will take to address this problem.
Mr. Regan: On the Estai?
Senator Cochrane: Yes, I was referring to the Estai.
Mr. Regan: First, I appreciate you mentioning the fact that I worked for a senator; I should have mentioned that when I started. It was a much better opening to make that point. I worked for Senator Graham who, unfortunately, will be leaving the Senate next month. The time has come, as they say.
Senator Cochrane: That is right.
Mr. Regan: It is important to understand, as you probably do, that one of the key values of these patrols and air surveillance is the information it provides us. Basically, the ammunition it gives us, when we are going to NAFO meetings or other international meetings, the stronger our ammunition, our information, the stronger the case we can make. That is very important.
I talked about the fact that UNFA provides us with tools that we have not had before. We may get disagreement about what those tools are and are not, but, in our view, they allow us to board a vessel under UNFA. If we find there has been a breach of the rules — if they are being fished under moratoria of if there is small mesh gear being used, et cetera — it allows us to notify the flag state and give it 72 hours to take action. If the flag state does not take action within those 72 hours, in our view UNFA allows us to take the ship into port. In relation to the Estai, there is a legal case ongoing, where the owners of the Estai are suing the Government of Canada for the value of that catch, I am told.
That is essentially the way the process works and those are the tools that we have to develop. There is some debate about what these provisions we think we can use for those purposes actually mean. That is why it is so important to have vessels out there, a greater effort out there, to follow these ships.
As you may know, for one patrol vessel to go from the southwest corner of the nose and tail of the NAFO regulatory area to the northeast takes 24 hours. It is an enormous area, and a heck of a challenge to patrol.
I would ask whether the deputy or other officials wish to add to this?
Mr. Larry Murray, Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I would add that after the Estai incident, there was an enhanced and increased compliance. We have seen a decrease in compliance, and that is why the minister did put in place the enhanced measures that both he and Mr. Murphy have mentioned.
To indicate what they deliver in terms of ship time, we have gone from about 100 patrol days a year in recent years to now being able to have at least one patrol vessel on station continually on the nose and tail. Given the distances involved, we also now have the ability, and intend to exercise it, to have blitzes of ships out there. After dialogue between the minister and the Minister of Defence, there is an agreement that Defence will assist us in these blitzes and that there will be more naval vessel time out there.
We did use that in the context of a NAFO meeting last year and we actually detected two violations that contributed to making real progress on reductions in the Greenland halibut quota and so on. It is fair to say that we need a presence out there to make the boardings and, as the minister says, to get the information. We are doing that through air surveillance and enhanced vessel coverage. The minister has asked us to review that again in the context of the area we are discussing.
We do think that these increased measures will make a difference but, as the minister said, we very much share the concern about actual enforcement and how you do that within international law.
Senator Cochrane: You did say, minister, that if a vessel were found outside its boundaries you would seize the catch.
It is my understanding that, if a vessel is found going beyond its boundaries and overfishing within our boundaries, the owners of the vessel will be charged, but charged in their own country. If someone is penalized in his home country, I think the penalty would be pretty lenient. Are we unable to do something? Can we lay charges? Can we confiscate the boat? I am talking about drastic measures, but perhaps maybe it is time we took some of those.
Mr. Regan: To must have a legal basis for taking those kinds of actions. You talked about foreign ships fishing within our boundaries, but I believe you meant outside of our boundaries. The only legal basis is found in international law, for example, the NAFO regulations and, now, the UNFA provisions. I said that we believe we can use the UNFA provisions to board a ship to determine whether it is fishing illegally under international law. Initially, we give the other state 72 hours and, if is no action taken, we can then bring it in. There is no question that the foreign state can say that it will call the ship back to its country of origin. It is a question of whether we have confidence that that state will take effective action. I must admit we have more confidence in some states than in others.
Senator Cochrane: From your perspective, what degree of diplomatic and economic pressure can and should Canada exert?
Mr. Regan: It is important for us to make considerable efforts on this. That is why the Prime Minister has raised this issue with the president of the EU. It is why Minister Graham, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has raised it as well with the ministers from EU countries. We think it is a very important issue and it requires considerable pressure.
I have not heard discussion about a trade war on this issue, and I do not think we want to engage in that. We want to engage our counterparts from other countries diplomatically, but bring forward a strong and effective case, based on good information from the patrols we now have, for more effective measures and for better international rules and international law to deal with this issue. It is not only a problem on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap; it is also a problem in other international waters.
I would ask Mr. Bevan to talk about this being an issue in international waters elsewhere. I think you will find it interesting.
Mr. Bevan: This is not just a situation relevant to the NAFO regulatory area. Around the world, with the new technology for harvesting, a number of natural resources are now available. There is technology that was not foreseen when the UNCLOS was first put in place. The freedom of the high seas is allowing some of these vessels to start to look for orange roughy, for example, on seamounts that are outside 200-mile limits. These vessels are from flag states. They are not unidentified. However, the countries are not taking adequate measures to control these vessels. In some cases, no quotas have been established, and they are going from one seamount to another and taking the available marketable species, such as orange roughy, hoki and others in the southern hemisphere. They are depleting old stocks of fish that seem to be particular to a particular location. They are going from one to the other and eliminating them, and doing so in fairly short order.
This issue is now very much on the radar screen of the NGO groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, et cetera. They are concerned that current international law leaves it to the flag state to control its vessels, and if it does not have a willingness to do so, the controls are not put in place. As well, international bodies are sometimes slow to react. NAFO is actually quicker on its feet than many of the others, where controls do not exist.
For example, there is a string of seamounts in the Indian Ocean, but no international body looks after the management of those. Therefore, individual vessels and their states were involved in deciding to go fish or not. It started off with a couple of vessels from Australia and New Zealand, but it quickly ballooned into 40 vessels, but it crashed again after the stocks were completely depleted.
That is the kind of situation we find in certain areas around the world. It has brought the attention not just of governments, but also of concerned groups to this problem. I have a document here with me from the FAO, called ``Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported Fisheries,'' which lays out the responsibilities of flag states, but the limits are on those interested parties to control those international fishing activities around the high seas. It is difficult to separate companies and fishermen from large profits with the instruments we have currently.
In fact, with the UNFA, the NAFO and so on, we have more tools to work with than some countries have to work with to preserve the ecosystems that lie outside their 200-mile limits.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Minister Regan, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, welcome. I will repeat what you said at the beginning of your presentation: ``I also announced the stabilization of existing sharing arrangements of 29 fishing plants on the East Coast for the year 2004. This is consistent with our broader intention of creating a stable access and allocation approach.''
I would like you to talk about the transfer in reference to snow crab fishing. How would I be able to explain this transfer, in simple terms, to the fishers of New Brunswick, without having them retaliate? Take your time, I would like to understand.
Mr. Regan: As you know, the decision made last year on crab was the first of that type with respect to the allocation of crab to coastal fishers. One of the purposes of this decision was to preserve lobster. However, there was still a big problem concerning the preservation of lobster in the ZPAH25 zone, as the Maritime Fishermen's Union pointed out. Therefore, steps had to be taken to resolve this problem, which not only affected New Brunswick fishers but also fishers from Prince Edward Island.
Allocation changes for crab were made in order to introduce conservation measures, such as licence buy-backs. As you know, last year, the Maritime Fishermen's Union agreed to the licence buy-backs, even though this measure will not come into effect until next year. The PEIFA has agreed to buy back licences. About 70 per cent of the increase in crab quota this year will be used to buy back licences.
When I made the announcement concerning the allocation of crab for coastal fishermen, I asked the Maritime Fishermen's Union as well as the PEIFA to come to an agreement on other lobster conservation measures. This is what they did. They concluded an agreement which is comprised of six measures. However, certain issues remained unresolved. I therefore made a decision with respect to the other measures unveiled last Friday.
Thus, those are the lobster conservation measures for this zone in particular, where there are substantial problems, and where lobster stocks are in dwindling.
Senator Robichaud: I am very well aware of the lobster situation; we have the same problem on the coast of New Brunswick.
For a long time the MFU has been calling for measures to protect resources, escape mechanisms, shell-size increases, lowering of entry indicators and even reducing the size of cages.
In order to implement conservation measures, and given the fisheries situation in our region, I still do not understand why fishermen in New Brunswick, who must already cope with smaller catches, must also hand over a part of their snow crab quota to improve the lot of fishermen from another region.
I think this makes no sense whatsoever. I am deeply concerned, and I would like you to reassure me by telling me that another quota will be granted, and that conservation measures will be put in place to allow New Brunswick fishers to survive this crisis.
If I were to give this explanation to fishermen, they would be extremely displeased with me.
Mr. Regan: The fact is that fisheries are affected not only off the coast of New Brunswick but also in Prince Edward Island.
You must understand that the increase in crab this year for New Brunswick almost equals the total allocation for Prince Edward Island.
New Brunswick's share is big, which is very good. However, even with the changes, Prince Edward Island's share of allocations is much smaller than that of New Brunswick. The increase for New Brunswick is almost equal to all of Prince Edward Island's allocation.
Senator Robichaud: There are always differences in quota allocations. They stem from historical shares.
I am going to read a press release issued by the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture. The news release states that there was a net decrease in the number of snow crab in New Brunswick, which translates into considerable losses in income, and job losses in fish plants — and these are seasonal jobs.
Are you telling me that the minister is wrong and that there is no need to worry?
Mr. Regan: This year's increase will mean an additional $30 million for New Brunswick. It is quite a considerable increase.
You mentioned historical shares. In the past, mid-shore fishermen were concerned, rather than coastal fishermen.
This year, I decided to establish measures. These measures helped greatly. As I mentioned, the 70 per cent increase for Prince Edward Island will be used to buy back fishing licences. In my opinion, this measure is very important. However, I understand and respect the fact that you may not agree.
Senator Robichaud: I am not denying that there is a problem with respect to lobster.
However, are you telling me that there was no transfer of snow crab quota from New Brunswick?
Mr. Regan: No. I said that the overall quota increased substantially this year. New Brunswick's quota, in tonnes, also increased substantially. New Brunswick's increase is close to 418 tonnes. Prince Edward Island's total allocation was 496 tonnes.
Senator Robichaud: The allocation that you determine each year depends on the estimated volume of snow crab, is that correct?
Mr. Regan: Yes. I understand what you are saying.
Senator Robichaud: You are not denying the fact that there was no transfer?
Mr. Regan: No, I do not deny it.
Senator Robichaud: So in fact, you are saying yes?
Mr. Regan: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: I do not think I will be heading to the docks this summer.
[English]
Senator Adams: Thank you, minister, for speaking to the Nunavut fishing economy. It has been three years since the BFC was set up as an organization to deal with commercial fishing in Nunavut in accordance with the memorandum of understanding Nunavut reached with the Government of Canada, but so far, it has not been terribly successful.
I know you have a background in the fishery, Mr. Minister, since you come from Halifax. Nunavut is not very different from Newfoundland in that they both rely on the fishery as a means of income. However, I have a some difficulty with the fact that there is an operations office of the Baffin Fisheries Coalition in St. John's, Newfoundland when the coalition is 100 per cent Inuit owned. There are 11 directors, with only one coming from Newfoundland. He is an executive director and he controls another company and it appears that his busy schedule has not allowed him to visit Nunavut in the last three years.
According to my information, within the last three years, zone 0B was allocated to the Nunavut fishery to allow the people in the communities to fish the quota. Zone 0A was reworked by your department over the last three years, and the quota was 4,000 metric tons for each of the last three years for a total of 12,000 metric tons. The quota for shrimp for Zone 0B was something like 2,500 metric tons each year.
Originally, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board handled the Nunavut fishery, and that organization was overseen by the DFO. The quota, for three years was 12,000 metric tons. Now the Baffin Fisheries Coalition has the responsibility for the fishery.
We have a difficulty with how the BFC was set up, and I know that it was set up on an experimental basis, but, now, according to BFC, it is no longer experimental.
Over the last two years, some Nunavut communities have been asking for, and hoping to get, a share of the quotas, but not one pound of the quota allocated from zone 0A has been given to the people in the communities.
Our committee chairman reported to the Senate last week — and he did an excellent job — that, last year, Nunavut made only $9 million from the fishery, while $90 million went to the south or to other countries.
You probably know that, over the last couple of years, a study has been conducted on starting commercial fishing in the communities, but neither your department nor the Government of Nunavut have taken any steps in that direction.
Three years ago, certain communities did, somehow, get a small part of quota from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. I cannot understand why the communities of Nunavut do not have the same access to quotas as towns and communities in Newfoundland, B.C. or Nova Scotia. The organization controls everything, but only up to the 12-mile limit.
My question to you, Mr. Minister, is: In awarding Nunavut quotas, why were the communities of Nunavut not allocated even one pound of fish from zone 0A?
Mr. Regan: Let me make it clear, first of all that the department is very much committed to helping Nunavut develop a commercial fishery and ensuring that all aspects of existing land claims agreements are upheld.
I believe that Mr. Bevan is best suited to respond to the technical aspects of your question relating to the BFC.
Mr. Bevan: As you know, we are bound by the land claims agreement and that means that the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board receives the quotas and we have, collectively, a significant challenge in how to translate the quotas into some benefits that flow to local communities in ways other than just giving out royalty quotas or royalty fees for having somebody else fish the fish. That is the challenge we have now. The fish quota goes to the board, and the board allocates it to those with the capacity to fish it and provide the best return. That turns out to be those with the assets and the expertise to fish it. That does not mean that the maximum benefits are accruing to local communities. That is a challenge that your report covered.
Some suggestions should be considered but those will have to be considered in consultation with the Government of Nunavut and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, as we are obliged to follow the process laid out in the land claims agreement. That is the type of constraint we will be under in trying to move towards a situation where more benefits may accrue to the local communities.
Senator Adams: None of the quota has gone to the communities in the last three years, and I have information that BFC had made requests to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and DFO but, currently, the policy only allows quotas to be awarded to Nunavut once a year.
Mr. Bevan: Under the current Fisheries Act that is correct. Licences are good for one year. Even though you have a multi-year plan, you have to renew the licences. They have to be renewed and re-established so we do not have a situation where we have multi-year quotas or sharing formula that are locked in any kind of a legally constrained way.
Senator Adams: My information from BFC is that, sometime between now and next month, they will request a guarantee for 11 years for those 4,000 metric tons. BFC is buying ships as well as renting ships for $8,000 a day for 100 days, so they want to have a guaranteed quota for 11 years.
In the meantime we have no clue as to the percentage of Inuit who will be employed on the ships that do the commercial fishing. The only way communities in Nunavut can survive is to have their own fishing vessel. Someone from another part of Canada said to me that the Inuit do not want to work on a ship for more than one week. At the beginning people who were not Nunavummiut did express interest in buying vessels, but they wanted to ensure that the Inuit did not get jobs on those vessel because they believed that the Inuit only wanted to work for one week at a time.
I cannot see how that would benefit the people in the Nunavut communities. Currently, one person is making the decisions about the fishery without informing the people of the communities. That is why I beg you to guarantee for 11 years that foreigners on large vessels cannot come into our waters to fish. I represent the people in the communities of Nunavut.
I have a letter from DFO concerning the community request for quotas. I have not had one response from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board or from BFC, all the way down to Newfoundland. I have difficulty with how the quotas in the 0A area are controlled. An amount of $90 million per year could create a great deal of employment for the 25 communities in Nunavut, between the royalties and people catching the fish themselves. Businesses in the communities are just like businesses in Newfoundland — they want to do business and have their people earn a living. However, the way the system is set up right now, the people of Nunavut cannot do business.
Mr. Bevan: Under the Fisheries Act, we cannot allocate quotas for 11 years. The minister cannot enter into a joint project agreement for more than a specified period of time, and even that is subject to the absolute discretion of the minister. I am not sure of the source of the 11 years, but if that is something that the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is committing to, then they are not, perhaps, worried about the constraints that DFO is working under.
The other issue is that these are cyclical resources, so a guarantee of 4,000 metric tons is not something that can be made with any degree of assurance because conservation priorities must be considered. That may mean that the fish may not be available. I understand your views on the issue of the fishery going through the board, the board allocating quotas and the fishing activities conducted by people who are not from the communities. I understand that frustration. A number of suggestions were made in the committee's report on that issue and some will have to be looked at by the Nunavut government, by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and by DFO.
Senator Adams: I have one more question pertaining to BFC and the Nunavut Hunters and Trappers Association. As of about one month ago, only one community is still a member of BFC. The others have dropped out. I cannot understand how BFC is still operating and asking for 11 years in quotas when they no longer have membership within the community.
Mr. Regan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a question. Is this in part an economic development issue? In other words, are there opportunities through economic development mechanisms for Nunavut to look at the purchase of a vessel or vessels to do this kind of fishing?
Senator Adams: Those guys agree with it but people in the community oppose it because they want smaller vessels, up to 65 feet. Last fall, they came before this committee and said that it was difficult to get in there. We discovered from their report that foreign vessels are fishing about 20 miles offshore of the community. That is why I have difficulty with all of this.
Mr. Regan: We are currently reviewing the Nunavut report and the last we heard was that the Senate was considering that report. I will certainly look into it. This committee has a significant voice on these issues which are important for us to consider.
Senator Hubley: I should like to underscore what Senator Adams has said. In my time on the fisheries committee, I have not heard more compelling testimony from a group of people who, while being very close or adjacent to the fishery, were not even eking out a living from the resource.
When we talk about the fishery, we also have to consider the communities and the people that the industry supports. According to the testimony of Nunavut representatives heard before this committee, that consideration has not been given. That is a shortfall. We talked a great deal about what they would like to see. To date, there has been no money for infrastructure from any source. There was discussion on how the resource has been managed, whether through royalties or other ways, and how that money has been allocated. Little or none of it has gone back into the communities, although it should benefit the communities.
The people of Nunavut are mariners because they live beside the ocean; that is their way of life, but they are different from the fishers of Prince Edward Island, for example. Many aspects are the same but just as many aspects are different. I think that must be recognized in any vision that the government has for that region of the country. There is a need and there is a difference. As Senator Adams has said, they identified small fishing fleets and wharfs as being manageable by the community and as something from which the community could sustain itself. That seems to be the challenge for you, minister. We need to look again at the structures that we put in place, which should work, to determine whether indeed they are working. In this case, there is a particular need to do that.
The Chairman: Minister, you mentioned during your testimony that sometimes things in respect of the policy framework may happen that we need to change legally. You mentioned the Marshall decision as an example. I refer then to the second Marshall decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada said that historical reliance and participation in the specific fishery would need to be considered. What they were referring to there was the fact that those communities had historically relied on the fishery and that the department and the minister would need to give that particular consideration in any decisions you make.
The decision, in part, states:
The Coalition's application is based on a misconception of the scope of the Court's majority judgment...
The West Nova Fishermen's Coalition had asked the Supreme Court to revisit the issue. They said no. By saying this, they basically found that it was based on a misconception of the court's decision.
The second quote is really telling. It states that:
The issues of concern to the Coalition largely relate to the lobster fishery not the eel fishery, and, if necessary, can be raised and decided in future cases that involve the specifics of the lobster fishery.
They were being absolutely clear that the Marshall decision had to do with eels and not lobster. They repeated that on a number of occasions in their decision.
With regard to historical reliance, the government has interpreted this to mean that licence holders are those people who are impacted by the purchase and transfer of the licences to the Aboriginals. The way the department sees this is that, if they buy a licence from a fisherman, and they pay that fisherman whatever the going value is, no further consideration is necessary. The impact on the crew is irrelevant; the impact on the community becomes irrelevant, the impact on purchasers, buyers and those people who are dependent on those licences in the community are all irrelevant.
As the department was going out and buying licences and transferring those to the Aboriginals, that jacked up the price. I do not think I am telling tales out of school at this point, the prices just went up. Obviously, if the Government of Canada went in with all kinds of money, the prices would go up. It made it such that those people who had historically dreamed of buying a boat and a licence and being able to go into the fishery like their uncles, grandfathers or fathers had done, could no longer afford to do it. The dream became a nightmare. Prices went beyond their means. The day of intergenerational transfers was over.
Then, those people with the deepest pockets, with lots of money, were buying and amassing licences. The impact on the coastal communities, where the government has gone in and assisted, has been great, I would suggest, contrary to the Supreme Court decision that said that the impact of the government's decision was responsible for the problems caused in those communities.
I have yet to see any comment made by any departmental official or by a minister suggesting that they have had this impact on communities. In other words, the communities have been completely ignored throughout this whole question. I would like your comment on that, minister. Why would the communities have been left out of the consultation, and continue to be left out of the consultation, as this Marshall interpretation goes through the course that it is going through now?
Mr. Regan: You have raised a whole set of questions and caused me to wonder whether I should have mentioned the Marshall case.
The Chairman: You should not have.
Mr. Regan: However, it is an important decision. It certainly had an impact on the work of this department in the recent years, and there has been the challenge of squaring the circle on many of these points. Clearly, the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Marshall case have created some challenges, but they have also led to some positive things as well. We have seen, for instance, the mentoring program whereby non-native fishers are training native fishers. However, but I am getting away from the real point.
The Chairman: I read your update the other day. You raised some extremely important points in it, but I would like to zero in specifically on the communities. Someone mentioned at the time of the Marshall decision that what will happen is that they will transfer jobs from one blue-collar group to another blue-collar group. That is it exactly what happened, but the one blue-collar group that lost out has been ignored. Some positive things happened to Aboriginal communities that have not been, historically, part of the lobster fishery, but some lost out in the process.
Mr. Regan: I would want to look at the details of that decision. On the point you made on the misconception of the scope of the issues largely related to the lobster fishery, it is not my understanding that that can be interpreted to say that the entitlement of the native fishers does not include lobsters. It seems to me very clear.
The Chairman: Read the decision.
Mr. Regan: The interpretation, as far as I know, is that that is not quite what they were saying, but I will have to look at that in detail. Certainly, my understanding is that, in fact, the indication was that native fishers do have a right to fish a variety of species, and that would include lobster.
Clearly, we had a situation where, regardless of whether it is lobster or not, the court had made a declaration in relation to the right to fish, and there was a question of how you could have a fishery that could also be a managed fishery. You need some agreement on that. It was important for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to sit down with the First Nations and work out how that could happen while still having an overall fish management strategy. That, as you can understand, is vitally important.
At the same time, as you know, the department is engaged with fishing groups in all areas of our region — yours and mine in Nova Scotia or Atlantic Canada and elsewhere in the country — on an ongoing basis on a whole range of issues. There is a lot of input on these and other matters. Where you have raised what is a particular issue in terms of legal aspects, perhaps there are others here who could respond better than I could.
The Chairman: I would like to stick to the principle. Let us say, for the moment, that what was suggested to you is the correct interpretation that the Supreme Court was dealing with lobsters as well.
Mr. Regan: Even if it was not, you still had to find a way to solve the overall problem.
The Chairman: Correct, and the courts did recommend that these kinds of decisions be made collaboratively amongst the groups. Be that as it may, the one group that has been completely and absolutely left out throughout — and this has been since 1999 — are the coastal communities that were impacted by the decision. For every licence that was bought — and, of course, someone got a windfall — the community itself lost that licence. The Supreme Court did say in its decision that the historical impact of communities must be part of the consideration. At no time has this happened.
Mr. Regan: I want you to know that I am aware of this issue. As you know, the community of Sambro is in my riding of Halifax West. There is a fish processing plant there that was affected by this situation. It does not have the same amount of fish to process that has it used to have because of this transfer of licences.
Mr. Bevan is eager to provide us with more background on this, if you do not mind. You might be interested to hear his comments on the legal background and some of the other aspects of this.
Mr. Bevan: We were faced, obviously, with a huge challenge in 1999. You recall the circumstances when we were trying to put together a response and, at the same time, dealing with the realities on the water. We did have the second clarification and it did provide some guidance, but we were also faced with the practical realities. We knew that we could spread the burden of response to the Marshall decision to Canadians in general by having a method of buying out enterprises. Recognizing that we will affect communities and crews, there is a limit on what we can in fact accommodate. We could not make this happen without some impacts, obviously.
How do you pragmatically run a program to deal with crew members who are no longer necessarily identified and who have a high degree of turnover at any rate as well as what is the economic impact of moving a licence out of a community, et cetera? Those became very difficult to quantify, et cetera. The reality was that we were expecting, and generally have seen, relatively low levels of transfer with big exceptions being concentrations in certain areas. Those concentrations have exacerbated the impacts, but generally, for example, in southwest Nova Scotia, there has not been a huge transfer from one community to another.
The Chairman: I am not trying to take care of my backyard, by the way.
Mr. Regan: You are raising the problem.
Mr. Bevan: There are, however, certain areas where there has been a higher percentage transferred and there has been a much higher adjustment. There, we hired people to work with the communities, that is, the First Nations and the commercial fishermen and their coastal communities. They worked to try to find ways of mitigating the impacts, et cetera.
The Chairman: I understand all the problems that you faced, and I was going through them myself. I was going home on those weekends.
The point I was trying to raise — and I will make it perfectly clear — is this: Why were the communities ignored or left out from then on? Every report I read was that the Aboriginals were meeting with the licence holders and were meeting with the provinces. Nowhere was the question of the impact on the affected communities ever touched upon. I do recall that you hired Mr. Thériault from New Brunswick, but he was a representative of the government. He was hired by the government and paid by the government — to speak on behalf of the communities. No way; you cannot do that.
If they have a representative, it must be their representative, not someone that you hire and pay.
Mr. Bevan: We also hired other individuals to try to facilitate this dialogue between the communities, as you recall.
In this case, the expectation was that the transfer generally would be a relatively small percentage, and it was, with exceptions. The other expectation was that, in transferring or buying out licences, those individuals would not leave the community, they would still be there. The wealth that was provided in lieu of the licence —
The Chairman: That was your decision. Did you ask communities how they felt about those decisions, about those things that you are now referring to? Did you ask the communities themselves if this was mitigating enough? You did not ask. They were left out.
Mr. Bevan: That is correct. This program had to be put together in the fall of 1999 —
The Chairman: You are rationalizing the decisions that you made at this point in hindsight. I have worked at spin- doctoring myself, quite a number of times. The thing is that you cannot spin-doctor your way out of having ignored those coastal communities that were left out of the process and are still being left out as we speak.
I invite you again, Mr. Minister and Mr. Bevan, to reread the second Marshall decision and look at exactly what it says.
Mr. Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Page 22 of your recent policy document states, in terms of the management of fisheries on the East Coast, the following:
...avoiding undue concentration of licences and preserving and fostering a diversified sector of viable multi- licensed/multi-species independent inshore enterprises headed by professional fish harvesters.
What does the word ``undue'' mean in that context?
Mr. Regan: I could ask you the same question, Mr. Chairman. I think we both know that it is a subjective judgment that each individual would make. I think communities have strong views about this. You and I both here in Nova Scotia have concerns about concentration. At the same time, there are concerns about the cost of licences. There are a number of things that have caused the cost of licences to increase. Some of them were the items that you mentioned. However, there are other things as well. We know the connection of that issue to the trust agreements and to this whole area.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this topic and where you think the solutions lay. We have put forward this platform, which is a first stage, and it is important that we consult people to say, ``Where do we go from here?'' This represents basically an amalgamation of the views of the people across the Atlantic region, generally speaking. The question becomes one of how we move forward, particularly in Nova Scotia, where the fishery is different than it is in other areas. In southwest Nova Scotia, for example, the fishery is different, and there are a lot of issues and differing views on this question than elsewhere, perhaps. How do we move forward and how do we deal with this issue and not create what communities feel may be an undue level of concentration? The concern is one of survival of coastal communities.
You talked about the problem for coastal communities in terms of the Marshall provisions and the licences that have been bought there in various areas. If that is a concern, I am sure you would share the same concern in terms of the impact on communities if commercial interests are buying licences and concentrating those, for example. The question for me is this: How do we move forward on this without creating upheaval in the industry, especially in your area?
The Chairman: Definitely. I looked at the source documents that you used for your inspiration, I suppose. I note that the 1982 Kirby task force report was one of the source documents. I would suggest that an excellent source document might have been the 1998 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, entitled, ``Privatization and Quota Licensing in Canada's Fisheries.''
Mr. Regan: No doubt.
The Chairman: That is a paid political advertisement.
Mr. Regan: You are right.
The Chairman: We take you up on the challenge, minister, and we definitely will provide our input in the future.
How much more time do you have, Mr. Minister? I know it has been a long day for you.
Mr. Regan: That is very kind of you, but I understand that I am in your lands until nine o'clock.
Senator Cook: Good. It will take me until nine o'clock to deal with this.
I want to talk about the northern cod. I want to go back to a memory from my childhood. I was born in an outport, where there were no roads, just water. One of my earliest memories is of running to the wharf to see the strange boats. As I grew older, I understood the ``strange'' boat to be a dragger, with no stern — I was sure it would sink — and equipped with an oversized net. I remember overhearing my dad in a conversation on the wharf one day, and I remember clearly his words. He said to a fisher: ``The day will come when there will be nothing left to catch, because what you have tied up by my wharf will drag everything off the bottom.'' I now realize that what I was witnessing was the demise of the bank fishery, the hook and line, and the entry of the draggers.
Fast forward. The cod moratorium was put in place in 1992. All kinds of reasons have been put forth for the decline in cod, ranging from foreign and domestic overfishing, colder waters, seals, God help us — we have heard that a number of times — high grading, and the list goes on. Newfoundlanders are at a point where we are like Custer's Last Stand. In Newfoundland, we are saying that, if only we could get custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, all our problems would be solved. That is where the nurseries are.
I implore you, gentlemen: Please, get some scientific-based information. Get it out to the people who deserve it.
There is a good living being made in my province, and I suspect along the Atlantic seaboard with other species, but the northern cod deserves a decent burial. I think the onus is on DFO to provide us with the evidence-based information. If it is there, we are not hearing it. If it is gone, if there are no adult fish over five years old and all the rest of it, let us tell the people. The people deserve that. Let us not wait nine more months to see if it will be placed on the endangered species list. That is my plea to you this evening.
We talk about sustainable fisheries. In the last 15 years, we have had various fisheries — you can still find a bit of fresh cod here and there, I do not know if it is poached or frozen to death — but I believe we have to be honest with people. Over the past couple of years, it is my sense, from the information I have heard, that we do not have a strong, sustainable scientific program at DFO. I believe that is where it is. If the thing is dead, let us bury it and let us get on with it. Let us not stretch it again. For fishermen not to understand about this endangered species — if it is gone, let us tell the people.
Mr. Regan: Thank you very much. I think it is more of an exhortation than a question.
Senator Cook: It is frustration.
Mr. Regan: I appreciate that. I think you are aware of the cod recovery teams that are working on this issue. You talked about dragging, and you may know there is a legal case involving the Ecology Action Centre in Nova Scotia, which prevents me from speaking about dragging. However, I do not think that is really what you are after; you are talking more about the northern cod and where it is and where it is going.
I want to ask the officials to add a few more comments on this.
Mr. Murray: Perhaps I will start, and then if Mr. Bevan or Mr. Labonté from our science sector wants to join in, they can. You will recollect the controversy last year after the closure decision in the northern and southern gulf that sparked a number of issues. One issue that you have put on the table is real dialogue between scientists and the fishing communities. It is fair to say we have tried over the years. However, the disconnect between how fishermen see the situation and how scientists see the situation did lead us to try to enhance that. I would say that we are not at the finish line yet. That issue of a better understanding between fishermen and scientists was critical. We have done something. Certainly, that led the minister to re-engage the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council in a consultation process this year, and we are awaiting their report.
Another significant fallout last year was the establishment of a number of bilateral cod recovery teams — one initiated between Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government, and the second one between Quebec and the federal government. Those processes are underway. There have been a number of constructive meetings to date and a number of external groups are involved in this. In fact, the next significant meeting between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada is in mid-June, which will be supported by a variety of ongoing work to try to determine what are long-term objectives and how fast should we move forward.
Obviously, also on the table are issues such as the cause of the cod collapse, the situation today and how to mitigate the ongoing predation? All those questions are in play. I believe that in addition to managing the year over year aspect of this, these cod recovery teams, which are looking at the long-term recovery and do engage everyone and certainly have a very collaborative relationship between the feds and the provinces most affected, will lead to the kind of dialogue you are after, the kind of understanding you are after, and pressure on us to ensure that that happens if that is not where they land.
The issues and the questions you have raised are very definitely on the table, and that is what we are trying to do in relation to the bilateral cod recovery planning that is going on. As well, there is a more multilateral initiative, looking Atlantic-wide, because of the interactions and the differing things that are happening relative to 3PS cod, the gulf stocks, the northern cod and, indeed, the stocks in the offshore we discussed in terms of the foreign overfishing. Although the answers are a long way from being on the table, I believe these initiatives are heading in the direction that you correctly point out we need to head if there is to be a common shared understanding and if we are to make some progress in a coherent manner toward long-term objectives at a rate that people are comfortable with in those areas where we can.
Senator Cook: The sustainability of the resource is directly linked to the sustainability of the community. It is time that we told the communities, ``It is not here anymore,'' if that is what we need to say. I hear that we do not have the adequate scientific evidence-based information to do that.
My closing statement, Mr. Chair, is that it is ironic that I should be here tonight, 50-odd years later, looking at a habitat study remembering what my dad said those many years ago. We have not come very far as a people in understanding what our needs are. My kids use Google — which seems to find answers to everything, yet we cannot figure out what is happening out in the Atlantic Ocean.
It has been almost 15 years since the moratorium was put in place, and we are still holding out a little bit of hope, a pocket here and there, and that is no way to sustain the fabric of the community. I beg you, get on with it.
Senator Cochrane: I have a supplementary to Senator Cook's question. We had evidence here not so long ago from qualified people in the industry who told us that the science is not there for the simple reason that there is no funding to do the science. Boats have been tied up in Halifax harbour only because there is not enough gas to send the boats out on the waters to do the science.
If you could assure us that there will be more funding available to the science, it would certainly help this cause.
Mr. Regan: There is no question that there are a growing number of issues that require scientific information. The complexity of the work of science these days in our department has grown. You need support for a variety of decision making, whether it relates to oil and gas exploration, alien invasive aquatic species, climate change, the Species at Risk Act and many other aspects of what we do. While there have been new investments to address these issues, like SARA and climate change, for example, the costs of conducting research continues to rise, especially those related to the at- sea science program.
What we are doing is addressing these kinds of emerging issues through the realignment of resources to the highest priorities. At this stage, that is our best answer. The situation is challenging, there is no question.
Senator Cochrane: What are we to tell these people who appear before us? Will there or will there not be more funding, so that we can get some of the specific science done?
Mr. Murray: The reallocation the minister referred to is real. In other words, in his tenure, he has directed that we focus on services to Canadians and that we focus on real issues, focus on, among other things, sea time for science, sea time for conservation and protection. We talked a little bit about the reallocation to ensure more patrol investments on the nose and tail of the bank.
In the science case, you are correct. We have reallocated resources this year — $5 million — to ensure that at-sea surveys happen. One challenge is figuring out how much science is enough. Would we like to do more — absolutely? We are doing everything humanly possible to get the sea time so that we can do the science. In terms of the coast guard modernization project, we are looking at the most cost-effective way to acquire science sea time, new vessels, et cetera. This is a key issue and there is real money moving to this priority to ensure that we get out there and do the essential science.
The challenge in relation to Senator Cook's question is how much at-sea science is devoted to cod versus crab versus shrimp, and how to make those judgment calls. It is a difficult subject, but we are moving real money to this priority, as we did last year.
Senator Cochrane: I hope I do not hear again that there is not enough money to buy gas for the boats. Science is the key to everything.
Senator Adams: I wanted to correct my figure of 11 years. I realize that it was nine years for guarantees for the quota for the 0A area.
I am glad that Senator Hubley helped me out in support of the witnesses from Nunavut who appeared before the committee last fall to express their concern about the future of commercial fishing in Nunavut.
In the meantime, Mr. Bevan, I know you understand Nunavut fishing. Since the last time we met, you have changed many of the people concerned about fishing in Nunavut. The committee has been studying the issue for over a year.
The last time I met you, all the communities and the hunters and trappers still belonged to the BFC. That is no longer the case, because they did not like the way in which the BFC operated. In the meantime, it would nice, Mr. Minister, if the department could allocate quotas for the communities rather than the way things are working now for Nunavut Wildlife Management and the BFC.
There need to be future allocations of quotas for the people in the community. Your department should award some of these quotas to them. Right now, working with NWM and BFC, the community will not progress. I want to ensure allocation for the community. We feel strongly about the future of the people and the fishing community. We have many good companies, such as Clearwater and the one in Davis Strait, that have been around for 10 years and get along well with the people in the community. We want to continue that.
I feel strongly about this and I hope that, after we leave here today, I can feel more assured of a secure future for the communities of Nunavut. I hope we do a better job in the future for the Nunavut fishing communities.
Mr. Regan: Thank you, Senator Adams; I appreciate your comments. I want to say again how much I appreciate and recognize the importance of the work of this committee on this issue and to tell you that the department is reviewing its reports. I look forward to learning more about the report. Hearing your concerns firsthand is valuable, and there is no question that working with Nunavut to try to further develop the adjacent fisheries is something we are eager to do.
The Chairman: Minister, you have been a good sport this evening. In my opinion, you have one of the most difficult portfolios on Parliament Hill, short of that of the Prime Minister. You have done your portfolio credit this evening, as you handled yourself extremely well. We appreciate it.
It is always a pleasure to see all the members of the committee.
It was a pleasure to hear from Mr. Murray, Mr. Bevan and departmental officials. We appreciate all of you taking time out of what we know is an extremely busy schedule to spend time with us this evening. I hope we can do it again some time in the future, and we look forward to working with you on those important projects and visions that you have laid out in respect of the fishery. Do you have any passing comments in closing?
[Translation]
Mr. Regan: It is a pleasure for me to join you tonight to discuss these important issues. I appreciate your dedication and your determination to work in the interest of Canada, in the interest of the fisheries industry and in the interest of conserving our oceans. It was an honour for me to join you.
The committee adjourned.