Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 1 - Evidence, May 30, 2006
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 30, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 7:21 p.m. to examine and report on issues relating to the federal government's new and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to call the meeting to order.
I welcome everyone in the room and those who are watching, or will be watching on television across the country. My name is Bill Rompkey and I represent Labrador in the Senate. I would like to introduce the other members of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, starting with Senator Hubley and Senator Gill from Quebec, Senator Adams from Nunavut, Senator Watt from Nunavik in Northern Quebec, Senator Johnson from Winnipeg and Lake Winnipeg, Senator Comeau and Senator Cowan from Nova Scotia and Senator Campbell from British Columbia.
I want to welcome the minister and, Mr.Hearn, I will ask you in a minute to introduce those people who are with you.
The minister, Mr. Loyola Hearn, has had a significant political career. He was first elected to the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature in 1993, and served as a minister in the provincial cabinet there. He served as deputy leader in the federal House of Commons and as critic for fisheries, so he knows his subject and comes from a place where they catch fish from time to time, I understand.
The minister is also an avid hockey fan, and he sings, but we will not ask you to do that tonight, sir.
We would be pleased if you would introduce the people who are with you and make a few opening comments, and then we will have some questions for you.
Hon. Loyola Hearn, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Thank you very much. On my left is my deputy minister, Mr. Larry Murray, and on my right, my assistant deputy minister, Mr. David Bevan.
We are delighted to have the opportunity to appear before the Senate committee to discuss issues which are of mutual interest to all of us.
I met with Senator Rompkey last week and we talked about a number of issues. With both of us coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, we are not strangers to the fishing industry.
In my former life, growing up in a small fishing community within a fishing family, we had a fair amount of direct involvement. I fished all of my younger years and put myself through university by being able to fish in the summertime. Even as a teacher, back in the days when there were lots of fish and we had lots of time off, I took advantage of that to fish with my own boat.
After entering politics, I represented a riding made up completely of fishing communities and we were involved in all aspects of the industry. Following that, of course, I continued in federal politics where I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee for Fisheries and Oceans, the House committee, for five years. In other words, we had a fair amount of involvement.
It was interesting to meet with Mr. Murray and Mr. Bevan and others in the department after I had given them a rough ride for five years. However, that is all part of it. It is much the same in coming before a committee. On one side of the table you are grilling somebody, then you are on the other side, being grilled.
I think we are all well aware that we have an industry that, in most parts of the country, is in trouble. We have major concerns in many regions. Can we do something about it? The answer is yes. However, we must do it collectively. None of us can do it on our own. There has to be a lot of faith, direct involvement and hard and fast decisions made over the next few years. We are ready and willing to be part of that, and we can use any and all the support or suggestions that we get.
With that, and realizing I only have an hour, I will throw it to you because I think questions and discussion at this time are more important than anything we have to say.
Senator Comeau: Welcome minister; it is good to see you with your officials. I hope we have a good discussion this evening.
When a minister first appears before the committee, we try to find out what he would like to be remembered for — for lack of a better word, call it vision — once he has gone through the ministry and goes on to something else. Some of your predecessors — for example, Minister Regan — wanted to modernize fisheries management. His predecessor, Mr. Thibault, emphasized sustainable fisheries management. Prior to that, Herb Dhaliwal strongly supported aquaculture, and Mr. Anderson supported development of the oceans.
What would be your vision? I would like to suggest one, which is that you become the minister for communities, given the place where you are from, Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it would be a great vision for you.
Mr. Hearn: Thank you very much, Senator Comeau. I believe the visions of all the others who went before me are laudable and important. If we did not deal with all these issues, we would not have the fishery we have today. I am not saying that from a negative sense; as bad as it is, it could be a lot worse, except some people believe that they can do things in at least certain aspects of the fishery.
I think you are close to my own vision. I have said right from day one that fish in the ocean are a common property resource. The resource is owned by the people of Canada. We need to get it back into the hands of the people of Canada because we have not properly managed that over the years. When I say that, I add that my job as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans — or whoever sits in this position — is to manage that resource. The resource is owned by the people of Canada and managed on their behalf by the fisheries minister. However, I would like to add that it is managed for the good of the people of Canada, particularly those who depend on it.
I believe Canadians should catch the resource — or grow the resource, if we are talking about aquaculture. I am a believer that there is a great future in aquaculture — not instead of, or to complicate, but in addition to, and in combination with, the raw resource.
I also believe the harvesting and processing should be done here in Canada. We should not be harvesting a resource to put aboard factory freezer trawlers to send to China, Japan or anywhere else if that resource can be processed here for our people. That is what keeps the communities alive.
Can we keep our rural identity? Can we hold what we have and build on it? Yes. In the period of time it takes to do that, will we lose a few communities? Maybe; it depends.
We cannot do these things on our own. I can protect the resource in the ocean to a large extent. I can decide who harvests the resource. I can decide where it goes. However, once it comes to shore, I cannot do anything about it. If some major company harvests the resource by using a licence that we provide and catching the quota assigned to that licence, and then lands the product and the provincial government says ``You can put it aboard a truck now and ship it to the United States or aboard a boat and send it to China,'' that is strictly under provincial jurisdiction. In my discussions with the provincial ministers, we have built up a good relationship. I believe that you will not see much of that happening unless it is something that no one can do anything with, except that the people who catch it can make some money, and I have no problems with that.
Perhaps it is because the catch is small, for instance. I have heard people say that we are shipping out small flatfish because they are too small to process here; we cannot make money. Fish grow, unless it is a species that does not grow any larger — and we have some of that with certain species of redfish, et cetera. However, for species that grow, if they are too small to process this year, maybe we need to adjust our harvesting technology and leave them in the water, because next year they might be able to provide jobs on land.
It is to be hoped that we can do that, and also advance aquaculture reasonably in certain parts of the country. I see good things happening on the West Coast, exciting times ahead for the south coast of our own province and still some capability in the Maritime provinces. I believe we have a great future in the fishery in the North as well. I think the people of the North are the ones who can maximize the resource for two reasons: first, it is abundant, and second — and I say this with hope — they and those of us who are not involved in managing that resource have learned from mistakes in the past. In Nunavut, in the case of recent increases in turbot, we have done our part in assigning all of it to Nunavut because they should get it. However, we have an old saying at home: How can you fish if you only have a narrow wharf to fish from? That is a major concern. It is not something that is lost on us. We must develop the North for all kinds of reasons, not just for the fishery but for our presence there: for security and what have you. For the fishery, we need infrastructure soon because, if not, somebody else will siphon all the benefits from a resource that should be going into the pockets of our own people.
We need to look across the country, use our heads and involve our own people. Anybody who read the paper today will know that we are into a major initiative on the Fraser River. Some people are not happy with it, but most are. We have had problems on the Fraser River, certainly since I have been around. We think we might be close to peace on the Fraser, and we have a lot of both short-term and long-term initiatives on the go.
Sometimes people do not see the forest for the trees and you try to react for today rather than looking ahead. I think there are some things happening now, and there is community buy-in. Forget politics or anything else. People are starting to see that if we are to do what has to be done, we had better get the chips off our shoulders and start working for tomorrow.
As a vision, communities might be it; or at least people who depend on the resource today might be able to depend on it tomorrow, if we do our job.
Senator Cowan: Thank you, minister, for being here.
I wanted to ask you a question about overfishing. There has been a lot of talk about that over the years.
In 2004, one of your predecessors announced the formation of a panel, which came back and reported in 2005. That panel recommended that NAFO be replaced with a new regional fisheries management organization. What is your view of that recommendation? How do you see this issue of straddling stocks being handled and are we making any progress along those lines?
Mr. Hearn: That is a pertinent question on a subject with which I am familiar. In 2001, I attended my first House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans where I gave notice that I would raise the concern of overfishing on the Nose, Tail and Flemish Cap. Everyone around the table looked at me because they did not know where those areas were located. It took a few months to familiarize my colleagues, and that fall I moved the inquiry, which was agreed to, and committee hearings began on overfishing. The House Fisheries Committee's report is on the record, although the information is not ``pretty'' to read.
We have had several discussions and reports since that first one, including emergency debates in the House of Commons. A little over one year ago, I was fortunate enough to have a resolution passed in the House on the topic of this issue of overfishing. The panel was set up, but some laughed because they thought we were trying to get rid of NAFO. Some people recommended that we get out of NAFO because it was not doing the job that it should be doing. However, I never said that, and I went back through my reports to make sure of that.
I have always believed that it is better to fight from within rather than from without. Senators around this table have tremendous power. If you did not agree with or had a falling out with committee members and left the committee, you would likely snipe from the sidelines, but that is much less effective. Being part of NAFO has given us a chance to improve it.
NAFO, which is supported internationally, was set up to allocate quotas, as well as to do other things. However, it was left up to the participating countries to handle any problems that might arise and to be the enforcers. That is fine if everyone is honest and interested and knows what is going on, but for many NAFO participants, there was a disconnect between the fishing crews and the authorities. When we boarded boats and found that the crews were overfishing, misreporting and mislabelling, we reported them, but we knew that they would go back to the offending nation and that nothing would happen. Only a very few took action. That has changed tremendously but we need an organization with teeth, and I believe the idea might have come from that.
You talked about a regional management organization that would be different and stronger. There are two ways of doing that: first, get rid of NAFO and put together a new organization, which we are seeing more of around the world; or second, make NAFO into that kind of organization, which I think would be simpler to do.
During my first week on the job, I went to a high seas task force meeting of six countries. Members of the task force have laboured over the last year or so on how to deal with the issue of overfishing and illegal fishing around the world. People are becoming more conscious of what is happening in our oceans than they were five or six years ago. The task force developed a list of solid recommendations which, if NAFO were to follow them, we would not have a problem. The United Kingdom and Canada have been charged with developing sanctions to fit these recommendations. Canadian officials at the NAFO meetings will recommend that NAFO be reformed to give it more ``teeth'' so that it can be more effective.
In the meantime, we have exerted our own influence, although I will not go into more detail while much of it is still unfolding. We met with the EU Commissioner and the Ambassador to the EU, and we laid down the law. We made it quite clear that the stocks on the Nose, Tail and Flemish Cap are ours collectively. Although they fished those areas before Canada was a country, they have no right to fish abusively. Collectively, we can protect what we have left or we will do it on our own, and we can tighten the screws on them quite effectively. We have seen a fair amount of cooperation and very little abuse in recent months.
Last week, there were three foreign boats on the Nose and Tail and two NAFO boats. Our surveillance monitoring also includes over-flights. We have black boxes aboard the NAFO boats that allow us to know, within five minutes, how many boats are out and which countries they represent. We did not have that capability a couple of years ago.
Just before Easter. we saw a boat moving toward the shore area of American Place, which is under a moratorium. We intercepted and found that it had illegal fish. We reported the issue to the EU boat, which verified it, and the boat was recalled by Spain. We were invited, at our insistence, to send people over to observe the off-loading. The company refused to off-load in our presence, so we stayed there. The following week was Easter, and I suppose they thought we would go home. However, we stayed in Spain through Easter but they still did not off-load those fish. Imagine one of those big boats filled with fish; by not off-loading, they must have lost their shirt.
Into the fourth week we brought our people home, but not before we had sent replacements to Spain. We said that, whether it takes three weeks, three months or three years, we would be watching when they unloaded that boat. Finally, they unloaded the boat of its illegal fish. Subsequently, eight of 23 Spanish boats have been taken out of the system. As well, the Government of Portugal has officially notified all its fishing companies that it will no longer support any illegal fishing activity. We have not seen that happen before.
Good things are happening, but can more happen? Yes, absolutely it can. Should the leadership come from NAFO? Yes, but NAFO regulations need more teeth to be effective.
Senator Cowan: You are saying that reforming NAFO is the better option to replacing it?
Mr. Hearn: NAFO has been in place for a long time and many members are good people. Generally we only hear about the bad people. We have had major support from countries such as Norway, and the United States, even though they have very few fish, have always supported us in our efforts. Other countries we met with recently were lukewarm at the outset but have since come on side on the issue.
Initially, they thought we wanted to take control of the fishing, but we know that it is not ours to control unless we want to argue ownership of the seabed and the Law of the Sea, although we are using all of these elements. Generally, we can exert a great deal of control in the NAFO zone but only in order to protect the stocks for us and for them, provided they fish by, and obey, the rules and regulations.
We have an organization that is halfway there in that it only needs to be strengthened. I could be wrong in that. However people such as Mr. Murray and Mr. Bevan, who have been involved directly with NAFO for a long time, could give you a different answer. From my observations, I think that we could make NAFO the kind of organization that could do the job more quickly and more easily than the creation of a new organization could do. However, saying that you will do something and getting the international cooperation to do it are two entirely different processes.
Senator Campbell: Thank you for coming, minister. I have always been impressed with your background and knowledge in this area.
There has been much concern over the future of independent owner-operator fishers and the fishing communities mainly on the Atlantic coast. That problem is with us on the West Coast as well. We watched on the West Coast what happened on the East Coast, and it scared us. There was some consideration of action to strengthen the protection for owner-operators. Where does that sit in respect of the bigger West Coast fishery?
Mr. Hearn: Certainly that is a very pertinent issue. I was in Newfoundland last week and at one of the meetings that we had with union representatives, they raised the same issue. They did not want to have happen in Newfoundland what happened on the West Coast, so I am not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg. Many of the fishermen affected are dependent on the fishery and the organizations and talk about fleet separation and owner-operators. I think that is the way it should be.
For some reason, people have a misconception of who owns what. The fish are owned by the people of Canada. You can fish a particular amount each year provided you are licensed. You may know people who have licences and not know how they qualified, and you are probably right. However, if you check further you will probably find that it was an under-the-table deal. ``I bought the licence because I had lots of money, but I did not have a fishing licence. He had a licence but no money, so I bought the licence and gave it to him. Everyone thinks he is the fisherman, but I call the shots.'' That is the sort of scenario, but it is not right because the people who depend on the fishery are not benefiting.
We are trying to clean up that situation. Our firm belief is that the person who owns the licence, the fisherman who has a licence, should be the one who fishes the resource. He should be the one benefiting from the resource. The skipper should be in the boat and not down in Florida phoning home orders to several people who operate boats that he owns. That sort of scenario has caused quite a complicated situation on both coasts. It is twice as difficult to undo things that have been done; there are complications. Our commitment is to clean up the industry for those who depend on it, and we will study our options to do that.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: Thank you very much, Minister, for joining us. I come from the Lac-Saint-Jean region. I have friends, both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal, who live along the North Shore of the St. Lawrence and who are familiar with the situation of crab fishing in Sept-Îles and in other North Shore communities.
In 2005, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council proposed to the department a strategic framework for the conservation of Atlantic crab. In brief, I believe the strategy called for the establishment of a scientific council for the study of Atlantic crab.
The strategy further called for greater involvement on the part of users and fishers, as well as for an independent body comprised of third parties, to promote not only conservation, but also resource distribution and the allocation of designated fishing areas.
I want to know if you approve overall of this strategic framework proposed in 2005.
[English]
Mr. Hearn: Not only did we set up the crab strategy, we are undergoing a similar process with regard to shrimp because of recommendations that had been made. I will let Mr. Murray or Mr. Bevan fill in many of the details.
Crab, which became our lucrative resource following the collapse of the groundfish stocks, was like everything else: we could never get enough. When prices hit $2.50 a pound, some people did extremely well. We could have destroyed another resource; we almost did in some areas.
This year, we have operated on the best advice we could get from councils, scientists and also the fishermen at hand. The first thing we consider is conservation. We have this argument with fishing groups who are not happy with some of the cuts we made, but it is only on the surface. When speaking with them, they are as concerned about conservation as we are because it is their future, their livelihood for tomorrow.
We made some hard and fast decisions with regard to crab fishing this year, not only regarding the quota but in relation to opening and closing dates. Last year, there were areas where the season ran so long that we encountered what is called soft-shell crab. A lot had to be thrown away, destroying this year's resource. This year, we opened the season early, but set an early closing date. Everyone was extremely upset, believing that they could not catch enough fish during that period. In almost every case, they did. Not only did they catch the crab, it was prime quality, and there was little waste.
In relation to the rest of the observations, Mr. Bevan, you may want to add more detail.
[Translation]
Mr. David Bevan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: We received a report from the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, along with some recommendations that we will implement. However, I am not familiar with the specifics of the snow crab fishery on Quebec's North Shore, and therefore I cannot provide you with any details.
Senator Gill: As a matter of fact, I wanted to know whether the biggest crab fishery was on the North Shore or somewhere else.
Mr. Bevan: Previously, there was snow crab fishing on Quebec's North Shore in zone 13, but unfortunately the snow crab population has declined considerably, to the point where there are no longer any snow crab to be found in that area. Fishers were forced to look elsewhere and now, they are fishing in zone 16. I would also add that opportunities to fish for snow crab are not plentiful.
Senator Gill: Could you tell me where zones 13 and 16 are located? Is Sept-Îles part of zone 13?
Mr. Bevan: Zone 13 is between Blanc-Sablon and Sept-Îles.
Mr. Murray: Let me say one more thing about this report from the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, because it was truly an excellent report. The department would like the Council to take similar action, that is to prepare a strategic report on the lobster fishery.
Senator Gill: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chairman: I want to ask a supplementary question about the Hawk Channel. It was established as a protected zone, I understand, so that trawl gear for shrimp would be somehow hampered from destroying the crab breeding grounds. I would like a report on that. Is the zone being enforced and is that making a difference?
Mr. Hearn: It is. It has been enforced and it is making a difference, and there were two different areas. However, some concerns were raised with us last week by the fishermen themselves. They heard that the shrimpers were looking for a smaller zone. They wanted to further close the loophole. They object to that and we do, too. There are lots of areas to catch shrimp but crab grounds are limited. Our intent will be to preserve the grounds for the crab fishermen. It is difficult to think that crab can exist if shrimp gear is towed over the bottom. It is a good area and it is our intention not to diminish the size of the zone.
Senator Johnson: Welcome, minister. I intend to change from one ocean to the other and ask you about the freshwater fishery in Canada. I know you have only been minister for a mere 100 days, but have you had a chance to review the state of the freshwater fishery?
As you know, I come from Gimli, on Lake Winnipeg, where the fishery is really challenged right now, as I think it is in some other freshwater lakes, for a number of reasons. Our problem is particularly interesting because of the Devils Lake issue, which I am sure you are aware of as well.
We are facing the prospect of a number of invasive species which have not been determined, so the whole thing has been stalled for the moment. Could you comment on that situation and tell me what you think of the future plans in this regard?
I do not know if you know Dr. David Schindler. He is a freshwater fish expert out of the University of Alberta. He is an expert on the freshwater lakes and fisheries in Canada — and in the world, actually. He was saying that our lake is dying, like Lake Erie was. That is very distressing. Can you comment?
Mr. Hearn: I have heard that comment from some of our own members. I also met with the Minister of Fisheries from Manitoba, as I have met with practically all fisheries ministers across the country. I have been in most of the areas personally. I have not been to Lake Winnipeg yet, but I have committed to the minister and to a number of our own members to go there as soon as the House rises. The Manitoba minister and I have had lengthy discussions on Lake Winnipeg, as have my officials.
With a lake as big as that, with such a diverse fishery, you get the developments that occur relating to that fishery, plus you have the concerns that go with farmland, other rivers, pollution and invasive species — which, by the way, have become a major concern and a challenge. In some cases it may be an opportunity, because today we are catching, marketing and making money on a lot of species that we did not either deal with or have access to 20 years ago.
When we used to fish ourselves — and I am sure Senator Rompkey remembers this — when you hauled in your gillnets for codfish, you would have crab tangled up in the net. At that time, you were trying to crush it and throw it away because it was worthless. Now, it is the other way around.
A couple of years ago, people from Prince Edward Island were here presenting to our committee. One of the invasive species they talked about was green crab, which had overrun parts of their area. When the premier came up to Ottawa a while ago, we were talking about the same thing. They have discovered that there is a market for that green crab in Russia, and the price seems to be quite good. We are now in the process of endorsing a small fishery for green crab. I told them, by the way, Senator Rompkey, that they would probably have a good market on George Street on St. Patrick's Day.
The point is, in relation to invasive species, you do not always know what will happen down the road. On the other hand, you have things such as the zebra mussel and different bass in the Great Lakes. They are destructive species and the markets are not good.
One concern I have in relation to Manitoba generally, or to the freshwater fisheries, is that we are seeing a split in support for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board.
Senator Johnson: There has been a long history of that.
Mr. Hearn: The people of Manitoba seem to support it. The people of Saskatchewan, who depend on it, want to get rid of it. It is difficult, as you go from good times to bad times — even within species — or you get someone developing a niche market, you will get those who want to opt out. That can do damage to those who are left. To give them an open forum, I have asked our standing committee to look at dealing with that situation. That might be something that this committee will run into, because those concerned have not had the chance to express their opinions openly. I will meet with them individually, but they thought that appearing before a standing committee might be a good way to kick ideas around.
Senator Hubley: Virtually all of this committee's discussions in recent years have focused, in one aspect or another, on the question of sufficient resources going into research and development. There certainly was a concern on behalf of some of our witnesses that the resources for scientific research were declining, as were those for stock assessment.
Could you comment on that situation? I believe there is a real concern; that it is more important as we get into more complex marine issues than it has been in the past.
Mr. Hearn: You are right about the concern for a lack of science, not only here in Canada. Over the last few years I have met with and talked to leaders and fisheries ministers in several countries. I have yet to find one who said he or she was satisfied with the amount of scientific work.
The ocean is a big place. We just talked about Lake Winnipeg. We know very little about what is going on in that lake, or in the Great Lakes. We know less about what is going on in the ocean. We would want to have a tremendous amount of money to solve the problem. However, that does not mean that we should not know at least something about the resources involved. We should know about the stocks we catch that provide an opportunity for our people to make a living.
We have had a major increase in our budget this year. Again, I always thank both standing committees for the push they help us put on Parliament. Forget governments; if you do not get support across the board, you do not get things done. I think our committee has created an interest in the fishery that had not been seen across the country for some time, and the budget has responded.
Two or three things stand out: Certainly, one was the report we did on the Coast Guard, which resulted in a great deal of extra money going into the Coast Guard. As we move ahead in the next few weeks and months, you will see a long-term plan to revive the Coast Guard for all the right reasons.
Our report on infrastructure brought an immediate $100 million into the budget for small craft harbours. The report on overfishing has done wonders to attract attention, not only here but nationally and internationally. On science, the complaints we all had about the lack of science resulted in a commitment by government to put more money into science and research.
The only thing I would sound a note of caution on is that sometimes we use money as an excuse. ``What can we do? We did not get any money.'' However, a lot of science can be obtained without spending fortunes. There are many people on the ocean or on the lake every day with knowledge that scientists would take years to acquire; knowledge that we have not been able to garner and properly use. One thing we have been trying to do this year, in the short time since we have been up and running, is to take what scientific advice we have and the hypotheses we can set and test or compare those to what the people in the boat actually see. That is something we will certainly follow up on during the fall as will. We had an issue this evening over setting an allocation in a certain area where the scientific advice and the local observations over a period of time differed tremendously. When you talk to our scientists, they will say ``In some areas we feel confident but there are areas where, for whatever reason, we just cannot get a good handle on the situation.'' Such areas require numerous advice options before a reasonable decision can be made. However, if you are not sure, that is all the more reason to follow it carefully into next year to ensure you do not make a mistake.
Overall, we need more scientific work in the area, although I am seeing more, not only through local investment but also through the industry, that is contributing heavily to the scientific work. We have companies that fund scientific research in respect of the state of certain fish stocks because they understand what we need if we are to keep our plants open. ``We think there is more herring, so we are satisfied to fund a study with you so that your scientists or independent scientists can find that out.'' Scientists at Memorial University are doing a great job, and Dalhousie University has always been front and centre in respect of fisheries research. We have not often packaged those efforts.
Last fall, we arranged for members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries to meet in Newfoundland on the issue of northern cod. We heard presentations from everyone who could be connected in any way, including independent scientists, departmental officials, fishermen, community activists, et al. A presentation by one social scientist at Memorial University blew me out of the water. She had an amazing handle on the history of the stock and the effect on the community. It was unbelievable. I asked her what she did with her information and she replied that it was published in scientific journals, but if someone in the community where they were doing research was interested in the information, she would share it with them. Immediately, I wondered how many fellows in Bacalao were reading a scientific journal. Much of the information that we pay for indirectly never gets to us, but perhaps that is our own fault, for the most part. Do we need more science? Yes, absolutely we do, and we would be happy if senators were to recommend more funding for scientific research.
Senator Hubley: I would like to underline Senator Comeau's comment on community quotas. We heard from some very telling witnesses such as the mayors of Prince Rupert, Harbour Breton, Canso and Lunenburg. They gave us a first-hand view of what happens in the community when a fisheries goes down, or when the fishery no longer processes in the community. We have been able to gather much information on the health of our rural fishing communities, where we would like to see improved prosperity over the next while.
Mr. Hearn: I live three miles from a place called Fermeuse, which once had a year-round deep-sea fish processing plant that no longer operates. I represented a place called Trepassy, which Senator Johnson knows well, where there was a year-round plant that operated on double-shift, with 600 people employed. The plant closed and the area became a ghost town overnight. It is the same story in Harbour Breton, although the results were not as severe in one sense, or perhaps more so because it is more isolated.
Some people say that the quota should go to the community and then these terrible companies could not simply close the plant and walk away when they choose to do so. That is great in an ideal world. If we were to have the old quotas for flatfish and groundfish, which used to keep the plants operating so that everyone had a share, then tomorrow, the next day and evermore we would know what we have and we could continue to operate. If I were to decide to move to China, my quota could not go with me and would have to stay in the community. That works until there is a cut, such as we saw when the groundfish collapsed, and it is reduced from 100 per cent to 1 per cent, resulting in many processing plants having nothing to process. When the quota of flatfish went down 50 per cent, it meant that each community was reduced by 50 per cent and thus not viable. Therefore by moving its quota from one community to another, thereby doubling the 50 per cent, the company,could keep at least one operation going. These are the hard and fast decisions that have to be made, and none of them is easy to make. However, if the industry is managed properly then as many communities as possible should be able to survive, provided every ounce, inch and cent that we can squeeze out of that resource is done so for the benefit of the people. We have wasted a great deal of product over the years, and we are still doing it.
The Chairman: I would like to follow up with a supplementary question on resources in terms of personnel within the department. I am thinking of river guardians, particularly, and Labrador, where we have been able to build a road across. That is a benefit to trade but it is opening up many salmon rivers and streams to much more traffic. If we are not careful, we will have serious problems on our hands. Therefore, we must have some protection and we must have some enforcement. Have we had, or are we likely to see, an increase in personnel for that purpose?
Mr. Hearn: Two things are happening in that area: First, when I came to the department, there was a plan to cut some river guardians, but we put a hold on that and kept them in place, although we cannot afford it. We have made the decision that any extra resources we could muster would have to go to the front line personnel. Second, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are working in conjunction with the province. Last year, mainly out of desperation, the province put a great deal of money into provincial guardians that it placed on many of the rivers. This was done with some coordination or consultation, but not much of it. Duplication occurred and it did not come together.
This year, the department and the province are working together to coordinate the activities but that might be construed as unfair by some people because, in reality, the department is responsible for the rivers so why should the province have to participate? There are two reasons for that? First, the province reaps a fair revenue from the sale of licence fees, so it is only right that the province participate in the guardianship. Provided the province puts money back in, then certainly it can work. It has worked well in this case and so the premier is delighted with the joint effort. I think you will see this in a number of areas, and the same thing is true for the West Coast. If we need more, then we will have to concentrate it on the front line.
It is terrible to think that our own people destroy the very resource we are trying to protect for them, but it is so true. Why do we need monitors, observers and black boxes on boats? If people would live by the rules, then they would avoid all that expense and we would avoid all the trouble. We are not there yet, so we will continue to do what we can do to ensure that there is enforcement.
The Chairman: That almost leads us into joint management, minister, but I will not ask you about that.
Mr. Hearn: I said that there were two reasons, the first being the agreement I just spoke to, and the second, which is part of my mandate letter, is to strengthen the opportunity for management of the resource with the provinces. We are not talking necessarily joint management. Any province that I have talked to about it will say no to that because they know that joint management means joint responsibility for costs. As much as I love my province and you love it, to think that we could manage the offshore fishery with what we have right now is notrealistic. Perhaps it will be so in the future but certainly not now. As well, there would be the complications with the other provinces.
However, sharing management ideas is good, as we just talked about in working together to manage the fishery on the river. In fact, much of our activities in British Columbia are done in consultation with the province. We are working with the ministers in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and I have met with the minister in Quebec and talked to him several times on different ideas. We talked about getting more involved, sharing in some of the decisions and supporting each other wherever we can.
Senator Adams: Even though you are a minister, I know that you are familiar with things that are happening up to Nunavut. I know you have seen some of the people appearing before your committee in the House of Commons.
In Nunavut, although they settled the land claim, the fisheries have not really been set up properly. One of the issues there concerns foreigners coming to Canada to fish. As a Canadian fishing vessel, you have to meet a specified Transport Canada standard. However, in Nunavut now, it is mostly foreigners who are coming up there to take our fish quotas in OA and OB, when they are inspected by Transport Canada. We should hire people from Nunavut to do that. People there are concerned that some of the ships that have been passed through inspection are not Canadian vessels, even though they have flown Canadian flags. They are not really fit for fishing in the waters up there in Nunavut because of the weather conditions, especially the ice.
The second issue concerns the 2,500-ton turbot quotas for the OA. Usually, the quota goes to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and it is supposed to come back to people in the communities, but it does not work that way. Right now, Baffin Fisheries Coalition and Nunavut Wildlife Management Board control all of the quotas for Nunavut, except for perhaps three communities which have some quota allocated to them directly. I believe Pond Lake got 45 tons, Clyde River got 45 tons and Broughton Island got 330 tons. BFC took back the quotas from the communities, which only receives money for the quotas.
Broughton Island now has a partnership with a hunters and trappers organization in the community and they have a partnership with the people from Newfoundland. They asked for the extra 330-ton quotas, but they cannot get it. The only one getting it now is the Royal Greenland fishery. They have two ships, one dragging for shrimp.
Also, following the settlement of the land claim, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board was awarded the fishing licence up there for the future of the people in the community. Those people want to get into business but they cannot get a licence. Royal Greenland, which has a licence for 4,000 metric tons, got a license to catch the Nunavut quota. To me, Nunavut quotas for fish should be given out to the communities in Nunavut, but right now they are not.
Three or four days ago, there was a whole page in the Nunatsiaq News about local guys wanting to get into the business. They went to the Nunavut government, who told them, ``We are not helping you. Get out of here; we are going to support BFC.'' The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should work together with the people up there; that is what the land claim was for.
I can show you here a chart on who controls the fisheries in Nunavut: The green colour represents foreigners who are involved. Some of the directors have no control, and there is nothing coming to the community, except perhaps when BFC gives out some money to a few people in the community to get into business.
Our long-term livelihood comes from fishing offshore, just like it does for people down in Newfoundland. We wanted to do something after we settled the land claim, but we cannot do anything. The way the quota and licence system works right now, people from Canada who want to get into business cannot get anything. Right now, we have three vessels and the quota is only 330 tons. Last year, we asked for another 1,000 tons and we did not even get reply back. That is the way the system works right now.
Mr. Hearn: Certainly, Senator Adams, I fully appreciate what you are saying. It is an issue on which we have spent a lot of time. During our last couple of years on the standing committee, this issue was raised three or four times. I do not think that we or the House of Commons standing committee have seen the last of it. I have a feeling it will be one of the issues they will take up again this year.
We have had three or four major meetings already since I have been minister here on this issue. When I spoke earlier, I talked about the opportunities and challenges in the North. For those who are not aware, the turbot stocks off Nunavut are rich, tremendous and increasing; one of the few good fisheries we have left. This year, we increased the stock quotas by 2,500 metric tons, and all of it went to Nunavut. Nunavut controls all the turbot in OA.
However, Nunavut, as I mentioned, has one small fish plant that has trouble even accessing the resource, and no infrastructure whatsoever to be able to land or fish. In other words, the fish are basically sold in the water, with royalties given to the community to help it develop. That money should be helping to develop infrastructure so that the people could eventually use the resource. Some of it is; some of it is not.
Maybe I should quickly try to explain what happens. The Government of Nunavut distributes the quotas to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. They are in charge of distributing quotas. In past years, almost all of those quotas have gone to a group called the Baffin Fisheries Coalition, which is made up of the agencies from a number of communities. They, in turn, do a deal with a ``Canadian'' boat. It is a boat flagged by the Department of Transport, which qualifies to fly a Canadian flag. A large component of the crew should be Canadian. They will argue that they have a number of Inuit working with them. However, that is not always the case. Some people have tried, but it is a different style of life and many people do not stay there.
There are a number of very questionable things going on. However, in lieu of that, if you talked to the people directly involved, they would say, ``What are the options? We do not see too many people lining up.''
It is unfortunate that we do not have a map, but for boats from the island or Labrador to go up to OA, fish turbot and steam back down again — a week up and a week back — is not economically viable. The boats that fish the turbot land in Greenland. Most of it is under Danish, Greenland or Icelandic control, and they are the ones who really benefit, to a large extent, from the resource.
We are well aware and my mission statement was developed for the people of Canada and by the people of Canada as such. Until some mechanism can be put in place and until we get people lining up — I understand now there is at least one company looking to get involved with the Inuit in the area — to develop the resource, we either say ``Nobody fishes it'' or ``At least you are getting royalties with which you can help develop your communities.''
The season has just started and we did not have time to put everything on hold to try to iron out the details, but it is an issue that we have not overlooked at all. I feel very much as you do. We must get more benefit for the people adjacent to that resource.
The Chairman: Are there no royalties?
Mr. Hearn: Yes, and this is part of the problem. The people who run the Baffin Fisheries Coalition will tell you that the best deal they have offered in relation to benefits to the communities, royalties, employment of crew, et cetera, is from the people to whom they sell the fish. A lot of people would like to have the fish but they do not want to pay for it. Therefore you get all of this in the mix. Somewhere in there is the truth; it might be quite obvious. Too many people are concerned in thinking that it is the perfect situation.
Senator, this year the Wildlife Management Board is not putting all their eggs in one basket. They are distributing the resource so that others might see some benefit this year.
Senator Adams: No.
Mr. Hearn: You do not think so?
Senator Adams: Right now, that is why I asked you. It has not been released yet.
Mr. Hearn: That is what I am talking about.
Senator Adams: Right now people, are applying for the quota and it is still in the office. Nothing is there.
I am concerned about royalties. Why do you no longer have royalties since we settled the land claim in Nunavut? We are living in the territory; we used to have our royalties. Something I have found out in the last four years is that companies have given out so much to get the quotas, and they get the quotas from the communities. We found out that those three communities, Clyde, Pond Inlet and Broughton Island, had a contract from Clearwater. But there were never royalties.
I tried to find the royalty that was supposed to go back to the community. I do not know where it went. Maybe it went to Indian Affairs, but it did not get to our community. Since we have settled land claims, we do not have royalties coming into Nunavut. If there is somebody collecting that royalty, I do not know who it is.
Mr. Hearn: We met with the Baffin Fisheries Coalition some time ago, when I was attending the Boston seafood show. It is my belief that there are millions of dollars in royalties going through the Baffin Fishing Coalition, supposedly distributed to different communities for whatever reason, including the development of infrastructure. We can get that detailed for you, but I know we are talking about millions of dollars.
Senator Adams: Where does the royalty come from? Is it from DFO or Indian Affairs?
Mr. Hearn: When they acquired the vessels they are using, the deal was lease-to-buy. Apparently, some of that money is going towards the purchase of the vessels, which they will own, and the rest of the money is distributed to the participating communities within the coalition.
Senator Adams: I think I can give one example where it did not go to the FTO. One community in Clyde, three or four months ago, received $35,000. Every household got $230. It is not going to the fishery.
The Chairman: Senator Watt?
Senator Watt: I think Senator Adams made himself well understood by the minister. First of all, I would like to welcome you, minister. I was encouraged when you were outlining your vision and what should be happening to our troubled waters and fish.
I will restrict myself to scientific issues only. I know that one of our senators has highlighted the need for scientific work, and you have mentioned that that is one area in which we have not done well in the past, for a number of years.
Over the last five to seven years, I have noticed changes in species that are appearing in our waters, and in our river systems. On the western side of Ungava Bay we have three salmon rivers. There is one that used to be called the George River, and another one there is Kuujjuaq. In any event, these are three major rivers. In the last five to seven years, new species are coming in which are unfamiliar to me, and unfamiliar to a lot of people. Those rivers used to be full of Atlantic salmon. Today, the Atlantic salmon is not much to speak of in that river system. We are seeing a huge salmon that we have not seen before, and it is multiplying. This started about seven years ago and it is becoming more noticeable, year after year, and the numbers are increasing rapidly. The only similar species that I have seen is the King salmon, so that means that those King salmon, if they are King salmon, are coming from somewhere.
One of the contributing factors to why we are getting those different species coming into our river system is that that river system has been diverted to James Bay. The quality of the water is not the same any more and the depth of the water is not the same. It is more shallow, and therefore warmer water. I guess the fish have a way of finding their own way to climb into the river system if it is acceptable to them. In other words, one day it might have been cold and during that peak time when the fish were migrating along the coast, they happened to spot the river system that was going from the mainland to Ungava Bay. Those salmon could have been attracted by the heat, and that could be the explanation as to why they are coming in large numbers.
That is one example. There are some other new species coming in that we have never seen before. You are probably aware that people talk about climate change, and in my area it is not only the water system that is changing; the vegetation is also going wild. The permafrost is disappearing and that is having an impact on the different stocks in the water system. Unless we make an attempt to harness what is happening and begin to monitor it, all of that information will be lost. We will never know why the shift occurred and why different species are coming in. We need to take it seriously, and move toward harnessing the changes by putting scientists in place to begin monitoring those activities.
In my view, it is most important that the department place scientists on site so they can monitor and report, to let us know precisely what is happening.
Mr. Hearn: Thank you, senator. You raised a good point but your story has been told by others — not in regard to the same species, but similar activities in other regions. We are seeing species new to regions, not only in the rivers but also in the oceans; our pelagics, in particular.
This past weekend, I was in discussion with some people who are heavily involved with science and the fisheries. They talked about the mackerel this year that seem to be going farther north than ever before. Why is that? A change in the water temperature is about the only thing that we know that could cause that.
It looks as though it will be a good year on the Fraser River and we are trying to do everything we can to ensure that it is a peaceful year, too. We believe that it will produce a great return and our scientists say that it is happening because something is going on in the ocean that no one can explain. Salmon are not showing up in the same great numbers as before, despite the fact that returns can always be predicted fairly regularly. Certainly, water temperatures are changing.
We have been monitoring off St. John's Harbour in Newfoundland. Over the last 10 years, the water temperature has warmed by roughly four degrees, which is significant. People tell me that the migration patterns of fish can change with a change of one half degree in temperature.
We know so little about what is happening, senator. You are right to suggest that we need to get at the issue first and follow it through so that we understand what we are dealing with.
Senator Watt: I would like to raise an important issue in respect of animal protectionists who have a tendency to manipulate and put pressure on governments and others in authority to take action in certain areas, where normally they would not do so. The harp seal is one species that competes with humans in that regard, especially in our area of Nunavik, Nunavut and Labrador. Unless we make a strong attempt to stick by the policy and not be affected by the animal rights groups and Greenpeace, the harp seal population will explode. We need to help the fish stocks survive, to ensure the continuation of the species, but if we not reduce the number of harp seals, the stocks will not grow according to the predictions. I wanted to mention that, although I know you are well aware of the issue.
Mr. Hearn: That is the kind of issue we need to raise more often in that very way. It is not simply a matter of people needing to hunt seals to survive, although this year I would suggest to you that there are many families home today in Newfoundland and Labrador who would not be there if we had not had a seal fishery this year. The herd needs to be controlled. I have seen caribou herds over-populate and self destruct because they had destroyed their habitat and, thereby, ended up diseased. The same thing could happen to the seals because they do need to eat something. A former friend of ours, Morrissey Johnson, who was a great seal captain, said, ``I do not know what they eat but they do not eat turnips.'' Seals eat fish. Today, we see seals in our harbours, in our salmon rivers and going up the rivers. Certainly, that is a bad sign.
We have no intention of catering to or kowtowing to the activists in any way. We respect their right to speak out but they are doing it for the wrong reasons. We will continue with the seal hunt, as long as the herd is healthy, for the benefit of our people, our stocks and the seal herd. We are not backing away from any challenges; you need never worry about that.
The Chairman: Minister, thank you for appearing this evening. We hope this is only the first meeting of more with you. You mentioned that your House of Commons Committee on Fisheries made recommendations to effect changes. This committee hopes to do the same. We hope that you will consider us an ally in that sense and visit with us again.
Mr. Hearn: If there are issues where we can help, please feel free to contact any of us.
The committee adjourned.