Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 1 - Evidence - December 6, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 6, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 10:47 a.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. Topic: Arctic Study.
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to call the meeting to order and introduce myself and some members of the committee. I am Senator Rompkey. We have Senator Comeau, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and former chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans; Senator Peterson from Saskatchewan representing Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island today; Senator Cowan from Nova Scotia; and Senator Adams from Nunavut. Senator Adams has more knowledge than any of us. He has forgotten more than any of us ever knew about the Arctic and its possibilities, potentials and problems.
We welcome officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who are our first guests as we begin our study of the Arctic.
We decided that we will focus our attention on the Arctic. We plan to travel there, but before that, we have to become knowledgeable. We have to ask questions of the people who know what is happening, so we know what questions to ask when we go. We want to hear from the people who Senator Adams represents.
We are mindful of the Prime Minister's statements that we either use the Arctic or lose the Arctic. People have lived in the Arctic for thousands of years. They have used it and have not lost it yet, and it is our intention to keep it primarily for the people who live there.
Therefore, some of our questioning will be along the following lines: How can we enhance the lives of the people who live in the Arctic so they can better use it to their advantage and to the advantage of Canada? We will be mindful of the fact that we need to focus on research and resource availability and infrastructure. We will also be mindful that the Coast Guard comes under Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO. An important line of questioning, therefore, will be how we exercise sovereignty over the marine resource and the waters that surround that part of Canada.
Before proceeding, earlier I neglected to introduce Senator Robichaud, from New Brunswick, who is also very knowledgeable about fisheries as he is a former minister.
I welcome the witnesses and would ask Mr. Bevan to introduce the people who have accompanied him this morning.
David Bevan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Aquaculture Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will turn it over to Wendy Watson-Wright to introduce the group, and she will speak first.
Wendy Watson-Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In addition to Mr. Bevan, on my left is Savithri Narayanan, Dominion Hydrographer and Director General, Ocean Sciences-Canadian Hydrographic Service; and on the far right is Sylvain Paradis, Director General of Ecosystem Science, within the science sector of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
I have a presentation that I believe has been handed out in two official languages. I propose to run through our science activities in the North, after which Mr. Bevan will speak, as you had requested. We will then be open to questions.
The presentation is entitled, DFO and the Northern Strategy. I thank you for the opportunity to come to the committee today to discuss the science activities DFO is undertaking in the North. I need not tell anyone here that the North will be critical in the future, certainly in terms of climate change, and that scientific study in the North is particularly challenging for a number of reasons. We are all pleased to know that there is definitely an appetite within Canada to know more about what is happening in the North, and we welcome this opportunity.
I will say that this is very high level, just to give you a broad overview. We would be happy to come back at any time if you wish to investigate further any of our activities, but I intend to keep the presentation high level.
Within the science program, we support the three strategic objectives of the department: Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, healthy and productive aquatic ecosystems and safe and accessible waterways. The activities we undertake in the North are in support of each of these three objectives.
As I mentioned, enabling scientific efforts in the Arctic presents unique challenges that we do not face on the other coasts. In remote locations, the weather impacts on our abilities, and the costs, of course, are much higher in the Arctic than they are on the East Coast or West Coast.
I was glad to hear the chair mention the Canadian Coast Guard. We depend heavily on the Canadian Coast Guard fleet and its helicopters to allow us to undertake our activities in the North, as we do on the polar continental shelf under Natural Resources Canada, NRCan,as well as the local communities.
I will provide some highlights. A few years back, we created a centre of expertise called the National Centre for Arctic Aquatic Research Excellence, N-CAARE. This is a virtual centre that brings together all of our Arctic scientists in the country within DFO. It allows us to better coordinate our efforts to use the expertise, no matter which region it resides in, and to better connect with the outside. It is located at the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg. Having that in place has allowed the department to coordinate very effectively in anticipation of International Polar Year, which I will speak to in a moment.
For the sustainable fisheries and aquaculture objective, we undertake stock assessments for marine mammals and freshwater fish that are harvested both for subsistence and commercial purposes. Recently, we have developed a new ecosystem science framework in support of integrated management, which we would be happy to speak to and to share with you should you so wish. We find that this approach is integral to an increasing number of our science activities as we go.
We undertake science in support of species at risk and aquatic invasive species. To date, we are not doing aquatic invasive species work in the North, and we would like to keep it that way because we do not want this to become an issue such as it has become in the Great Lakes and on the East and West coasts. As well, we know that the increased demand for resource development in the North requires us to undertake studies on the impact of the development, such as the Mackenzie gas pipeline, for example.
I mentioned that the Arctic is becoming increasingly significant as an ecosystem to study because it represents a critical component of the global climate system. Much of our work is on the role of oceans in the global climate system and, within that, we look at the potential or predicted impacts of climate variability and change. The North is telling us that it is happening there first and that we need to pay attention.
On the safe and accessible waterways objective, as the potential for marine transportation increases in the Arctic, there will be a requirement for up-to-date navigational charts to ensure safe and accessible waterways. Accordingly, we are dedicated to updating and expanding the tools and services delivered by the Canadian Hydrographic Service in the Arctic.
Finally, in terms of Canada's claim under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, DFO has been working closely with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and with NRCan in terms of mapping the ocean floor and trying to delimit the edges of the continental shelf so that Canada will have a strong claim to extend jurisdiction.
Moving on, International Polar Year, IPY, occurs every 50 years, and this is the fourth one. It is certainly unique. It is an intensive international program of coordinated research and observations that focuses on both polar regions. It runs for two years. The emphasis is supposed to be on the Arctic this year and on the Antarctic next year, but it is on both polar regions for both years. The program involves more than 60 countries and numerous researchers. Canada has led the way and was the first to announce an investment of $150 million over six years for the IPY activities. Part of that was gearing up, and part of it will be gearing back down. Clearly, the scientists and the northerners are excited about this.
This committee should know that there are two foci for International Polar Year. One is on climate change and variability and the second is on the impacts on the human population of the North. It was Canada that introduced this to the International Polar Year group of countries. We feel this is essential, and Canada should be proud for having introduced it.
Within IPY, DFO science is leading on six of the International Polar Year science projects. They are listed on the slide before the committee, and I will not go through them now but, certainly, I can speak to some of it.
If you would like to have details, certainly Ms. Narayanan and Mr. Paradis can speak to some of it. Also, having the researchers themselves come in — those who are not currently in the Arctic — you might find interesting. If you want more information on IPY, their website has two-pagers for each of the projects, which are very instructive.
We are happy to provide you some details. We are leading on six projects and participating in seven others. We have had a very successful summer field season on board the icebreakers and using the Polar Continental Shelf Project camp-base programs.
We were able to undertake community tours to talk about the scientific details. That is a requirement under IPY. Within DFO Science, our scientists are fairly used to working with communities and have had a number of consultations.
On the current activities, I already mentioned the observation period. Our scientists were out, and many of them are back now. They are analyzing data and preparing for next year's field season. Some of our researchers will spend time in the field in the winter, and I know they are very excited about that.
There was a question about the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study, CFL, led by Dave Barber from the University of Manitoba. We are heavily involved in that project. It is the largest project in terms of resources and in the entire International Polar Year now.
The Chair: Can you tell us something about what that is? It may not mean much to us if we do not know what it is.
Ms. Watson-Wright: Over a nine-month period, the study will look at the flaw lead. The flaw lead is an area of ice- free water where the ice pack will move in and out. Ms. Narayanan will speak a bit more to it, if you like. The flaw lead creates unique ecosystems. The feeling is that by studying this flaw lead, it will allow us to understand a great deal of what is happening in the North.
Ms. Narayanan, would you like to add something at this point?
The Chair: We need to know what ``flaw lead'' means, because I am not entirely clear. We know what flaws are in Parliament.
Savithri Narayanan, Dominion Hydrographer, Director General, Ocean Sciences — Canadian Hydrographic Service, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Basically, there is land-fast ice and sea ice. When the two separate, the result is open water. When this area is fully ice-covered, the meteorological effect does not penetrate as much into the water because ice protects the water. However, when opening is present, the meteorological effects penetrate the water column. Hence, there is quite a bit of oceanographic and biological activity in this area, and it is critical for the ecosystem in the Arctic.
This particular study is to take Amundsen, one of the vessels, to the Arctic, and study the formation of the leads; what happens during the open and the freezing seasons. It is a start-to-end survey.
During this period, scientists will be on board taking measurements on the meteorology, water properties and biology — the full suite of parameters we need to measure — to understand the formation and the impact of this. It is a very large project, involving ten teams. University and federal government employees are working together to study this.
Ms. Watson-Wright: In addition to the science programs, International Polar Year is also looking at training and outreach. They have put out a call recently on the communications and outreach, so we expect to be seeing even more about that.
ArcticNet has played an important role. ArcticNet is one of the tri-councils, the tri-granting councils, Networks of Centres of Excellence. By tri-councils, I mean the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
ArcticNet was put together a number of years ago. It was through ArcticNet that the Canadian Foundation for Innovation invested in refitting what is now the Amundsen, which is the vessel we see so often on television. They have done a tremendous job, I would say.
We are heavily involved in ArcticNet. I sit on the ArcticNet board of directors, which happens to be meeting next week, not in the North, but in Collingwood, Ontario. We are also on the board for the Amundsen and for coordinating what transpires. Dave Barber, who leads the CFL, is also one of the principal investigators in ArcticNet. That network has done a very good job in the science, of course, but also bringing the science to Canadians and beyond.
The Chair: Is ArcticNet a granting council, like the other three?
Ms. Watson-Wright: No. It is not a council. It is a Network of Centres of Excellence. A number of years ago, the three councils established this program. I do not know how many there are now. I was involved with another program — and Ms. Narayanan continues to be — called Geomatics for Informed Decisions, GEOIDE. There used to be a program on aquaculture research. We can gather that material for you.
The Chair: How is it funded?
Ms. Watson-Wright: It is funded through the tri-councils.
The Chair: Do the other three councils give funds to ArcticNet?
Ms. Watson-Wright: ArcticNet has received $26 million over a number of years; I am not sure how many years. Currently, they are funded to 2010. They have had a successful mid-term review and would hope to extend that. The original funding is usually for seven years, and then there is an opportunity to have funding for another seven years.
The Chair: Who can apply? Can local groups apply to ArcticNet? Who is eligible to access the money?
Ms. Watson-Wright: In ArcticNet itself?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Watson-Wright: The researchers; it is part of the Networks of Centres of Excellence. One of the projects, for example, in International Polar Year, is also working through ArcticNet on the Amundsen, and that is the Inuit Health Survey. On the human side of things, the ship is being used to go from community to community to survey the health of the Inuit people.
The projects are very carefully peer-reviewed and applied. A number of universities are involved. We do not receive funding from ArcticNet, but we certainly participate in many of the studies.
International Polar Year was different in that the call for proposals had funding for both university and government scientists. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that that has happened, but it is working very well.
Martin Fortier is the executive director of ArcticNet. He is from Laval University and is an excellent speaker. I am sure he would be pleased to speak to the committee on the activities of ArcticNet. I can certainly pass along your interest when I meet with the board next Tuesday.
My last few slides are in relation to the Speech from the Throne. I am certain that everyone around this table read that. There were a number of paragraphs, not just words but paragraphs, on the North. We were delighted.
I would like to draw the committee's attention to a few points. One is the development of a world-class Arctic research station. This is welcomed. Of course, this will not happen overnight. There will be much work on that. It has been noted that Canada is the only circumpolar country without year-round scientific facilities in the North, and if we are to continue our role as a leader in science and in the international community, we need this research station.
The Chair: On that point, I do not want to prejudge questions from other members of the committee, but can you explain how DFO will be involved in the world-class Arctic research station?
Ms. Watson-Wright: The Northern Strategy, as you know, is being led by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, and we will be involved with INAC. There is an interdepartmental committee that meets regularly on the science side of things. Within the Northern Strategy, INAC has been working with a number of other departments, those with direct interest in the North, and certainly we have a science interest. All of the science-based departments and agencies that have interest in working in the North will be involved in this in some manner.
The Chair: Is INAC the lead?
Ms. Watson-Wright: Yes.
The Chair: Will DFO be working with INAC?
Ms. Watson-Wright: We will be working with INAC, Natural Resources Canada, Health Canada and Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. I do not have the complete list now, but there are a number of other departments. We have the oceanographic expertise and the ships.
The Chair: Therefore they cannot get there without you.
Ms. Watson-Wright: They probably can, but we would like to be there with them.
The comprehensive mapping of Canada's Arctic seabed was referenced in the Speech from the Throne. That refers to the work under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and has to do with extension of jurisdiction. We are finding it extremely challenging to get work done in the North. We lost a number of sea days this year. We were not alone; Sweden lost a lot of equipment even though it had a Russian icebreaker to help. The conditions were quite unbelievable. I guess that is not a surprise to people who live in the North.
The Chair: There is a time constraint, is there not? Do you feel we will be on target for making a submission in time?
Ms. Watson-Wright: The target is 2013, ten years after it was ratified in Canada — and that was November 2003.
The Chair: Can we hit that target?
Ms. Watson-Wright: We are certainly planning to.
The Chair: However, can we?
Ms. Watson-Wright: Yes, we can. We will.
The last reference I would draw to your attention in the Speech from the Throne is the wording ``be there to serve the world.'' We feel that that is important. We had a number of Canadians who recently participated in the Sustained Arctic Observing Network, SAON, meeting last month in Sweden. It was very clear at that meeting that the international community is looking to Canada. They are very excited about Canada's proposals. They do see Canada as a leader. It is an opportunity for us.
The next meeting of SAON will be held in Edmonton in the spring of 2008.
In response to the Speech from the Throne, INAC continues to lead on the development of the Northern Strategy with input from us and from others. We are heavily involved on the mapping and charting on the Arctic station. Everything that one would hope to do in the North, DFO will play a critical role in and is happy to do that.
The Chair: You mentioned the Inuit Health Survey. We keep hearing from Aboriginal people about the necessity for respecting Aboriginal knowledge of the land and sea and working together with the scientific community.
How is there involvement of local people in DFO's pursuit of the International Polar Year and the other initiatives that you have identified this morning?
Ms. Watson-Wright: I can speak to the International Polar Year, ArcticNet and DFO. On the DFO side, we try hard and do meet with local communities. A number of our researchers, in particular those who are doing their work on lakes and coastal communities, recognize that the Aboriginal people have much to offer. People, such as our marine mammal specialists, Mike Hamill and others, who work in the North, traditionally do meet with the local people.
Within the programs of ArcticNet and International Polar Year, it is mandatory to involve local people. As an example, in deciding the International Polar Year projects to be funded, not only did it go through scientific review but also a social component review. Therefore, it could not be said that not enough consultation was done or incorporated into the science plans. That was, I feel, reasonably well covered. We will always find that we could have done things better, but people are trying hard. It was explicitly mandated.
The same goes for ArcticNet, where involving the local communities and the people of the North is mandatory. The ArcticNet board of directors was co-chaired originally by Sheila Watt-Cloutier and now Mary Simon. We have Inuit representation on the boards and within each of the projects from all parts of the Arctic; not just one territory or another, but all parts.
We could provide you with more detail on how it works or those who have actually led individual projects.
With the Inuit Health Survey, for example, the local people help to ensure that the Inuit come forward to participate; they work very closely within the communities. I had the opportunity to speak to the lead researcher, Grace Egeland from McGill University recently. She could not get over how helpful the local communities were and spoke of how she could not do this without their support. Many people really do not enjoy having a medical check-up, but she felt nobody would show up if she did not have this incredible support from the communities.
The Chair: That is good to know. If you could provide us with details of involvement, that would be helpful.
We will be studying both the Eastern Arctic and the Western Arctic, so it would not be just Inuit with whom we are dealing. We want to keep in mind throughout this study that Aboriginal people have been in the North for thousands of years. This is primarily their homeland. If we are going to use it, it has to be for their benefit.
Mr. Bevan, you have a presentation you want to make, so we will hold our questions.
Mr. Bevan: You asked about the capacity and shares of fishing quotas in the North. The fishery in the North predated the creation of the territory of Nunavut in 1999.
For example, there were 17 offshore shrimp licences issued prior to that. Only 1.5 had been held by Baffin Island Inuit interests. However, there have been adjustments over time. The fishery adjacent to Nunavut is actually a relatively small component of the overall northern shrimp fishery. Nunavut had approximately 31.5 per cent of that fishery. During the expansion of the shrimp stocks during the 1990s, there was an opportunity to provide additional quota of 6,100 tonnes to Nunavut interests. That is fished off the Labrador coast and more southern waters of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, Area 5.
There were other opportunities between 1999 and 2001, where there was an increase in turbot quotas. Originally, that was fished in the more southern Area 0. Nunavut had 1,500 tonnes of a total 5,500-tonne quota for Canadians. That is a stock shared with Greenland on a fifty-fifty basis. Following some expansion in the stock and movement of fishing opportunities into the more northerly portion of that area, the decision was made to provide to Nunavut interests the entire new stock adjacent to Nunavut. That allowed up to 4,000 tonnes to be allocate in 0A, which then brought the entire share of turbot to roughly 58 per cent for Nunavut.
A more recent expansion has brought that share up to 68 per cent as the stock increases. They are seeing 8,500 tonnes of a 12,500-tonne quota for Canada going to Nunavut interests. There is desire to move further in that regard and have a larger share, but that is where it stands currently.
During the early development of the Davis Strait turbot fishery, people were allowed to use foreign vessels and technology to test the economic viability of the fishery. However, by 2002 the industry had matured, and all fishing companies were required to use Canadian vessels to fish in Sub Area 0 in compliance with the national policy. There have always been questions about the interior workings of the Baffin Fisheries Coalition, et cetera, with respect to their structure, how much is owned by Canadians and how much is owned by other interests. The policy is clear in stating that it must be 51 per cent Canadian-owned and that those vessels were to have been ``Canadianized,'' so to speak, by this time. The exemptions that existed in the past are not permitted in the future.
The Baffin Fisheries Coalition has played a fundamental role in developing the Nunavut offshore fishery. It was formed in 2001 at the urging of the Nunavut government and the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, comprised of the Hunters and Trappers Organizations of Pond Inlet, Clyde River, Pangnirtung, Iqaluit, Kimmirut and others. The purpose was to develop inshore and offshore fisheries, recruitment training and investment in fishing vessels.
The trouble with inshore is that there is no infrastructure. That issue is being considered by the Government of Canada at this time. In Greenland, where there is infrastructure and therefore more opportunity, there is a different mix of fishing. That issue was dealt with. Hopefully, there will be an opportunity in the North to consider different approaches to the harvesting of their quotas.
There is a desire to see that move and to see more Inuit hired. Concerns exist about the structure within the Baffin Fisheries Coalition. However, we are encouraging them to move ahead with their plans and to have more Inuit involvement. At some point, if there is infrastructure, that will provide another kind of opportunity for them relative to the gear types that they are using.
The Baffin Fisheries Coalition used revenues from its fishing activities to acquire two vessels under a lease-to- purchase arrangement in 2004-05. Those vessels are Canadian flagged, although the ownership might not be entirely Canadian at this time. However, it is increasing over time as the earnings take place.
Our minister usually adopts the recommendations of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board about the allocation. Therefore, when he receives recommendations from the board about who should get the shares in the territory, those are generally followed. The single groundfish turbo licence is held in trust by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and most of the Nunavut offshore fishing interests are fished under the board's licence. The licence rests with the board, but others are doing the fishing.
Currently, we issue one licence for large offshore enterprises. They then decide how many vessels will fish the quota. There is much flexibility in the offshore fishery to determine how to go about the fishing and harvesting. Clearly, if there were infrastructure, there would be an opportunity for a different mix of vessels. I note that the Baffin Fisheries Coalition is interested in the different mix. They do not want to have dragging fisheries only and would rather have a mix with hook and line and others. They are moving in that direction, but there is always a desire to move further and faster than has been the case. With the current quotas and as we get more scientific advice, there might be other opportunities coming forward. Those in conjunction with any change in infrastructure will provide a different suite of opportunities for the people of Nunavut.
The Chair: Before we go to questions, I introduce Senator Campbell, from British Columbia.
Senator Campbell: My apologies for being late.
The Chair: Senator Campbell is our Western Pacific point man.
Senator Cowan: Welcome and thank you for your presentations.
The chair exercised his right and pre-empted my question. I was particularly interested in the involvement of the Aboriginal people in the fishery, and you have dealt with that.
Ms. Watson-Wright: Actually, I have more information.
Senator Cowan: Please give that and then I will go to another question.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: There have been some television news broadcasts about these activities. Are there any video documents that could be made available to the committee for information purposes? I think I have seen such documents on the subject of vaccination.
Ms. Watson: It depends on the program. If it is a documentary by the ArcticNet network, we can get hold of it. I could ask Mr. Fortier to produce it for us. If it is a report by Peter Mansbridge, for example, it would be on the CBC website.
[English]
I am not sure which one that would be. If it is the Inuit national survey, it would be through International Polar Year and ArcticNet. ArcticNet might have it, and I would be happy to ask for it.
In terms of the involvement of people in the North, for International Polar Year, we have IPY Northern Nodes. These are hosted by regionally-based organizations in various areas of the North. The offices coordinate the IPY activities on a regional and community level. Of course, they support and encourage northern communities to participate.
Four coordinators are hired. Nunavut is hosted by the Nunavut Research Institute; Yukon by the Council of Yukon First Nations; Nunavik and Labrador by Nunavik Research Centre; and in the Northwest Territories by the Aurora Research Institute. Northern people were involved and played a significant role in the planning for IPY, and they continue to do the coordination and implementation.
I will mention a few of the organizations that have been and continue to be involved: The Council of Yukon First Nations; the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami; the Inuit Circumpolar Conference; the Government of Yukon; the Government of Northwest Territories and Nunavut; Yukon College; and the Nunavut Research Institute. They are all members of the Canadian IPY National Committee and coordinate the overall IPY activities. As I said, they were involved in the establishment of the Northern Nodes.
The Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study are planning to create a photographic book that will emphasize the integration of science and traditional ecological knowledge. Many efforts are being made to ensure that people in northern communities are included and that we are doing things with them rather than to them.
Senator Cowan: My other question concerns the pace and adequacy of research that has been done and whether you are satisfied that there is sufficient scientific knowledge to be able to increase quotas and grant more licences without damaging the resource.
We are all familiar with the situation on our East Coast where our resource has been destroyed. I am not blaming that on lack of science, but I feel there would be a view that we might have done things differently had we known what we know now. None of us want to have what has happened in the East happen in the North.
Mr. Bevan: We have the Emerging Fisheries Policy, which calls on us to be prudent in the initial stages of ramping up fisheries in new areas around stocks that have not yet been subject to exploitation.
As scientific advice became available, we were ramping up the quotas relatively slowly and not going to large quotas at the outset. We set the quotas, monitored the fisheries and then determined if further increases could take place.
With regard to turbot, we are using advice from the NAFO Scientific Council. In addition to Canadian scientists, other scientists are also involved.
We have seen a significant growth in the shrimp population throughout the zone over the past decade. It went from 37,500 tonnes to over 150,000 tonnes. We did ramp it up, but the exploitation rate on that fishery is relatively low. It is in the range of about 15 per cent, which, on a short-lived species such as shrimp, is a very cautious and modest exploitation rate.
We have been cognizant of past mistakes and optimism that was not founded in fact. We have been very prudent and cautious as we ramped up some of these fisheries. With shrimp, we have an exploitation rate low enough that after a fishery of 150,000 tonnes, the before and after assessments show no difference. It is a very prudent and cautious approach that we are taking.
In the North, we operate in an area that has not been subject to fishing pressure, and we have to look at the ecosystem considerations there as well. Ecosystems throughout Canada are subject to rapid change. The human pressure on the stocks has to be maintained at a cautious level as we are subject to big changes in the oceanographic conditions and the potential impacts that could have on productivity. We have to ensure that we do not get overly optimistic and do not try to respond to people's needs for economic activity by pushing too hard on the fish populations.
Senator Comeau: Ms. Watson-Wright, INAC is the main agency that will be driving the studies in the North, which I can understand as it is their domain. However, it is more of an administrative and policy-making department whereby DFO is an operational department with an extensive history in the North.
Would it be correct to assume that DFO would be the main operational department in the North?
Ms. Watson-Wright: We are certainly the main operational department in the water portion of the North. However, Natural Resources Canada, NRCan, has the lead on the land in terms of what they do.
Senator Comeau: That leads to my second question about mapping. My impression would have been that Natural Resources Canada would be the lead department on mapping. However, I detect that DFO is very much involved. Is this because of the Coast Guard?
Ms. Watson-Wright: The Coast Guard has the ships, but on the science side, DFO is involved because the bathometric measurements. Ms. Narayanan will explain that. Natural Resource Canada does the geological survey, and the work we are doing under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, I would say that NRCan is the lead. However, we work so closely together that we do not argue about that.
Senator Comeau: Under UNCLOS, are we sensing any preliminary assessments that our arguments will be accepted once they present them? Do we see the continental shelf extending beyond the current limits, which would be promising for us?
Ms. Watson-Wright: It is premature at this point. In the Arctic, it is so difficult to get the data; we have not finished the data collection yet. We are moving along well in the Atlantic, but we are not anywhere near being ready to say where it is. At least, I am not.
Senator Comeau: There is the geographical data that you are working on, which is very scientific. There is also the non-geographic work that needs to be done, such as proving that there has been a Canadian presence in the North through our indigenous peoples for thousands of years and that these people are Canadians. There probably is some written history somewhere about the resources and routes these people have used and so on. Who is doing the work on this for your presentation for UNCLOS?
Ms. Watson-Wright: That would be Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.
Senator Comeau: Are you getting a sense that their arguments are fair?
Ms. Watson-Wright: DFO is doing the science, and I have not been privy to any conversations as to what Foreign Affairs is doing on that right now. We meet on how the work is progressing and what we have for each other, but we do not go further. That will come towards the end once all the scientific data has been collected.
Senator Comeau: Mr. Chair, as we progress with our study on the North, we might want to speak with officials from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.
Mr. Bevan, you indicated that you are looking at various species and taking a cautious approach to letting loose the full fishery until more is known. That is probably a good cautious way to approach it.
Are you getting the resources you need to continue to look at species that have not been fished at all yet?
Mr. Bevan: We have seen increases — and perhaps my colleague could talk about it. There has been an announcement of an increase of resources in the Arctic stock assessment. The minister recently announced an additional six people for that unit.
The challenge is sea time in that area. We had been using a partnership with some of the offshore vessels to try to get more information, but that is targeted to specific species. There may be others that are available that we have not yet determined. In some cases, we respond to what might come out of the fishing interests. We are not actively searching for other alternatives at this time.
Senator Comeau: Given the recent Speech from the Throne and the attention to the North, would it be safe to assume that Senator Adams might be expecting his port facilities before long so that they may start looking at a smaller boat fishery?
Mr. Bevan: That would be speculation on my part. The Government of Canada will have to make that decision. We cannot comment on that.
Senator Comeau: You have no inside track?
Mr. Bevan: No, I am afraid not.
The Chair: We will have the minister later; maybe we can ask him.
Ms. Watson-Wright: I wish to comment on the six positions alluded to by Mr. Bevan. That was an internal reallocation, and it was a recognition by the department and the minister that we really do need to be doing more science — in this particular instance, fishery science in the North. That was not new money; that was a decision made by the minister to reallocate internally. We very much look forward to having those additional six people devoted to this work in the North.
The Chair: That is partly the answer to your question, Senator Comeau. If he can reallocate money within the department, he can reallocate it toward Nunavut.
Senators remember that we took a decision in this committee to do a joint study of the Arctic with the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I had a chat with the chair of that committee before I came here today. That committee has decided that they want to join with us, so it will be a joint study with our committee and the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I foresee some dovetailing. You mentioned a couple of organizations and departments that brought that to mind. It will be very useful to have the joint study. They can bring in witnesses that we probably could not with our mandate.
I wanted to inform the committee that we will be joining forces and will try to travel to the Arctic with them if we can map out a joint schedule and a joint agenda to dovetail our work with theirs. There will be a significant Senate presence in the Arctic and a significant Senate focus on the Arctic that I hope will be very useful.
Ms. Watson-Wright: I sometimes have memory lapses. When you were asking about departments in the North, I failed to mention Environment Canada. We work extremely closely with them in terms of aquatics and also with the Meteorological Service of Canada. As well, the Canadian Ice Service is very important in the North.
Having neglected to mention that, I will have to apologize to my colleagues.
Senator Adams: My question is about ArcticNet, which has been operating for the last two years. It started last year in Northern Quebec on a Coast Guard ship. I saw the ship landing in Rankin Inlet at the beginning of October. I do not know how far it travelled from there. I believe it was mostly operated by Health Canada to study how people are being affected in the North versus those in the South. I heard on the radio that they take pieces of toenail to study. They ask for blood samples, et cetera for their research. I believe they do a good job. I met some of the nurses who came to our community. We have been happy to have them there, and the people in the community appreciate it.
However, we are talking about Arctic sovereignty. According to Mr. Bevan, it is up to the government to tell people that we are up there. Right now, the people up there are waiting to see what will happen as a result of the Speech from the Throne. The Prime Minister visited two communities in the North. This year he will be in Nanisivik and Resolute Bay. None of the premiers have gone up there to discuss Arctic sovereignty.
We have the Coast Guard, and now they are talking about putting naval vessels up there. Nothing has happened yet on Arctic sovereignty. Will the government go ahead? What will it do?
They are currently studying the climate, ice, water, mammals and so on. Will the government wait for those to be finished before telling other countries that the North is ours, that it belongs to Canada? Is anything happening in your department on the future of Arctic sovereignty?
Ms. Watson-Wright: Are you asking how DFO is involved?
Senator Adams: Yes.
Ms. Watson-Wright: We are involved predominantly through the UNCLOS work we are currently doing. INAC is continuing to work on a northern strategy. Other than that, I am not sure how much I could say about that as I am certainly not party to all that happens around town.
Senator Adams: The chair said that we will study this and ask the people in the communities about Arctic sovereignty. I am wondering what the government is doing right now in relation to what it said in the Speech from the Throne. Maybe all the departments should work together — DFO, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and the Department of National Defence. The people up there are waiting to see what will happen.
I know that you cannot really answer this. Before anything is started on Arctic sovereignty, you have to get approval from Foreign Affairs. If you cannot answer at this time, that is all right. That is why this committee and the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources want to travel up there. We want to study what will happen to mining and so on with regard to Arctic sovereignty. In the meantime, the Russians will be putting up their flag on the sea bed. Will the other countries put their flags at the bottom of the sea, too?
Ms. Watson-Wright: I am certain that my colleague at Foreign Affairs would be happy to appear before the committee. That is clearly the mandate of their department, and they would be much better placed to speak to that. We are the technicians for this.
Senator Adams: You spoke about the CBC. I was at home in Rankin at the beginning of October and was interviewed by a journalist in Inuktitut. People from Canada, Greenland and Alaska, through the Nunavut Arctic College, did a study on ocean ice. That was not funded by the Government of Canada; it was funded by Americans in Alaska. They said that they learned a great deal of helpful information about climate change and the changes in ice, water, snow and mammals. That is a good program.
The chair asked a question earlier about Inuit knowledge in the future. We live up there, and you should work with the people who live there. Often people are happier about what is happening if you work with them.
If you cannot answer this, that is all right.
My next question is for Mr. Bevan, and it is about fishing. There are people with the Baffin Island corporation that the Hunters and Trappers Association has been talking to in an effort to come up with some solutions. They are now forming a partnership with another community.
We still have a problem between the minister and Baffin Fisheries Coalition, BFC. It is very difficult sometimes to get the quotas. Now we find out that 0A, near Grise Ford, has a quota inside the 12-mile limit. We still operate by minister and hear how much the quota is allowed to get inside the 12-mile limit.
I figure we have a minister up there for the fishery in Nunavut. They should at least negotiate who should have the quotas inside the 12-mile limit. You people still make the decision of how much of the quota is to be caught inside the 12-mile limit. I was wondering how the system works.
Now inside the 12-mile limit, we had some quotas. A man in Broughton Island, with the Masiliit hunters and trappers, was in a conference call with BFC. The chairman told him that he had to hang up his phone. The member of those organizations told him to hang up the phone, that he cannot listen to who will give the quotas. That is the situation happening up there with BFC.
Mr. Bevan: The minister gets the advice from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board as to where the quotas should be allocated and has been following that advice. That often means that BFC receives the quotas, but they are shared amongst the Hunters and Trappers Association. I understand there have been many questions about that process. The minister in Ottawa is not in a good position to delve into that kind of detail when it is something that should be decided by the more local people. That is why he has been following the advice of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
Senator Adams: You did not answer the question about inside the 12-mile limit.
Mr. Bevan: Inside and outside the 12-mile limit, I know there is reference there. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the conservation and sustainable use of the resources and therefore has a role in terms of the overall tack that would be assigned. The agreement does have reference to the 12 miles. The populations do, of course, have heads and tails, as the saying goes, and swim across those lines. I would have to get back to you with more details in terms of how the land claims work, but the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does have the overall responsibility for the conservation and sustainable use of the stocks.
Senator Adams: This does not come from the DFO but from Masiliit, a local corporation. They had a quota, somewhere around 1,100 tonnes, between 0A and 0B. In the last couple of years, scientists in the department monitor every year how the fish have or have not changed. In the last two years, they have been fishing up there in the commercial and turbot. Every fish caught is exactly the same size, no more small or large.
Have there been studies in the department about this? We sent the word out a bit. Especially those people there, Inuit draggers, hookers and gillnetters. Foreigners have been dragging the bottom of the sea for many years. In the last two years, it has been exactly the same. There has been nothing bigger or smaller. I believe you have a concern about that up there because of the temperature of the water and the sea, and why we are dragging in 0A and 0B.
Mr. Bevan: That is one reason why the coalition is looking at getting into longlining as an alternative, because they do not want to have one pure type. They are concerned about that. We are as well.
You are referencing a single-year class in a particular part of the population, which would be of concern, if that is the case. We would have to get more information from you in terms of the details and then get back to you.
This is one population, and in the view of science, in terms of the whole Atlantic, from 2J3KL right up to the North, we believe it is one population. Having said that, if there is a portion supporting a fishery off a single-year class, it would be of some concern.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: With respect to mapping and studying the continental shelf and trying to delimit the edges, have we made any progress? Senator Adams mentioned the Russian expedition that planted a flag on the geographic North Pole.
Ms. Watson-Wright: That is what they say.
Senator Robichaud: That is what they say, is it not?
Ms. Watson-Wright: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: How can we challenge that in order to establish Canada's sovereignty in that area?
Ms. Watson-Wright: Ms. Narayanan can certainly give you an outline of our work on that issue.
[English]
Ms. Narayanan: The UNCLOS is to define the technology and fence around shared property. Right now we have the full rights up to 200 miles, and this is to extend beyond that for the sea bottom — the minerals, bottom fish and so on.
We had to do two things. First, this is a new approach to extending the shelf. There is the commission for the law of the sea, and we need to prepare our claim in a way that they will accept. We are fortunate that we did not ratify the UNCLOS right away because we could learn from other countries' experiences that ratified UNCLOS. We have ten years after the ratification to submit our claim.
There are a number of countries, such as Australia, who have submitted their claim. We are working closely with them to ensure that our submission will meet every requirement and learn lessons from them.
We had two seasons in the Arctic, but we lost some sea days because of the weather. However, we did get considerable data.
In order to minimize the conflict when we actually submit the claim — because it is based on scientific analysis of the data — we want to make sure we start the analysis from the same base so the commission will not say that our data is not as good as the other data. We are working together with other countries to actually collect the data. It saves time, is efficient and reduces the risk of that type of conflict.
We have progressed well in the last two years, as best as one could expect due to the weather conditions. We still have considerable time. We have until 2013. It is our intention to prepare the full claim by at least one year in advance so that we will be able to revise it and then submit it on time.
Senator Robichaud: I am worried about a repeat of what happened on the East Coast, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, which are part of the continental shelf but outside the 200-mile limit. However, you will take a close look at that and ensure we are not caught in that situation.
Ms. Watson-Wright: The Atlantic is also part of the work we are doing. We are progressing very well on that also. Again, it is a little bit more problematic in the Arctic, but the Atlantic work has been going very well.
Senator Robichaud: Will we be establishing a claim? We have been, sort of; but would this be establishing that it is part of the Canadian territory?
Ms. Watson-Wright: Part of the Canadian continental shelf. Under UNCLOS, it allows the country that claims the extended jurisdiction to claim the resources under the seabed and the sedentary species on the seabed but nothing in the water column.
Senator Robichaud: We had to prove at one time that scallops, one species, were somehow tied to the bottom.
Mr. Bevan: As you recall, there were vessels arrested for fishing outside the 200 nautical miles on sedentary species. There was some debate as to whether or not scallops fit that particular description, and that was accepted. Therefore, we have been managing scallops, crab, those kinds of species, outside the 200 nautical miles and have made it clear that that is for Canadian use.
Senator Robichaud: The communities in the North would like to develop their capacity to fish, and that would mean if we were to go to smaller boats and not those big boats, we need infrastructure on the shore.
I know infrastructure is expensive, such as wharfs. I come from New Brunswick. If we have to build in the North, with all the different conditions, it would be very expensive.
[Translation]
I agree that we should do this. But does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have a special budget to go into the North? I think that, with your current budget for small-craft harbour facilities, you will not be able to go because there is not enough for what is currently in place.
We are prepared to help you get it. Is this in the plans?
Mr. Bevan: We are not responsible for small-craft harbour programs. But I agree that it is very expensive. Our department does not have enough funds to take on major challenges. It will be necessary to obtain a government decision about small-craft harbours in Nunavut. I cannot answer your question.
Senator Robichaud: This is probably an issue that we should explore a little further in order to support the people who will have to collect the funds to build and set up these facilities.
[English]
The Chair: That is something we need to speak to the minister about when he comes because we have heard in the Speech from the Throne that the focus of a northern strategy will be to strengthen Canada's sovereignty and to protect and promote economic and social development. This is the blueprint of the government, to promote economic and social development and map Canada's seabed. We have heard about that and the world-class Arctic research station. However, to promote economic and social development is also the objective of the government. Funds have been put into the circumpolar year, the port in Nanisivik, ships for the navy to be built in the North and so on. There is a substantial amount of government funds being focused on the Arctic, yet we cannot find funds to build wharfs for the fishermen whose people have been there for thousands of years.
This gets back to the point that we made at the beginning: Use it or lose it. How can the people use it if they do not have the means?
I understand the department does not have the means and that the policy of the department is that there is nothing new, particularly with regard to small-craft harbours; it is just refining and refurbishing what is there now. I understand that.
However, the minister is part of the government, and the government has said that they will promote economic and social development. Therefore, we have to ask in the future how this will be translated and put into effect as far as the Fisheries and Oceans Canada is concerned. It is a clear objective of the government and one we support. We, as a committee, have to ask why the funds that have been targeted are not being allocated to the DFO for what we consider to be an important project.
We did a study on Nunavut, brought the Nunavut people here for that discussion and made recommendations some time ago. I feel we can legitimately ask what progress has been made because we do not see it at the moment.
Senator Adams: At the time we privatized, the facilities in Nunavut were run by Transport Canada. I remember the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications discovered that the Canadian Coast Guard had a fund for anything that had been built in small harbours. At one time, it was able to maintain the facilities if anything washed out to the sea. Is that still the case?
Mr. Bevan: I would have to refer that to the Coast Guard commissioner and the assistant deputy minister responsible for small-craft harbours. Those are programs with which I am not familiar. I would take that question back to the department to get a response for you.
The Chair: Senator Adams asked questions about existing fisheries, the increase in quotas and so on. We have heard about turbot and shrimp.
With respect to creating new fisheries, emerging fisheries, we have done that to a degree in southern waters. How are we doing it in the Arctic? Is there potential there for new fisheries in addition to those that we know have been there in the past?
Mr. Bevan: I would expect there is potential. The Emerging Fisheries Policy usually puts a great deal of responsibility on the person looking to exploit a new species to conduct some of the work that is necessary to ensure that the fishery would be economically and biologically sustainable. That is difficult to do in the North. Everything is more expensive. We have, therefore, seen more traditional turbot and shrimp fisheries. Indication on the Greenland side shows promise for cod stocks as well as crab. However, on the Nunavut side, that has not been the case. We would need to see if there can be further scientific work done or what type of partnerships would be necessary to move to other species.
Senator Robichaud: There is a clam fishery over there, is there not?
Mr. Bevan: That is correct.
Senator Robichaud: Is that being exploited to its full extent, or is it under an exploratory regime?
Mr. Bevan: Geographic location and the need to have the proper controls in place to ensure the safety of the product on the marketplace create some difficulty. It is being exploited, but perhaps more opportunities would exist if those logistical problems could be overcome.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I hope that we will not have the same problems as on the New Brunswick coast, in particular close to where I live, where the hard shell clam or quahog fishery was closed because there were not enough resources to ensure its protection. So, the fishers lost a season. This is just a passing comment. If you verify this, you can confirm what I said. I do not know if the problem was due to the fact that the guards did not have any guns, but so be it.
Mr. Bevan: This problem occurred in the park, did it not?
Senator Robichaud: Yes. For those who earn a living from the resource, this situation is completely ridiculous, in my opinion.
[English]
The Chair: If there are no further questions, I want to thank our witnesses for being here. There will be some follow- up correspondence on some of the questions that we have raised. We may want to have you back again with some of your colleagues at a later date. We will be hearing from the minister next Thursday, and we want to make full use of that meeting.
The committee adjourned.