Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 8 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:10 p.m. to study on issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans (topic: Western Arctic: fish habitat, fisheries management and science).
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, before I introduce our guests, I want to tell you that the steering committee thinks we should have a short meeting on Thursday morning to approve the report on the lobster hearings. We have prepared a short report on the hearing that we held with the lobster fishermen. Claude Emery, our analyst with the Library of Parliament, has prepared a report of five pages with a couple of recommendations; therefore, it would be good if we can meet on Thursday morning during our regular slot.
You will receive a copy of the report tomorrow. We need to have it translated and we will deal with it on Thursday morning.
Senator Manning: Is that meeting for the entire committee?
The Chair: Yes.
I want to introduce our guests and welcome them back. They were with us before and we did not have enough time with them. We have from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Mimi Breton; Sylvain Paradis; and Michelle Wheatley. Michelle Wheatley has been with us twice, I think.
If you have opening statements, please begin and then we will ask questions.
Mimi Breton, Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans and Habitat Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you for inviting us back and giving us the opportunity to speak here today. We look forward to your questions but we want to start by providing an overview of the current context of Canada's evolving North, the role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans — especially as it relates to ocean habitat and species at risk — and some of the work we are doing to carry out our role.
My colleagues from science will be happy to answer questions on the support role they deliver on ocean habitat, and the Species at Risk Program, as well as any other science activity in the North.
As you know, honourable senators, there has been growing interest in the development of Canada's North in recent years. From DFO's perspective, natural resource exploration and development — whether it is offshore oil and gas and supporting infrastructure, or the exploitation of mineral rights — creates opportunity that must be developed in a sustainable way, for generations of today and tomorrow.
The design and function of our regulatory system plays a significant role in supporting economic development and ensuring appropriate balance with social and environmental interests. The Government of Canada is responding to these issues with commitments to establish a northern project management office within the regulatory streamlining initiative, its Health of the Oceans Initiatives and a Northern Strategy.
DFO is participating in these multi-disciplinary and interdepartmental initiatives targeting regulatory streamlining, ecosystem management and integrated planning.
In terms of DFO's role and delivery mechanism in the Western Arctic, we have extensive responsibilities to conserve and protect fish and fish habitat, which support ongoing and future fisheries under the Fisheries Act, Oceans Act and the Species at Risk Act. We also have northern environmental assessment and land use planning regimes.
In fulfilling its responsibility, DFO respects the requirements of the land claims agreement. By virtue of the Fisheries Act, DFO is a key federal regulator for most development projects located in or around water. Our role involves providing specialist advice around impacts on fish, marine mammals and their habitats in regards to issues that may arise from development proposals in both freshwater and marine environments. Our role also includes issuing authorizations under the Fisheries Act.
We are currently involved in this way in many large development projects, such as the Mackenzie Gas Project, and oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort Sea. Our participation in work on regulatory streamlining south of 60 with the major projects management office of Natural Resources Canada will continue in the North as Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, establishes the Northern major projects office.
The Oceans Act directs the Government of Canada to develop and implement plans for the integrated management of all activities or measures in estuarine, coastal and marine waters. This work is carried out in collaboration with provinces, territories, coastal communities and Aboriginal people.
With the Inuvialuit, we have launched the establishment of a large oceans management area in the Beaufort Sea. Through this process, we are working to develop an integrated oceans management plan for the Beaufort Sea. If the committee is travelling to Inuvik in the near future, we can suggest a number of meetings to give a better appreciation of that work.
The Species at Risk Act, SARA, provides for protection of wildlife species and biological diversity. In the Western Arctic, there are three aquatic species benefiting from SARA conservation measures: the Grey Whale, the Bowhead Whale and the Northern Wolffish.
Of course, involving Aboriginal communities in the decision-making process is a key requirement and DFO maintains a strong relationship with Aboriginal communities in a number of areas ranging from co-management of fisheries, oceans and habitat, to specific consultation requirements related to major project development such as the Mackenzie Gas Project.
More broadly, DFO is working with INAC to support the development of the Northern Strategy, including the High Arctic Research Station, as a focal point for science in Canada's Arctic. Our scientists are completing their participation in the International Polar Year and have made discoveries about Arctic ecosystems and the changing climate in the Arctic that will be applied as we fulfill our role in decision-making about Northern development. We are taking a leadership role in the implementation of the Arctic Council's recommendation that a sustained Arctic observing system be established.
Marine safety will be a component of sustainably developing our Arctic waters. We continue to promote the need for increased attention to charting our Arctic waters.
In these many ways, DFO is well positioned to support government's Northern agenda.
Building on our last appearance in front of this committee, I realize that you may also want to raise questions on other issues, such as invasive species.
As a side note, I know members of this committee have each received an invitation to join Minister Shea at a reception on World Oceans Day, this June 8. I hope you will be able to join Canadians from coast to coast to coast in this year's celebration.
Thank you, Mr. chair. Ms. Wheatley, Mr. Paradis and I are open to answering your questions.
The Chair: Do either Ms. Wheatley or Mr. Paradis want to make an opening statement? Honourable senators, I am looking for questions. Having not seen hands right away, maybe I can start with a couple of questions of my own.
You mentioned the Inuvialuit area in the Beaufort Sea and you mentioned co-management. Can you tell us how that works and whether that co-management is one-of-a-kind or whether it is duplicated in other areas? For example, how does it compare with Nunavut, Nunavik and also Nunatsiavut?
Ms. Breton: I would say the lands claims settlement established different management regimes. Some have co-management provisions and some have joint boards, so we have different requirements from the DFO to provide co-management. I will ask Ms. Wheatley to talk about how we implement co-management in those various land claims, and we will reserve the possibility to answer further.
Michelle Wheatley, Regional Director, Science, Central and Arctic Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Each land claim across the North is slightly different and negotiated at different times; there is quite a scale. The Inuvialuit was the first land claim and then subsequent ones: the Gwich'in, Nunavut, Sahtu, Dehcho, et cetera. There has been a whole sequence and each land claim has built on the previous ones and on lessons learned.
The Inuvialuit settlement region and the structure of the co-management of the groups there is little different than you probably experienced with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board — if you are familiar with that organization — and the structure of the Nunavut land claims.
The Fisheries Joint Management Committee and the structure of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region are different in that a secretariat supports all the different groups: the Wildlife Management Advisory Council and the Fisheries Joint Management Committee. The committee itself — in this case, the Fisheries Joint Management Committee — is made up of Inuvialuit appointees and DFO appointees. The committee focuses on fisheries, whereas most of the other co-management boards focus on other areas. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board focuses on fisheries, terrestrial animals, migratory birds and all the wildlife.
From my experience, the board members of the Fisheries Joint Management Committee are more active on a day-to-day basis in the issues. They are active on the issues and on the files. Maybe this involvement is because many DFO appointees are former DFO members; they know who to call and who to reach to get something done.
When you travel to the Western Arctic, I think a meeting with them would be useful to understand their structure. They have been around for 30-plus years now, so it would be worthwhile to hear from them when you are there.
The Chair: Are they advisory or do they have authority?
Ms. Wheatley: The Fisheries Joint Management Committee is an advisory committee that provides advice to the minister. My understanding is that the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in the eastern Arctic has decision-making authority, subject in all cases to the ultimate authority of the minister to make the decisions.
However, the specifics in the Nunavut claim are that the minister can overrule the co-management boards only on specific issues — conservation, public health and safety or interference with Inuit harvesting rights — whereas the Fisheries Joint Management Committee has more of an advisory role.
Ms. Breton: Your question touches on the various land claims settlements, so I will run through the arrangements. In the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, there is no co-management board. It is the Fisheries Joint Management Committee, as Ms. Wheatley explained.
In the Gwich'in agreement, there is a co-management board and the board approves management plans. For the Nunavut land claim agreement, it is the same thing; there is a co-management board and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board approves the management plan.
The Chair: When you say approves, do you mean subject to the authority of the minister?
Ms. Breton: Absolutely, in all cases.
In the Sahtu Dene and Metis claim, there is a co-management board and it approves plans again for the management protection. That also includes species at risk when we talk about a management plan.
In the Tlicho agreement, there is a co-management board. There is a clear statement that government needs to consult when considering the management and designation of species at risk, for example.
In the Labrador Inuit claim, a joint Fisheries board makes recommendations. As you can see, there are a variety of arrangements between advisory and co-management.
Ms. Wheatley talked about the joint Fisheries management board. Because you asked how we co-manage and how we act with the Inuit in our various programs, on SARA, we work with those management boards on the species at risk. We have to be cognizant of their processes.
For example, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has a process for their management. We prepared a memorandum of understanding, MOU, with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board to coordinate the legal deadline prescribed by SARA with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board process. That may be an example for other MOUs with other management boards.
On the oceans integrated planning, we have governance mechanisms that include the Northwest Territories — the Inuvialuit, in that case — and various federal departments to look jointly at the planning for, in this case, the Beaufort Sea area.
These are examples on how we work in co-management with the communities.
The Chair: Is it fair to say that all the management boards are advisory and none of them has absolute authority? They are all subject to the authority of the minister. Is that a fair statement?
Ms. Breton: Yes, except if there is disagreement, the minister has a number of days described in the agreements to come back and explain the decision.
Senator Watt: We meet again. In the same subject area that our chairman questioned you, you have been involved for a number of years now with the Aboriginal groups. If I remember correctly, shortly after the negotiations and-even during the negotiations on the James Bay issue, we had an opportunity to exchange views on certain aspects of the management responsibilities of the government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
As you know, for a number of years, we disputed with Fisheries and Oceans Canada in regard to the beluga matters. I understand recently that the quota has been increased finally. Chair, I am getting around to the point, which concerns what is called "joint management." You heard that the minister has the last say on the matter.
One thing that is noticeable is that when we start exercising certain activities that are contemplated within those sets of agreements, however different the agreements might be, those activities always boil down to the point that there is a conflict on the Inuit side. That is that they are in the co-management with the Government of Canada, but the same time, they also have responsibility to defend their members — for whatever reason, if there is conflict between the two groups.
My question to the witnesses, since they have been dealing with this issue for some time, is, has the government looked at this particular issue to see whether it needs to be rectified or modified to meet the reality? In some cases, when the committee management groups meet together, scientific communities always have a lot more emphasis than the traditional knowledge. In other words, the traditional knowledge and that of the scientific community do not necessarily go hand in hand. That issue has been the problem.
It usually takes a few years before the government catches on, or the scientific community catches on, to what the Inuit are trying to say — how damaging the decision is that is made from outside, and how that decision affects the people. Have they come to grips with that issue to see what else can be found in terms of a solution to this particular problem?
Ms. Breton: As you mention, there has been a change and evolution of how much power the management board has. At the same time, the Species at Risk Act, SARA, was passed. As you know, this act is young; it is six years old. This act officially recognized the use of traditional knowledge in the decision-making process for stock assessment, which has the biggest potential impact on the subsistence harvest, in particular in the Arctic. New since I started at DFO are the creation of the Aboriginal advisory committee for Species at Risk, which Ms. Wheatley and Mr. Paradis can speak to; and how the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, process integrates traditional knowledge. There is a much more formal way of recognizing and using traditional knowledge to arrive at decisions in addition to the consultations processes, such as the official MOU recognizing the consultation of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board on the proposed listing status before moving forward.
Sylvain Paradis, Director General, Ecosystem Science Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: On the general process, we should convey the message that every claim is important. We are trying to bring the scientists and managers into a much more integrated approach going forward. For example, on the scientific side, we are working much closer with the community people to bring traditional knowledge to the scientific peer-reviewed advice we bring forward. In that way, the knowledge of the community people will be integrated into the scientific advice.
We have not fully succeeded yet but it is a long process. Under the Health of the Oceans plan, there is a new centre of expertise on traditional knowledge to understand how to integrate and open those dialogues and discussions.
The scientific advice is given to the fisheries management people through the co-management board in dialogues and discussions. Better decisions can then be made to address the communities' issues. In terms of species at risk, the same process takes place. Before the listing happens, there is a great deal of dialogue, discussion and consultation. We are required by law to have those community consultations before any decisions are made.
Senator Watt: Mr. Chair, I am not here to find conflict with anyone. I am trying to find solutions to the problems that I see and deal with on a daily basis with the people we are talking about.
It may be well-intentioned but the problem I see is that there is not as much integration of traditional knowledge as we would like. Most of the time, information brought to the table tells the people: Here it is; take it or leave it. Too much of that approach is still happening. With the land claims, things should be working well but they are not working in many respects.
I highlight that issue so that you can look at it to see what needs to be put in order to create a smoother relationship.
Ms. Breton: Thank you for your observation.
Senator Adams: I want to ask a bit more about the Inuvialuit agreement. I was here for the negotiations with the then minister, John Monroe. We did not know what would happen if the constitution passed before we agreed on the negotiations, so we wanted the process completed before 1982.
Inuvialuit has commercial fishing but is concerned mostly about oil and gas, and mining. Do they have commercial Arctic char fishing in the Beaufort Sea? Do the Inuvialuit have quotas?
Ms. Wheatley: To my knowledge, there are no quotas in Inuvialuit. It is not the same as in Nunavut.
Senator Adams: After Inuvialuit settled the land claim, was there an overlap agreement on oil and gas? I once asked about mixed marriages of Sahtu and Gwich'in. I think about 32 per cent of marriages are mixed. Has anything been done about that in terms of an agreement for hunting?
Ms. Wheatley: I am not familiar with any discussions. That issue might be between the claim areas as opposed to involving the government.
Senator Adams: It is mostly a dispute with big hunting and not the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, which must have something to do with the negotiation for Nunavut. Mostly, it is about polar bears and quotas.
Ms. Wheatley: I think it concerns mostly polar bears and caribou, perhaps.
Senator Adams: It is the quotas on polar bears and caribou every year. Do any reindeer still exist in the Inuvialuit area? What is happening?
Ms. Wheatley: I am not sure about the reindeer. There used to be some.
Senator Adams: You do not manage the reindeer. Is it the territorial government?
Ms. Wheatley: Yes, that would be the territorial government.
Senator Adams: Around 1982 in Inuvialuit, there was concern about the reindeer and activity in the Mackenzie area. Does the Species at Risk Act apply to reindeer, given that they are privately owned?
Ms. Breton: I am sorry but I am not familiar with the reindeer situation.
Senator Adams: Reindeer are privately owned. Do any government policies affect the reindeer? If I owned reindeer, they would have the freedom of the property. In 1980 in Tuktoyaktuk and Inuvik, people were concerned about such an area because of future drilling activity. If something like that were to happen, who would help me? The government had nothing to do with it and the territorial government had no power to stop that kind of activity on the land inhabited by reindeer. People suffered. Some earn an income selling reindeer meat. In Inuvialuit, they had an agreement for quotas and percentages every year. They need an export permit for any other mammals in the Species at Risk Act exported to other countries.
The Chair: That is a question we will have to raise, but I am not sure that comes under the mandate of DFO. I am sure it will be a legitimate question when we reach the right people.
Senator Adams: What is the difference between caribou and reindeer?
Ms. Breton: Notwithstanding the species affected or the impact, there are environmental assessments around a development project. In the case of the Mackenzie Gas Project or oil and gas exploration, there is a panel and public hearings normally where people can make their concerns known. There is also always special consultation with Aboriginal groups that are and can be affected by those projects.
I cannot answer your question specifically. However, when there are concerns like that, they can generally be heard through special consultations.
Senator Adams: I understand that.
The Inuvialuit have two powerful oil company partners, Shell and ESSO. They may want the land in the future where the reindeer are feeding. Those two owners and the Inuvialuit may decide to develop that property in the future. What will happen in that case to those reindeer and caribou?
The Chair: It is a question that we will have to deal with.
Senator Hubley: Is the scientific work taking place within the western Arctic conducted mainly by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? How extensive is it? At any given time, how many studies are taking place relating to fish habitat, management or science?
Ms. Wheatley: We have a number of studies going on at any one time. The National Centre for Arctic Aquatic Research Excellence based in Winnipeg at the Freshwater Institute has a number of scientists that work across the Arctic.
I do not have science staff that work only on the west or only on the east. Someone who works on beluga might work in both the eastern and western Arctic. Oceanography staff from the Pacific region also go to the Arctic. Staff from the Maurice Lamontagne Institute in Quebec work on marine mammals in the North. A large number of staff work on many different projects across the North at any one time.
We did a quick count recently. The number of projects across the Arctic in one year was over 100. That count includes everything from the survey of the East Coast of Baffin Island on turbot and shrimp stocks to a survey counting bowhead whales or beluga, to studies on what is happening with freshwater species in Great Slave Lake. There are a wide variety of projects.
Senator Hubley: Do you feel that the North is receiving its fair share of research and development money to carry out the work that must be done?
Mr. Paradis: The federal government's strategy in the North has been not to focus specifically on a federal department. The government has had an extensive strategy that has been substantial over the last couple of years. Since 2004 with the creation of ArcticNet, the large research program in the North, approximately $7 million per year has been invested in do Arctic research with the use of the Amundsen, the Coast Guard vessel. The Louis S. St. Laurent was refitted with a section for research on board. Therefore, researchers can conduct scientific research when the Coast Guard goes out to break ice.
We have seen deployment of $150 million per year over two years to conduct significant research for the International Polar Year, IPY. Since then, we are seeing the continuation of some of this research. We call it the heritage of the IPY program. The federal government continues to look at ways to move forward. The Canadian Arctic research network, initiative or station we are discussing currently is an attempt to move more activities to the North because the North is a more complex sector.
Apart from oceanography and stock assessment issues, we are researching other related issues like biodiversity, fish health-related science, basic science, ice conditions, interaction between tertiary species and marine species and species interaction through trophic areas. We are staring to look at primary production and the fact that the ice is melting. There are more dynamics in the North and more research projects to look at the biodiversity on each side of the Arctic to see the dynamic movements of those species.
A lot of work is being carried out. It is hard to determine if it is enough, but there has been a significant increase in scientific activities in the North.
People tend not to realize that there are a lot of international activities in the North. Before IPY came about three years ago, I was the acting director general of the oceanography program. We had seven international vessels coming into Canadian waters that had to obtain Canadian permits. We have opportunities to engage with those countries to conduct activities onboard at that point. We had Norwegians, French, Japanese and Koreans paying a lot of attention.
We have interactions with these countries on international commissions such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas — a Canadian, European and American consortium of countries. We have chances to create scientific links with these countries before the issues even come up allowing us to work together. Many initiatives have been started through the Arctic Council. Similarly, we have to conduct joint assessment of the Arctic conditions under the Convention on Biological Biodiversity. We have seen extensive research activities in the North that we had never seen before, and these activities are increasing constantly.
Other organizations like the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission are paying a lot of attention to what is happening in the North. We have bilateral agreements with other countries where Arctic and northern science keeps increasing. Ms. Breton mentioned the beluga issue. When we started to conduct a Canadian assessment of the beluga, we discovered that we share stocks with Greenland, and other countries come into the mix because of migration.
Is that the right amount or not? It is hard for us to establish the mix, but we have seen a tremendous increase in activity in the last three or more years.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for answering my first and second questions. My second question touched on sovereignty in the North. We are seeing an increased presence from other countries. Is their presence strictly from a scientific standpoint or might they be looking at establishing a presence or sovereignty in the North?
Mr. Paradis: They are required to have permits to access the Canadian ocean or territory. Conditions for operation are well monitored. I do not see the scientists wanting to establish a presence in the North, but I think there is a genuine desire to conduct more research to better understand the dynamic.
There has been years of research. We know now that what is happening all around the world and what is happening in the North are tightly interconnected. We have had more than 15 years with the Northern Contaminants Program, which has shown that toxins we are not using in Canada, but that are used in South Africa, are now floating up through the water currents. They are being consumed by species that are consumed by Inuit people in the North.
From a sovereignty issue, I do not think the scientific presence is a consideration. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, DFAIT, is the best department to give you a better read on this complex context of sovereignty and presence. However, one thing the department is doing jointly with DFAIT on is to look at the ocean mapping in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, to identify which Canadian portion of the Arctic belongs us to us. Through the Canadian Hydrographic Services, we are charting and mapping the North.
The Chair: I have a supplementary question. When we were at Resolute, we visited a research station. I thought I read recently that the Resolute research station had run into difficulty with ongoing funds. Maybe they had project funds but the operation of the station itself had issues. That is one question.
The second question is that you mentioned a Canadian research station in the Arctic. However, we are also participating in a research station in Norway, are we not? Can you comment on participation?
Mr. Paradis: I do not have details on the research station in Norway but we know Canadian scientists tend to travel around the Arctic countries. Our assistant deputy minister was in Russia lately to have interactions and discussions about what we are doing. We have a number of bilateral agreements.
I think we are taking advantage of every opportunity to work with other countries. We do a lot of work with Alaska, for example, because some of the issues are closely related.
We recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Norwegians to work on different issues. They raised the Arctic as a significant issue for them.
We have Canadians going to other stations. For example, the way we manage the Canadian stocks is related closely to the way the Norwegians like to manage their stocks of marine mammals because there are similarities and similar issues.
In regard to problems at the Resolute research station, I do not have the details. I cannot recall. I am not able to give you details, but if we have more information about what station it is, we can dig out information to find out the real issue. It is possible it has problems for some reason but I do not think the station at Resolute is one of ours.
Ms. Wheatley: I am not sure if you are referring to the Polar Continental Shelf Program, which is a research station of the Natural Resources Canada. However, it also provides logistical support for research that DFO and other government departments must conduct in the Arctic. Their funding would be separate from our funding.
Senator Cochrane: I have a supplementary question to Senator Hubley's question. I am sorry I was late; the Senate was still sitting.
Is this $150 million of funding above and beyond what is allocated each year to the science institute?
Mr. Paradis: Absolutely.
Senator Cochrane: Did you say $150 million over two years or one year?
Mr. Paradis: It was over two years, but the reality is there was kind of a ramping-up period. Then there were the two main years of the IPY program. We are in the ramping-down phases now. The International Polar Year was one year, but all kinds of infrastructure was built and deployed afterwards.
The way the investment was made was interesting. It is one of those programs where the funding was administered by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada, NSERC. Some departments received money; we received money for the Canadian Coast Guard to prepare to bring all the scientists north. However, the research itself was funded by a joint fund that people applied to. We had university people, community members and government departments. The funding was not allocated to people; it was to be shared among the entire community of people.
Senator Cochrane: Did each department have its own funding to bring to this science unit?
Mr. Paradis: We have what we call base funding — operating funding within the departments. Our scientists usually take a portion of that base funding, and then they leverage it with additional funding out of the general pot; therefore, we see a synergy of investment.
Senator Cochrane: Is that program going strong?
Mr. Paradis: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Do you have an invasive species in the Arctic waters? As you know, we are going to the Western Arctic, so we want as much information as possible from you.
Mr. Paradis: At this point in time, because we do not have the full biodiversity profile and we did not have a historic one, it is hard to figure out what exotic species are moving up there and which ones have a direct "invader's" impact on the system. One thing we had to establish in the North was a ballast water exchange zone, so vessels can ballast their waters before they enter critical ecosystems in the North.
Under the International Maritime Organization, there is an international ballast water regulation or convention in place. It says that, before a ship enters economic zones, they are supposed to exchange their ballast. For example, if they fuel up in the Caspian Bay and they come to Canada, before they enter Canada, they are supposed to release their ballast water so that the species in the ballast are out in the ocean in salt water. Then they are supposed to fill it again before they come into the country.
To do that in a safe manner, we establish areas where they can exchange their ballast that will have minimal impact on the coastal zones. With the oceanographers, we look at currents and deployments, so when they ballast, the invaders will be pushed away instead of being brought into the ecosystem to the shore.
Senator Cochrane: You know fish swim.
Mr. Paradis: I agree with you.
Senator Cochrane: It is hard to eliminate species that are invasive, and select the good ones from the bad ones.
What stocks are the most important to the local economy of the Western Arctic?
Ms. Wheatley: In the Western Arctic, there is a commercial fishery on Great Slave Lake. This fishery is a freshwater fishery, so they harvest a number of whitefish and similar fish there. That fishery is important to the economy. However, the cost of pursuing that fishery is often more costly than what they can make from selling the fish.
Senator Cochrane: Are you saying it is not enough?
Ms. Wheatley: The cost of putting the vessels in the water and going out and harvesting versus what they receive for the fish becomes a challenge.
In all parts of the North, the subsistence fishery is important, whether it is char, lake trout or marine mammals. Those subsistence fisheries are important because subsistence means what they are putting on the plates in the day-to-day source of food. While the fishery does not contribute to the economy, it helps support the people in the communities as a source of food.
Senator Cochrane: What sort of communications do we have between Canada and the U.S. there? You say you have all kinds of communications with other countries. You mentioned Norway, France and Japan. What sort of communication do we have with the U.S. in regard to issues?
Mr. Paradis: It depends on what issues we are dealing with. For example, the Canadian Hydrographic Service is tied closely to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, in the United States. The two organizations carry out joint operations; often if they go up with their ship, we will either work with them or they will join us.
If it is fisheries issues, communication tends to be done locally, such as through Canada-Alaska interaction. It depends on the issues because different agencies are engaged in all kinds of activities. However, globally speaking, we have all sorts of international multilateral tables where we bring issues together. It depends on the issue and what we are trying to do.
Senator Cochrane: What about the fishery? Do we have a lot of communication with the fishery?
Mr. Paradis: Not really; the commercial fishery is not as extensive as it could be in the North. One thing our scientists do is work with the community to conduct a potential assessment of fisheries. In my briefing here, I have information about the Buffalo River assessment. We will go out and conduct assessments.
We are conducting a lot of char assessment in Nunavut and the Eastern Arctic. For the Slave Lake commercial and subsistence fisheries, we are looking at new stocks and new potential. Sometimes we trigger what we call the emerging fisheries approach. The minister will provide licences to see if the fishery can be economically viable. Our scientists go out and assess the stock.
We work together, catching the fish and assessing the commercial potential and viability. We are at that stage in the North, in most cases, apart from char, where we have advanced faster in the Eastern Arctic. The Western Arctic is largely a subsistence fishery.
Senator Cochrane: Do you have problems with receding ice up there?
Mr. Paradis: I am not familiar with that issue. We know that the fishing season cannot be as long because of the problem of ice and melting. It is part of the issue of conducting the assessment; if the period is too short, maybe it is not economically viable. That problem is some of the issue, but I am not familiar enough to be able to give you a full answer.
The Chair: You mentioned ballast — that when boats come into Canadian waters, they have to exchange the ballast because of the possibility of invasive species. How is that compliance enforced?
Mr. Paradis: In the last two or three years, under the Oceans Action Plan and Health of the Oceans Initiative, Transport Canada has received money to put into place a monitoring program and to enforce regulation. As an example, ships entering the Great Lakes have been assessed at 99.7 per cent, and 98.2 per cent were complying, or something along those numbers. Those that did not comply were sent back.
The Chair: That is the Great Lakes?
Mr. Paradis: Yes: In the North, I would have to verify with Transport Canada what kind of monitoring system they have in place, if any, but we have established the ballast water zones in the North.
The Chair: This issue comes back to one of our key recommendations about the Nordic Energy Regulators, NORDREG. The regulations in the Arctic are not compulsory, as they are on the east and west coasts. Ships can report to Canadian Coast Guard if they want to, but they do not have to.
You mentioned Transport Canada has some authority there. How, in the Arctic, must a ship comply with the exchange of ballast regulation? How is that regulation enforced in the Arctic?
Mr. Paradis: I am not able to respond to that question because the regulation is enforced by Transport Canada, although the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water is a blanket convention for all of Canada. I do not know how Transport Canada enforces it in the North, unless there is a different set of rules that applies. I am not familiar with those rules.
Senator Adams: We passed Bill C-3 a week ago to extend Arctic waters to 200 miles except for the waters between Canada and Greenland where it is 100 miles. Will that change now? It was amended in 1960 in the Arctic.
I did not agree with enforcement of the act being under the Minister of Transport. It should be left with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to settle those 200 miles up the line to Alaska, and the one, 100 miles, between Greenland and Canada. He did not mention whether other countries agreed with the new definition of "arctic waters."
Will you change some of your policy now, relating to whether Transport Canada will monitor what is happening up there? Nothing has changed there. It is still the same as in 1960, at the time when the act was implemented. The bill has only has two clauses; it is not a big bill.
Mr. Paradis: I am not able to respond to that question. However, we are totally aware of the changing nature of the North. I do not think anyone had ever thought about invasive species in the North and the management of ballast water in that zone.
Over the last couple of years, DFO has created a national aquatic invasive species research program. This program, which ends next year, is looking at a future way to approach it. The North is clearly one of the zones that will experience the largest impacts. They are pushing a new program to include biodiversity issues and also the management of invasive species in the North.
The Chair: It is a question we have to ask. Obviously, we cannot rely on you for the answers. It is not your particular territory, but it is a question for the committee to explore.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The last time you appeared before our committee, I wanted to ask you a question about some notes that our researcher prepared on climate change and permafrost change. They appear to be having a larger impact in this area of the arctic than elsewhere, and if they have an effect on the ground, that could also affect erosion, which could in turn affect habitat.
Do you have any data that could shed light on this subject?
Mr. Paradis: I do not have any data with me, but there have been studies. I recently saw some reports that discuss exactly what you are describing in terms of permafrost thaw. All kinds of things are happening including temperature warming and significant shifts in ice effects.
Unfortunately, I do not have the information here with me today, but we could certainly find it and send it to you. I have recently seen reports that specifically mention these kinds of effects in the north and the effects on the increase in glacial melting, as well as other changes in the arctic.
Ms. Breton: With respect to climate change, Ouranos in Quebec is working on impact assessments, modelling and forecasting, and I know that they were also talking about permafrost thaw. I think it is a given.
I do not know if we are currently researching this topic, but it is one of the impacts of climate change.
During your visit out west, I believe there are northern communities that are already feeling the effects of climate change. It might be interesting to see which communities are most affected and to discuss those effects with them.
Senator Robichaud: In the area around the Mackenzie River, the largest river in the region, besides the pipeline issue, are there questions that we should ask, things we should try to shed light on?
Ms. Breton: The most important subjects are fish habitat and the effects of developing the Mackenzie gas pipeline. As you know, public hearings were held, and we are waiting for the experts to submit their report. That is certainly a concern.
There are also the marine protected areas at the mouth of the Mackenzie River, where beluga whales congregate at certain times of the year. I think that would be another subject of interest for the committee.
As for the management of the oceans, habitats and species at risk programs, oil development affects habitat, and the marine protected area, and in a broader sense, the integrated planning process in the Beaufort Sea affect oceans. It is a process that brings together different levels of government — aboriginal, territorial and federal — as well as stakeholders and various departments such as Transport Canada.
So, in an integrated planning process, all issues affecting this area of the ocean are discussed and examined. This is the appropriate setting in which to discuss maritime transport, ballast tanks or other subjects of this nature.
To answer your question about the Mackenzie River, yes, it is very important. There are concerns about oil development, the conservation of marine protected areas and the integrated planning process, which brings together a wide range of stakeholders and decision-makers. Meeting with people who are part of the area's system of governance is an excellent way to learn about their concerns and to understand what role they can play in the integrated process.
As I said at the beginning of my presentation, a management plan for the Beaufort Sea is being developed. It is an integrated management plan that will involve transport, development and conservation. This is a really great opportunity for you.
Senator Robichaud: This integrated process is only in the early stages, is it not?
Ms. Breton: It has been around for a number of years. In the case of the mouth of the Mackenzie River, ten years of work, consultations, research and development of regulations has gone into designating it as a marine protected area.
Senator Robichaud: Were people in the community involved?
Ms. Breton: They have a representative from their system of governance.
Ms. Paradis: From a scientific standpoint, the cumulative effects are the most common concerns. The models we have are not very extensive. We are just getting started in terms of modelling issues, in addition to development and impact concerns. This is something that communities are discussing a lot and that we are being asked to pay more attention to. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has set up a centre of expertise on ecosystem and impact modelling. That is something that you could explore further with the communities.
Those are recurrent themes in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's publications. People say they want to do this or that activity, but what does the relationship between all those activities mean?
The Beaufort Sea and the entire Mackenzie region are going through major economic and social changes. And that will probably give rise to questions about cumulative effects. Are the models developed enough? More research is needed to answer these questions.
Over the past three years, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has begun the transition of shifting a series of vertical programs towards the ecosystem-based approach. That entails bringing all of the dynamics into an integrated system and identifying which factors affect and put pressure on the system. That is very new.
Around the world, conferences are given every six months or so on ecosystem-based integrated management models because everyone is trying to understand just how far-reaching all of this is.
[English]
Senator Adams: I was in Rankin Inlet a couple of weeks ago. Will there be more monitoring and counting of narwhals this year in Nunavut?
Ms. Wheatley: I am reviewing the list of projects. Some studies on Hudson Bay marine mammals will occur this summer, which will include looking at the numbers around Hudson Bay, yes.
Senator Adams: Will there be any studies in the Arctic area where we lost approximately 570 narwhals close to Pond Inlet? Some people thought that DFO might look at that area to see if there is an increase in the numbers. They were caught in the ice last year in October. Is DFO looking into that area? There were 570 that were lost in one month; and that is a lot of whales. We do not know how many we lost, in particular how many females. We are wondering how many will be born this year and next year because of that loss.
Ms. Wheatley: We had science staff up there on the ice when the harvest was taking place. Samples were collected, and one of the things they will look at is genetics to try to understand the relationships of different stocks of narwhal across the Arctic. Follow-up work was being done on that study.
Senator Adams: There was a study in Hudson Bay a year ago on killer whales. Do you have any information on that study? Do they make a noise when they go after belugas, and so on?
Ms. Wheatley: Dr. Steve Ferguson is the lead on that study. I do not have details of the study with me but the project is an ongoing one.
Senator Adams: At some time, we would like to find out if the belugas are a species at risk. They are referred to in Bill C-5 as a species at risk. Studies have been taking place for the last five or six years and we do not have any information from them. Do you know how much it costs to have a study?
Last year we took a trip to Pangnirtung and found out that around the inlet just before Pangnirtung, the belugas give birth to their young. Harvesters of those whales are concerned about the situation in Pangnirtung because vessels from Europe go in to watch the whales around the inlet. We found out that there are different species of beluga whale. You have been working up in the Baffin area. Have you heard from those communities?
Ms. Wheatley: Sorry, I am not clear on the question. Are you concerned about issues regarding the vessels?
Senator Adams: Yes; we found out they had a quota for whales at Pangnirtung. We were told in the community there were quotas where they were harvesting the belugas right near the inlet at Pangnirtung. Are there different species of beluga?
Ms. Wheatley: They are the same species, but there are different stocks of belugas. Some years ago, the Southeast Baffin Beluga Management Committee looked at surveys and genetic studies and identified the beluga harvested in Kimmirut. It was thought that the beluga harvest in Kimmirut, Iqaluit and Pangnirtung were the same stocks. The genetic studies and other research showed that they were three separate groups. They are now managed separately as opposed to being managed as one group.
Senator Adams: I did not ask the department how many are allowed to be caught every year since it was not clear that is only a different stock and not a different species. Senator Watt knows there are only about 200 belugas left on the Hudson Bay coast and on the east coast. One scientist in the department told us a couple of years ago that they do not mix with other species. We were told that only 200 come out every year now near Hudson Bay. Some go up to Churchill; I think about 38,000 belugas per year. I was wondering about the department's interaction with the belugas.
Senator Watt: My question is to people who deal with the scientific aspects of this issue. When you are conducting fact finding research in terms of the behaviour of whatever species — whales, fish or seals — is there a technology available today that can redirect those species from a certain geographic area? Is there such a mechanical thing being used by the scientific community?
Mr. Paradis: I will verify it, but not to my knowledge. We have been tagging animals in the North to have a better understanding of migratory patterns; where they are and what they do. We have spent a lot of time looking at the impact of seismic operations when companies test for oil and gas at the bottom of the ocean. That testing makes noise and we want to determine the effects on the animals' migratory patterns and dispersion, or the dynamics of that pattern. I know nothing of a device being used to redirect the marine mammals in the North.
Senator Watt: Would it not provide a better understanding of the migration when it comes to oil drilling in the ocean and things like that?
Mr. Paradis: We are doing work on that question. This year, we will have a review on marine noise and its effect on marine organisms. As I mentioned, we have conducted multiple reviews on the impact of seismic testing on the animals. Not only does the noise redirect them into different areas, but it could create a disturbance pattern. For example, it might affect their normal reproductive cycle. We have research and reports to that effect.
Two years ago, we conducted a full review and had experts from around the world look at the effects of seismic testing. The Americans have spent significant time on sonar. We are planning a review this year or next year. This year, we are looking at shipping, or vessel noises and marine mammal behaviour.
We know the noise from all the developments there may have an impact on the way populations are distributed and their behaviour while they are mating or reproducing.
Ms. Wheatley: Most of the time, we do not want to adjust the animal's behaviour. However, there has been work. You will probably hear when you are in the Western Arctic, in the Husky Lakes near Tuktoyaktuk there has been some beluga entrapment in a number of years where the beluga find their way in through a convoluted channel, but have problems finding their way out because the water is shallower near the mouth. The water freezes and the belugas become entrapped. There has been some work with the communities to try to dissuade the beluga from entering the Husky Lakes. The work was reasonably successful last year.
That is the only type of work I am aware of in trying to redirect or stop the movement of a species.
Mr. Paradis: If Senator Watt is interested, we conducted the review on the impacts of seismic testing on marine mammals and other organisms. Last year, Fish Habitat Management at DFO was requested to perform a special review of northern behaviours. Some people claim that the cold water or the impact of noise, sounds and waves can be more important on northern organisms. I can ensure you receive copies of that report.
Senator Cook: I am the bad girl who opened the map.
I am preoccupied with the point where we will set standards for the changing of ballast. Will that point be in international waters or Canadian waters?
I know it is not your responsibility. I believe I heard you say that it is the responsibility of Transport Canada. If we, together, were charged with this responsibility tonight, where would you advocate dumping and filling up as vessels proceed through the Arctic?
I live in Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to see it happen far in advance of when they reach my Labrador coast. It is clear on the western end of the Arctic, but it is not as clear on the eastern end. The map does not show me an international boundary. If we are not to repeat the same mistakes that we made with the Great Lakes and the zebra mussel — where it is too late now — we will have to set a standard and enforcement. I want your comments on that issue although I know it is not your mandate.
Ms. Breton: The Ocean Health Initiative, as was said before, provided investment for pollution prevention. The Ocean Health Initiative is approximately 22 specific projects for which DFO, Environment Canada, Transport Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada receive money.
Transport Canada receives money for the enforcement of ballast water regulations. The department received money for pollution prevention surveillance; pollution prevention — outfitting, so enforcement; Arctic international marine shipping assessment; and pollution prevention assessment on ship waste reduction.
This work is going on within that program. That ought to give you at least a little sense of comfort that there is work in progress and investment in the direction that you are highlighting.
In terms of science and boundaries on maps, I do not know if Mr. Paradis has more specifics.
Mr. Paradis: Yes, I do. I do not think the international convention has been ratified. There is a complex mix where they needed a certain number of countries that represented a certain proportion of the population. Nevertheless, Transport Canada has moved forward with a Canadian regulation that is totally in line with the international one, so we are ahead of the game on that issue.
In the last couple of months, we have mapped the zones around Newfoundland where ballast water operations should take place. I can ensure that we table a copy of the report with this committee so that you can see which zones have been identified. About two years ago, we mapped the ballast zones around the Eastern Scotian Shelf, on the West Coast and in the Great Lakes, but we did not have all the information required to map the zones around Newfoundland. However, it has been completed this year for sure. We can deliver those reports to you.
Senator Cook: That is fine and thank you very much but, at some point in time, that vessel coming in will need a copy of that manual to know what the guidelines are, and how they are to manage their ballast. How do they obtain that information?
Mr. Paradis: Usually, Transport Canada informs the mariners of where they should dump the ballast and then the Coast Guard also has roles to inform people.
Senator Cook: That is the issue I am trying to get at. Will the Coast Guard play a pivotal role in this matter?
Mr. Paradis: I can verify that. We, in science, prepare the reviews and deliver advice, and the reviews and advice are taken up by the regulator, which is Transport Canada in this case. The beauty of this issue is that we have been working closely. I chaired a meeting two years ago where we decided on three zones, and Transport Canada was present in the room. By the end of the meeting, they had a policy meeting to write the regulation.
My feeling is that they should already be in motion to establish the Newfoundland zone, based on the advice we provided. We can follow up and give you the information. We have been working closely; it is probably one of the most significant issues. We know, for instance, that ballast water is the largest pathway of introduction. If we do not stop it before it comes in, our chances to control are limited.
Senator Cook: Thank you for that information. I am less concerned about my home province than I am of this massive land to the north of us that no one seems to be totally responsible for; responsibility is fragmented. That piece concerns me more than anything.
Mr. Paradis: I know we conducted the risk assessment of the northern area so we have provided Transport Canada with advice on what should be done to protect that area. I do not know the intricacies of the government in the North, as you mentioned earlier, but progress is being made in terms of finding out where the less significant areas for impact are for those operations to take place.
The Chair: One recommendation that we made, of course, was for a new Department of the Arctic to bring things together. You are right: The jurisdictions are all over the place. That was one of the recommendations in our report.
We have gone on for an hour and a half and I want to thank you very much for coming and for being helpful. We are going to the Western Arctic, as you know, and we need information. We need questions first. I think we discovered some questions tonight, and we received some answers.
(The committee adjourned.)