Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 1 - Evidence - October 6, 2011
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 6, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 9 a.m. to examine issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. I would like to welcome Minister Ashfield and his staff here.
My name is Fabian Manning, chair of this committee. I am a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador. Before we begin, I would ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator MacDonald: Mike MacDonald, from Nova Scotia.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Cochrane: Ethel Cochrane, from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Baker: George Baker, from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, from New Brunswick.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, from Nunavut.
The Chair: Senator Don Oliver, from Nova Scotia, has just arrived. Welcome.
Colleagues, the Honourable Keith Ashfield, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, is before us this morning.
Minister, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I thank you for taking the time to appear before us. You and your officials are the first witnesses to appear before this committee in this session and we look forward to learning more on the department's initiatives, plans and priorities. The committee is currently discussing its future business and establishing potential topics for upcoming studies. In this regard, your appearance should prove invaluable.
I have the list of the people that have accompanied you, minister. However, many people have difficulty understanding my Newfoundland accent, so I will ask if you would be kind enough to introduce them.
Hon. Keith Ashfield, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries and Oceans:
They can introduce themselves, Mr. Chair, if you would like.
The Chair: That would be fine.
Marc Grégoire, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I am Marc Grégoire, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard.
David Balfour, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I am David Balfour, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management.
Siddika Mithani, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I am Siddika Mithani, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector.
David Bevan, Associate Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I am David Bevan, Associate Deputy Minister.
Richard Nadeau, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I am Richard Nadeau, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services.
Roch Huppé, Chief Financial Officer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I am Roch Huppé, Chief Financial Officer.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, do you have any opening remarks you would like to make?
Mr. Ashfield: I do, Mr. Chair. First, thank you for inviting me here this morning and welcoming not only myself, but my staff. It is a big department and I have to take lots of advice, so it is good to have some people here that will assist me if there are any questions that I cannot answer.
I am honoured to be here as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and I look forward to the privilege of working with the committee on issues that are important to Canadians. I want to thank senators who contributed to discussions on the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. Thanks in part to your hard work, we are now able to successfully transfer light stations to interested third parties. This is an important example of how we are focusing federal resources and providing better value for money for Canadians. We remain firm in our belief that these iconic buildings should be preserved for their historic and culture value, and thank you for your work.
Today's appearance gives me the opportunity to provide an update on my department's plans, priorities and initiatives. Let me begin by recognizing the Canadian Coast Guard and the work they do every day to keep Canadians safe. The Canadian Coast Guard is one element in a network of government agencies, volunteers and private entities that make up Canada's search and rescue system. The safety and security of mariners is the Coast Guard's number one priority.
Canada has responsibility for monitoring the longest coastline in the world, with often treacherous sea and weather conditions. Despite these challenges, Canada has one of the most effective search and rescue systems in the world, which includes a network of three rescue coordination centres staffed jointly by the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Forces. We are always working to improve Canada's search and rescue capacity, engaging officers in regular training exercises and enhancing the tools and equipment for our front-line officers to do their jobs efficiently.
Modernizing our management, adopting new technologies, and improving coordination with our search and rescue partners will better serve Canadians and the mariners who depend on us. For example, we are modernizing and expanding the fleet, adding new icebreaking capability and replacing and updating many of our older boats and ships. Outdated equipment will be replaced with modern technology to provide the Coast Guard and the people who rely on it with improved service and better value for money.
In keeping with our government's commitment to uphold Canadian sovereignty and security, we are also exploring law enforcement options for the Coast Guard. This renewal within the operations of the Canadian Coast Guard is particularly timely, as we are coming up on their fiftieth anniversary.
On the fisheries side of my portfolio, I spent much of the summer meeting industry stakeholders on wharves or in small communities — representatives from various governments and members of the fishing community — to get a better grasp of the state of Canada's fisheries on all coasts. In my meetings with stakeholders and industry representatives, it came as no surprise that there are significant systemic challenges facing today's fishing industry.
Commercial fishing is one of Canada's founding industries, but the sector is going through fundamental changes driven by significant and unprecedented shifts in global economics, consumer demand for sustainable seafood, and environmental realities. It has become all the more evident that DFO must modernize its practices, policies and regulations to keep up with the 21st century.
For example, our fishery has always been heavily oriented toward exports. Today we export approximately 85 per cent of our fish products, but the value of the exports has steadily declined over the past five years. This stands in stark contrast to countries like China, where the value of exports has been increasing during the same period.
Industry has been clear that they feel Canada's fisheries management system is outdated and complicated. Not surprisingly, this has created unnecessary barriers to industry growth and global competitiveness. At the local level, fisher men and women have indicated to me that Fisheries and Oceans Canada controls virtually all aspects of fisheries operations, including where and when people can fish; what size of boats they can have; what kind of gear they can use; how many fish they can catch; and, in some instances, what kind of employment they can have.
Over the years, fisheries' policy decisions have favoured the short term rather than the longer view. These policies have been adopted in a patchwork manner, and they differ from region to region and from fishery to fishery. Some of them limit growth, curtail efficiencies and, frankly, make very little sense. Additionally, the current system is resource intensive and expensive to administer. As I continue as fisheries minister, I will continue to engage industry and stakeholders to work toward a solution.
We are working with our stakeholders to respond to these complex and interrelated challenges. So far, I have learned that DFO should work toward rebalancing fisheries' management policies and conservation programs to better reflect market forces; build on our Catch Certification Program to maintain and grow access in international markets for Canadian fish and fish products; create a more stable operating environment where multi-year allocations for most species are the norm and processes for assigning them are predictable, consistent and transparent; and create a system in which fisher men and women can make long-term plans and investments to improve their competitiveness and encourage sustainable harvesting practices.
Despite the challenges that these kinds of changes present, Canadian and international experiences show that implementing similar market-based approaches to fisheries management has proven successful. Other countries and even some fisheries in Canada have adopted change and as a result have seen flexible, market-oriented fishing seasons, improved product quality, increased economic value, a decline in instances of overfishing, and improved safety.
I believe strongly that with some changes at DFO, Canada's fishing industry has the potential to generate much more value. A modern fisheries management framework would enable us to focus on maximizing value and quality of output, rather than quantity, and to better position the industry to make a real and lasting contribution to Canada's economic future.
Change will require examining all of DFO's rules, policies and regulations. In the end, my goal is to establish a coherent management system that benefits individual fisher men and women and industry stakeholders in both the short and long term.
I want to see DFO focus on value. I would like to see the department untangle and standardize rules and processes. We must increase transparency for decision making and strengthen environmental sustainability in Canadian and international waters to ensure there is a fishery for the future.
Similarly, my experience over the last few months as minister has shown me that we must also address inefficiencies in our approach to habitat management. Modernizing our habitat policy will allow us to manage the impacts of human activities on fish and fish habitat more effectively and efficiently, with a less cumbersome and more timely review process for industry.
Through its Habitat Management Program, Fisheries and Oceans is the key federal environmental regulator for projects in or around waters throughout Canada. My department's regulatory decisions about habitat can directly affect activities of industries, farmers, landowners, First Nations communities and individuals, and can have very real impacts on economic development.
Our policy is outdated. It has not changed since it was drafted in 1986. We need to put in place a system that is more transparent, leverages existing partnerships with provinces and territories, is guided by national standards and is supported by the necessary tools and guidelines. This will improve consistency, streamline decision making and provide predictability and clarity for having to comply with DFO's regulations.
I am under no illusion that the ambitious agenda that my department has set forth will be simple. Real reform is always difficult, but it is also necessary to meet the challenges that we face today and into the future.
As Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I look forward to working with you and with Canadians on all coasts to deliver results that reflects their priorities.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. As you are fully aware, the closure of the search and rescue office in Newfoundland and Labrador caused some concern back a little while ago. One of the members of Parliament from Newfoundland said this morning that she has a copy of a leaked document, dated September 12 to 14, that states that the closure of the Quebec SAR office, which was announced at the time that Newfoundland one was announced, is now off the table. It is only the Newfoundland office that will be closed. I want to give you and your staff the opportunity to answer that.
Mr. Ashfield: We looked at all of our policies in DFO to find areas where we thought we could not only save money but also improve efficiency and effectiveness. We will continue to do that when we can.
I know it caused a lot of concern in Newfoundland, but I feel that it will not affect the service that is provided to mariners. Especially with today's technology, it is not hard to move operations into the Halifax operation. It is actually an efficiency, as it brings together both DND and the Coast Guard. We feel that that efficiency will serve everyone very well.
I do not know if my staff has more to say on that.
Mr. Grégoire: Yes, minister. I do not know where this rumour or this document comes from, but we have a plan in place now. The plan is progressing very well, and we are working towards April 2012 for consolidation of both sites. The plan is to move most of the workload from Quebec City to Trenton and some of it to Halifax in April 2012, as well as all of the workload out of St. John's to Halifax. I am not aware of any other version of such a plan.
Senator Cochrane: I think a lot of the recent concern has been a result of a program that we just saw on CBC in regard to some of the difficulties with men fishing when the high wind comes up and the lack of immediate response by the Coast Guard. I do not know if you have seen that.
Mr. Ashfield: I must confess I only caught a part of that program. I know Coast Guard response time is within 30 minutes.
Mr. Grégoire, I do not know if you have anything more to say.
Mr. Grégoire: Around the country, we have over 40 lifeboat stations. All of our ships and vessels are also equipped with search and rescue, so we have a very good response time.
Going back to the closure of the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre, or MRSC, I would emphasize the fact that the assets, the ships, and the lifeboat stations are all staying in place. We are not moving anything. The same service will be available, but we believe it will be done in a more efficient manner from the joint rescue centre in Halifax.
Senator Cochrane: I realize half an hour is the limited time that you have. However, this was longer than half an hour, Mr. Grégoire. What happened was that the gentleman at the main post could not make a decision. He was hemming and hawing as to what to do, but it was really bad out on the water. The brother of the owner of the fishing boat was in danger. He died as a result of a lack of immediate response to that incident.
I am not sure, it might have been two hours before they responded. I know it was not half an hour like you said.
Mr. Grégoire: It is not half an hour to arrive on site. It is half an hour to be ready to depart. Our vessels are ready to depart within a half hour, 24/7.
Senator Cochrane: This was a report from fishermen as well as people from the media. The brother of the man that died was reporting this as well.
Senator Hubley: Welcome, minister and staff. It is a great way to start our committee meetings.
In 2009, following a report from the Fisheries Committee, the government introduced the Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures Program in response to the crisis in the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada. The purpose was to ensure its long-term sustainability and economic prosperity.
In my province of Prince Edward Island, the industry has made important strides in conservation measures and in rationalization of the industry, with the retirement of lobster licences and the reduction of total number of traps, in addition to increases in the legal carapace sizes. In your view, how successful has this program been?
Mr. Ashfield: In my view, the work that has been done, not only in P.E.I. but also in New Brunswick, has been very successful. There has been some retirement of licences in New Brunswick as well. It has been very effective and the monies invested have been spent wisely. We are seeing a reduction of the number of traps placed in the water and, as you mention, the carapace size has also been increased. I think, overall, the program has been successful, but I think we have more work to do as well. We still have too many fishers and too many traps in the water, and the more we can move forward with that the better. I think it would be in the best interests of everyone. I think it would also allow the fishers that remain in the fishery to make a fairly good living at it. That was the overall intent of the process.
Senator Hubley: The deadline for the second round of the call for proposals on the program was September 30 of this year. Can you indicate the number of proposals received under the second round?
Mr. Ashfield: I have not seen them myself. I will have to defer that to staff. You are absolutely correct. It was September 30 for the second round. David Balfour can probably answer the specifics on that.
Mr. Balfour: We have received on the order of 15 proposals from representatives of lobster fishing areas. As the minister indicated, we have had a very successful take-up in the program to this point. We have 17 sustainability plans and 24 funding arrangements that have been put into place. Of the $48 million that is available in the program, we have had take-up, to this point, of about $46 million.
We will be assessing the proposals that have been received in order to determine those that are the best quality and that best achieve a security of sustainability of the lobster resource, and enhance the ability of the industry to be prosperous and effective in the world economy. We would then, as part of the process, be bringing forward recommendations to the minister as to where best to invest the limited resources that remain in this program.
Senator Hubley: There will not be a third round of proposals, I understand. This will be the final round.
Mr. Balfour: The intent of the program is that we would have all projects in place within such time that they could be completed before the program expires in 2014. It is not our expectation that there will be any funding remaining to support a further round of proposals.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here, Mr. Minister and staff. It is greatly appreciated.
As you mentioned in your early remarks, the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act — which was a study that this committee has taken in the last year or so — has been very helpful to your department and to many Canadians across the country.
The committee is looking at different possibilities of future studies, and I know we have reached out to every province in Canada to submit any concerns that they would have within their departments. To date we have received written documentation from at least four or five. I am guessing by memory, but I think that New Brunswick, British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Alberta have written back. That will also be helpful to the committee.
In your opening remarks, you also mentioned some of the challenges that your department is facing, for example with industry. You are working closely with your stakeholders to find different solutions.
I was curious to know if there are one or two things you could recommend the Senate committee take on as a possible study that would be helpful to your department, your challenges out there or information that you are looking for?
Mr. Ashfield: Absolutely we can provide you can some feedback on that. I appreciate the offer because it is important that we work with the Senate committee. I will suggest this afternoon when I meet with the House of Commons committee that if they are so inclined we would be happy to provide them with some topics that we would like to have studied. I will have to put a little thought into that. There are a number of areas that would probably be of interest and the committee would be able to move forward for us. It is important that we work together on these types of issues.
My riding is sort of landlocked. I have a small fresh water fishery in my riding but I am not on salt water, so the department was a bit of a challenge for me. A lot of my family lives on Grand Manan Island. I worked in the smoke sheds and the sardine factories as a young fellow and found out quickly that was not what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. I have some understanding of the sea, our mariners and the coasts in Atlantic Canada.
The department is challenging, complex and we have a lot of issues to deal with. I look forward to working with the committee on some of those. It would be very helpful.
Senator Poirier: I think it will be great, too. We want to make sure that this committee work is not being duplicated by other groups out there. We are working in collaboration to advance things for people involved in the fishing industry and everyone out there that is depending on us.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you everyone for being here today. I know that the business of the Senate on Tuesday had you here, but we did not show up because we were tied up.
Mr. Ashfield: It was my fault too because I was tied up after that, but the chair kindly offered a later time.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you for your patience.
As it should be, small craft harbours are a big issue at home. It is important to so many small fishing communities. In the last couple of years we have had a $10 million increase in small craft harbour funding. We would like reassurance of what the future holds for small craft harbour funding. Are these funding levels going to be maintained? What are the plans?
Mr. Ashfield: Obviously small craft harbours are important. For the last while we have been focusing on the consolidation of some of the small craft harbours and the ones that are of more benefit to the fishery. We have spent a considerable amount of money in our investments in small craft harbours. We have attempted to accelerate the divestiture of non-core harbours by investing $45 million over four years to permit necessary repairs. We had significant extra monies put into small craft harbours through Canada's Economic Action Plan, and that gave us a bit of a jump up on some of the priorities that had to happen fairly soon.
We recognize that the dollars we have are limited in terms of investment, but we try to focus on the ones that will provide the most benefit to the largest community. We will continue to do that.
In terms of investment, I see no reduction in dollars to be spent on small craft harbours in and around our normal budget process. We had some additional add-ons through Canada's Economic Action Plan that we probably will not see, but it is important and we understand that. My trip up the Labrador coast nailed that down for me. The reliance on these small harbours is incredible and the importance they have to very small communities that totally rely on the fishery. It is important to understand the necessity of investing in them.
I was also up in Pangnirtung to look at the new small craft harbour being put in place there, and some of the work going on is impressive.
Senator MacDonald: I have a question on a different topic. Minister, I do not expect you to know this off the top of your head, but perhaps your officials will have an answer.
I am from a fishing community, and it has been brought to my attention that certain plants or operators get licences for underutilized species. They are granted licences and do not use them. What is the policy of DFO when it comes to retrieving these licences and redistributing them? If licences are sent out and not used, what is their status? How are they handled?
Mr. Bevan: We do not have a ``use it or lose it'' policy because that encourages more participation in fisheries, and that may not be something we want to encourage. We have an emerging fisheries policy. The indication is that if you have an interest, you are to use the licence to determine if it is commercially viable and, if it is, provide scientific information. If you do so, you will have a consideration given to getting a licence in the event that fishery is made commercial. I do not believe there is an obligation to actually pursue that if the company finds in the initial stages that it is difficult to make a go of it. I do not know if Mr. Balfour has anything to add to that.
Mr. Balfour: If we were in a situation where there was a demand for access to an underutilized species and others were sitting with allocations they were not exploiting — and were not in the midst of developing plans to exploit those resources — then we would be in a position of considering how to provide opportunities to others. There are a number of examples where there has been positive exploitation of what we called ``underutilized species,'' such as the whelk fishery off Nova Scotia that has progressed through a developmental stage and has been normalized. Our approach is to put an emphasis on trying to provide opportunities to the industry to make use of resources in a sustainable basis, in order to contribute to the prosperity of their enterprises. That is the focus that we have had.
We would need to give the predictability and stability to allocation holders in order for them to be able to develop plans, proceed in a stable environment and progress on a longer term basis where that is appropriate.
Senator MacDonald: Are there underutilized species, which we assume would have been developed by now, that are not out there, and why is that so?
Mr. Balfour: Going back to some of the remarks offered by the minister at the beginning, this is all really determined by the market place, the imperatives of a market, the economics around harvesting, the risk and the uncertainty. If the market opportunity were there and if the technology were there to exploit them effectively, a number of resources would determine their ability to actually come forward and be more fully utilized. There are reasons that they would not be more fully utilized, primarily because either the market is not there to make it worthwhile, or the technology is not there to be able to efficiently or effectively exploit the resource and do it in a conservation-based manner; or a combination of the two.
Senator MacDonald: Is there one that comes to mind that has not been exploited that you thought would be exploited?
Mr. Balfour: I do not think there is any underutilized species out there waiting in the wings as some panacea or potential resource to be exploited. We have very much commercialized most of what is available to exploit. It is more in the area of niche and minor species that an opportunity could exist for economics if the markets and the technology were right. That is where we are at and where we would see our facilitation of efforts by the industry to develop the resource in the future.
Senator Patterson: Welcome, minister and officials. I would like to focus on your comments about the approach to habitat management and the acknowledgment that your departmental activities should be more effective and efficient, less cumbersome and more timely; and that your policies are outdated. I welcomed those comments.
As you know, minister, from having recently visited Nunavut, the entire North is exploding with resource development projects to the tune of billions of dollars in light of high commodity prices. Nunavut has the fourth highest exploration activity in the country.
To be candid with you, I work with mining industry officials who express considerable frustration with your department. I will give you a concrete example.
Happily, we have a diamond sector in Canada. There are three diamond mines in the Northwest Territories and a fourth at the regulatory stage. All those mines have been permitted without a regulatory framework. Your department and Environment Canada have been working for years on mineral effluent regulations for the diamond sector. There are regulations for metals but not for diamonds, which are actually cleaner than base metals because the process is basically a crushing operation without harmful chemicals. The fourth diamond mine is being permitted in the Northwest Territories and there is still a regulatory vacuum. This leads to investor uncertainty and puts the industry at the whim of officials. This is an example of an area that must be dealt with in your review as urgent to promote investment.
This is less tangible, and I do not want to imply that the management of habitat is unimportant, but I would like to say that there is a lack of capacity in the North. Industry people cannot deal with people on the ground in the territories; they have to deal with Winnipeg, Sarnia or other place, it seems. More important, too often there seems to be an attitude of officials about erecting barriers and being overzealous rather than working collaboratively with industry to deal with issues involving fish-bearing waters. I suggest that we need a collaborative approach, and we should welcome it because it is good for Canada, not to set aside rigorous environmental scrutiny.
In that connection, I congratulate you and your officials for the collaborative approach that has been taken recently with the narwhal issue in Nunavut. It was confrontational and led to a lawsuit. Your deputy minister and Mr. Balfour have turned that around by working collaboratively with the Inuit. I am very pleased that this approach has been taken.
I guess I do not have a question. I wanted to make a statement, and I trust the minister has noted it.
Mr. Ashfield: Thank you for your comments. I was very happy with the outcome of the narwhal issue. It proved to work very well. The process that we ultimately ended up with worked very well and we came to a good conclusion.
In terms of habitat, it is not anyone's intent to minimize the environment. That is certainly not my intent. It is very important that we, as Canadians, recognize and understand that the environment is crucial to our ongoing survival. At the same time, we have a lot of regulatory hoops and red tape to go through. Those are the types of things that we are looking at reducing to make things easier for everyone.
I hear a lot of complaints, not necessarily from industry but from regular ordinary everyday folk who want to make a little change. Some of the hoops they have to go through make it difficult. We have to look at that whole policy and better understand what people need, while protecting our environment. It is to make things simpler and easier to do while we maintain our respect for the environment.
Senator Patterson: Terrific.
Senator Oliver: Minister, thank you for appearing. I deeply appreciate your candour on the points of view you have set forth. I also thank you for the overall picture that you have painted of this industry because it is complex and difficult. In a few minutes, you have given us a very good outline of the current issues. I particularly like the four points you said that DFO should work toward. That is most encouraging as well.
The question I want to raise comes from your statement that:
Our policy is outdated. It has not changed since it was drafted in 1986.
In the 21 years that I have been in Ottawa in Parliament studying the public service, the most difficult department has been Fisheries and Oceans. It has been said that DFO lives in an ivory tower and is out of touch. You say in your remarks that you will continue to work with stakeholders. It seems to me that if you have a policy that is outdated and has not changed since 1986, one of the good places to start is with the people who represent the people of Canada to get some of their input, which are parliamentarians. I am delighted to hear that you will be working with this committee and with the Fisheries Committee in the other place. It seems that there should be a lot more input from the people into the policies of this department because of its reputation, which I have heard it has had over many decades. This is most encouraging.
Is this one of the things that you might consider having the two Fisheries Committees of the Parliament of Canada look at: assisting with a policy that is outdated and has not been touched since 1986?
Mr. Ashfield: The answer is yes. It could be an area that we could look at. In terms of the policy, the habitat policy really needs work. I hear from people in New Brunswick and elsewhere in Canada about some of the issues they face. This goes directly back to our habitat policy and the very restrictive policy it is. It could be an area that the Senate or the House of Commons committee could look at. I will mull this around and get back to you on it.
Senator Oliver: My second question relates to seals. I am a farmer and know nothing about the sea or fish, but I have been told on the street that one of the major problems with our fishery is that the seals are eating a lot of our young fish before they have had a chance to spawn, which has affected fish like cod and some of the other ground fisheries. What, if anything, will you and your department do about the increasing seal population on both the East Coast and the West Coast? Are you planning any kind of substantial cull?
Mr. Ashfield: The largest problem we have with seals is probably on the East Coast, and those are the grey seals. They are a huge animal. They run 60 to 100 pounds and probably eat 10 or 15 pounds of fish per day. Their target is normally larger spawning cod. That population has increased since the 1960s from about 50,000 to current levels today of between 350,000 to 450,000 animals. They are not vegetarians or vegans. Common sense would tell you that they would have some impact on the fish stock. Science is telling us now that there is a problem.
We are currently looking at our options in terms of what we may possibly do, as a test, especially on the grey seal side. There is no real market for grey seal, so it would have to be some sort of process. It would be an exploratory process early on to see if we can have any impact on the herd. It would be targeted to probably look at a specific area. We have to understand the science of it as well. If we decrease the number of grey seals, what kind of impact would it actually have on cod fish in particular? That would probably have to be studied over a four or five year period, and maybe beyond, to get a full understanding of the impact they actually have.
The numbers are increasing rapidly, and it is a scenario we are looking at right now.
Senator Oliver: Is the number of harp seals increasing? Are they a problem in the same way?
Mr. Ashfield: They are a problem in the same way, as I understand it. There are a large number of harp seals as well, but I do not think they are increasing at the same levels as the greys.
Mr. Balfour: There has been an increase in the size of the harp seal herd in the range of 9.5 million animals. As the minister said in his response, the focus is on the grey seals particularly because a science foundation has determined that, although the cod stock in the southern gulf has been closed to fishing and has been subject to a moratorium for about three years, with grey seal predation, it is on a track to extirpation. On the basis of peer-reviewed science, there has been a determination that if there were a reduction in the size of the grey seal herd in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, then that could permit the southern gulf cod stock to rebound and get out of the hole it is in and have the possibility of rebuilding. That science is not in place at this point with respect to the harp seal. At this point, we are certainly concentrating on the grey seals.
Senator Baker: I want to congratulate the minister on his appointment. He has outlined a very big chore that he is about to undertake, but he has been through this before in New Brunswick and nationally, so I am sure he will meet his objectives.
I also want to, on the record, congratulate the chair of this committee as being someone who has an incredible knowledge of the fishery directly, perhaps more knowledge of the fishery than any chair I know of in the Senate or in the House of Commons, except myself, I suppose. About 25 years ago I was fired, as you recall, for producing a report against the government.
I wanted to ask about other matters, but I will change direction for a moment, minister, in view of the fact that Senator Poirier asked and the chair requested subject matter for future meetings and what the committee could be doing. We have Senator Patterson here, who is very knowledgeable as a practising lawyer, and Senator Oliver, a former professor of law, who has taught on the subject I am about to raise. You have to your left the expert in international law, Mr. Bevan, recognized throughout the international community.
Minister, within the next two years — and I understand the preparatory work is being done — the Canadian government will submit a proposal to extend jurisdiction beyond 200 miles out to about 350 miles, to include the entire continental shelf that extends extensively around the chair's area of Newfoundland and Labrador to include the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, the Flemish Cap and up North, where Senator Patterson is concerned. In your preparatory work, I presume Mr. Bevan is being consulted. He certainly should be consulted on this matter in preparing the submission to the United Nations.
The question arises, minister, with those present in this committee meeting as to what effect that will have on the fishery. In your position you cannot multiply the fish, but you may be able to multiply the fish available to Canadian fish plants if we were to somehow reduce the 24 nations who have quotas on our continental shelf today.
This very day there are factory ships dragging on our continental shelf with our permission. We all know that the dragging is on the ocean floor. It is the floor and the sub-soil that is being disturbed. If we extended our proprietary rights over the soil and sub-soil of the ocean, many of us believe that that should be a mechanism to prevent dragging of the ocean floor for purposes of catching fish. It stands to reason, minister.
I do not know whether Senator Bevan — some people claim he should be Justice Bevan — can even talk about this, given the tender nature of this issue at this point in your preparations to go to the United Nations. I do not know if you wish to answer the question, but it is a subject that the committee will undoubtedly be looking at.
Mr. Ashfield: I will defer that to Senator Bevan. He may have to run for election.
Mr. Bevan: I do not think I can claim to be that, or to be a lawyer, but I certainly have had a lot of exposure around the issues of the continental shelf and fishing.
Under the UNCLOS, it is clear that we have control over the sedentary species on the continental shelf. We have exercised that control. If you recall, we have taken action to prevent the fishing of scallops and crab, et cetera, by other parties. We have control now over anything that is sedentary. That is not the case for other countries. They cannot fish on the Flemish Cap for species that are sedentary. We have control over the sea bottom in terms of oil and gas, et cetera. We are now trying to delineate, or the claim will be to delineate, the extent of our continental shelf, not to suggest we do not have control over something like the Flemish Cap or the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks right now. We do. We are doing the study to look at the mapping of the ocean bottom in the Arctic, the West Coast and the East Coast to establish what the actual boundary should be of that territory that is ours to manage for those sedentary species.
The international law is clear and relevant to species that are not sedentary, that swim above in the water column. There is an obligation under international law to form regional fish management organizations such as NAFO and ICAT and others to manage those highly migratory or straddling stocks. We have an obligation to recognize the historical attachments and so on.
Your question about interaction with the bottom is interesting. We have taken steps inside and outside the zone to close areas to dragging to protect the sea bottom, but we have not encountered a situation in international law at the moment, and I say at the moment, where we can apply a principle where you are not allowed to touch the bottom. Indeed, some species like shrimp can be fished using toggle chains where the impact is fairly minimal on the bottom. However, we do not have a situation at this point where we can say, in areas that are not vulnerable, marine ecosystems where we do have measures internationally and nationally to protect them, ``You can fish as long as you do not touch the bottom with anything.'' That is not the circumstance that is in practice under international law at the moment.
These do raise questions as we become much more sensitive to the fact that we have to manage the impact of fishing on the ecosystem, both nationally and internationally. We have to understand the impact of the ecosystem on the productivity of the stocks. Those questions are coming to the fore now and our understanding may evolve over time.
Senator Baker: I know the chair wants to cut me off because I have gone on too long or the answer has gone on too long. In other words, in your assessment of the situation, you have not really answered the question, so one could conclude, and I imagine Professor Oliver would agree, that the matter is yet to be adjudicated and addressed.
Back in the 1960s, when I was a law clerk of a provincial legislature, the question of the North Sea extension of territory was adjudicated by the international court. Basically what they said is what you just repeated.
With regard to dragging the ocean floor, disturbing the soil and subsoil, there is no other way these foreign nations can fish for shrimp, turbot or any of the other bottom dwellers. They have to have something dragging along the bottom, according to their technology. The matter has not been finalized. It would not be out of place for the Senate committee to explore this further. It would not disturb your negotiations with the United Nations right now, and you do agree you only have two years left to put forward your proposal because it was eight years ago that we ratified the Law of the Sea. I think there is a 10-year period, if my memory serves me, to extend your jurisdiction.
In other words, you are saying that the matter is still open to question. It is an interesting area of law. Nothing is definitive one way or the other.
Mr. Bevan: The current understanding is that they are allowed to drag.
Senator Baker: Where do you get that from?
Mr. Bevan: The interpretation of UNCLOS and UNFA is that we have jurisdiction over sedentary species that are in the substrate or on the substrate, such as crab, scallops, things like that.
Senator Baker: That is today.
Mr. Bevan: Yes, today.
Senator Baker: If you extend jurisdiction, you own the soil and subsoil; you cannot have someone dragging both of them in order to do something above it.
Mr. Bevan: We already have the rights for the minerals under the sea, the sedentary species in and on the bottom. That is what we already have. We are now making a claim that will delineate the extent of our rights on the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit, and that is an issue of defining our boundary. The rights as understood in international law are already clearly established in practice as it is right now.
Senator Baker: It is in practice but not in law.
Mr. Bevan: No, it is in international law.
Senator Baker: What is the case?
Mr. Bevan: It is the understanding of UNFA and UNCLOS.
Senator Baker: Can you send us some material on it?
Mr. Bevan: I will have to look and send you the material, yes.
The Chair: As always, Senator Baker makes for an interesting discussion.
Mr. Ashfield: He is very flattering.
The Chair: That is part of the process; he builds you up before he takes you down.
Senator Poy: People who speak to me about our sealing industry are always highly emotional. Most of the time, they are against and very few are for. What is our future in the sealing industry? Can you give me a synopsis so I have a proper answer when people bring it up with me?
Mr. Ashfield: From my opinion, and it is the opinion of our government, we support the sealing industry in Canada and we always will. We think it is an important way of life for a lot of people in Canada, especially in Northern Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, Iqaluit, areas of that nature. We will support it.
The industry has progressed over the years. Certainly the taking of seals is done in a very humanitarian way. It is not cruel as sometimes pictured by some of the objectors to the seal industry. It is an important way of life for many people.
When I was in Iqaluit this summer at a federal-provincial-territorial ministers' meeting, they put on a very interesting fashion show of sealskin products. It was unbelievable. It was beautiful clothing and something that should be able to be marketed freely and easily in the country, and it is unfortunate that some people do not see that. We have an opportunity here to support that industry and as a government we will.
Senator Poy: What countries do you market them to? Many European countries are against our sealing industry. Where is the main market?
Mr. Ashfield: There are some opportunities. We are looking at some of the Asian markets to market seal products, and we will continue our efforts there. We are working in those areas now. The European market is a little more difficult because of the politics there in terms of the sealing industry, but we will continue trying to market in other places.
Senator Poy: What about seal meat? Is that marketed?
Mr. Ashfield: Mr. Balfour, who is on the sealing side? We have tried to market seal meat in China. Can you speak to that?
Mr. Balfour: We have supported industry in its efforts to develop new markets for seal meat. It is really all in aid of seeing if it is possible that there be a full utilization of animals. Some of the Asian markets, particularly China, do hold promise. That is something we see as a very positive emerging opportunity and one that we would continue to support in terms of opening those markets.
Senator Cochrane: Minister, I would like to congratulate you on your position as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and I want to relay to you the gratitude from the people back home because they are very appreciative of you visiting their fish plants, especially the little ones. Thank you for that.
I want to go back to SAR with a question for Mr. Grégoire and you, minister. The case was highlighted in The Fifth Estate report to which I was referring at the beginning when Senator Manning referred to the SAR program.
The vessels were called the Melina & Keith II and Ryan's Commander. In the case of the Melina & Keith II, the Transportation Safety Board report indicates that after it was clear that the vessel might be in trouble, the Coast Guard waited almost an hour and 20 minutes to ask for a rescue helicopter. Precious time was lost while the ship was at sea. According to the CBC news report, after the rescue helicopter was requested, it took another hour and 20 minutes to get in the air.
Minister, I realize that this happened a long time before you took over, but what lessons has the Coast Guard learned from this tragedy and what assurances can you give our people who make their living on the sea, particularly in the rough waters off of Newfoundland, that the recent closure of the sub-centre will not negatively impact their safety?
Mr. Ashfield: Senator, I would not be suggesting that we go forward with this process if I felt it would put mariners at risk. I would not do that. That is not my intent.
We believe it can be done as efficiently, if not more efficiently, from another location, especially combining with DND forces in the operation in Halifax. We have the technology to do that now.
This will not have any effect on the placement of our resources. Our ships, helicopters and DND planes will be in the same locations. It will have no impact in that sense.
I do not have a lot of information about that case you are talking about. I do not know whether Mr. Grégoire would have more information.
Mr. Grégoire: I do not want to speak to specific cases because some of those cases are in court today. However, we take it very seriously when we have a search and rescue operation and a life is lost. Our people are very professional. The SAR coordinators that work in the rescue sub-centres are very dedicated and very professional people. We analyze all the events that occurred during the search and rescue operation to see what lessons we can take from it and how we can improve in the future.
We also work closely with the Transportation Safety Board. We take all of their recommendations very seriously and we do whatever we can to improve.
With regard to the closure of the two MRSCs and the consolidation of that work in Halifax and Trenton, not only will we save money, but we will also be able to improve our coordination by collocating our search and rescue coordinator on the marine side, the Coast Guard people, with the DND search and rescue coordinators on the air side. They will all be together, which I believe will improve coordination.
Senator Cochrane: I have your word on that. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your presence here this morning. We had a great discussion and we would like to follow up on some issues, so I would like to reserve the right to recall at any time.
Mr. Ashfield: Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators, for the opportunity to be here.
(The committee continued in camera.)