Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 4 - Evidence, March 25, 2003
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 25, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 7:06 p.m. to examine and report from time to time upon the matters relating to straddling stocks and to fish habitat.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you and welcome to the meeting this evening. We are fortunate to have as a witness Mr. Mike Samson, Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Samson was in Ottawa recently with the Newfoundland and Labrador all-party committee to present to the members of both the Senate and the House of Commons committee. Mr. Samson was a member of the delegation that presented the committee's recommendations, of which all honourable senators have a copy. Mr. Samson will review a version of their proposal for us this evening.
We have it in mind to secure a resolution to support the all-party committee. We will first hear from Mr. Samson, after which he may help us as we proceed through our proposed resolution.
Mr. Mike Samson, Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Newfoundland and Labrador: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I am happy to provide you with some assistance in working through the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador All-Party Committee on the 2J3KL and 3Pn4RS Cod Fisheries. This is a follow-up to a series of events that occurred in Ottawa on March 17, when the all-party committee made its report public and delivered it to the Honourable Robert Thibault, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I will be working from a copy of the presentation that was used last Monday. We have added a couple of slides to provide greater context. I was given to understand that there was a little more time available for my remarks this evening than there was in the hurried event of last week.
I would like to begin by making a few remarks on the background of the all-party committee process. Those of you who follow fisheries issues will recall that around November 20, 2002, pursuant to a briefing by officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, of the Atlantic Caucus of the House of Commons, and I believe there may have been senators present as well, it came to the attention of all that DFO was actively considering closing the cod fisheries in the areas of 2J3KL, known as the northern cod stock, and 3Pn4RS, known as the northern gulf cod stock. The response in Newfoundland and Labrador was immediate. It sent something of a shockwave through the industry and the province.
As you know, the last round of fisheries closures in 1992 presented a difficult set of circumstances for the economy of the province and for the community of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The response of the government was to hold an emergency debate in the provincial legislature on the following day. The result of that debate was the unanimous adoption of a resolution to form an all-party committee to examine the issue and develop a position to be put forward to the Government of Canada.
The Newfoundland and Labrador all-party committee was formally established on December 2, 2002, at a meeting in Ottawa. The committee had all-party provincial and federal government representation, in that Premier Roger Grimes; Ms. Yvonne Jones, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Mr. Danny Williams, Official Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Loyola Hearn, Opposition Fisheries Critic; the Leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador New Democratic Party; and all Newfoundland and Labrador senators and MPs, of various political stripes, were included.
The committee worked through a process of consultation and deliberation on these issues and finally arrived at a consensus in early March. A document was produced and subsequently, that report was made public and delivered to the federal minister on March 17. On that same day, the all-party committee was given an opportunity to make a presentation to a joint meeting of the Senate and House of Commons standing committees on fisheries and oceans.
I think it is important to set out some of the context within which the committee undertook its deliberations. Cod stocks in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador remain at historic lows. Not that long ago, the two cod stocks being discussed, which are the northern cod and the northern gulf cod, supported commercial fisheries with landings of between 300,000 and 400,000 metric tons annually. You can imagine the economic impact of that amount of resource available for the processing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. The reality is that both of those stocks are now at historic lows. For example, in 2J3KL, scientists estimate the northern cod to be between one and three per cent of its historic biomass.
Another part of the context that is important to understand is that in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, while there have been many changes since the moratorium in 1992, which changed the face of rural Newfoundland and Labrador through the economic emigration of about 60,000 people, or 10 per cent of the population, the economy remains dependent on the fishery. What was once a dependence on the groundfish fisheries, particularly the cod, has been transformed into a dependence on the shellfish fishery, focusing on snow crab and shrimp. Nonetheless, the fishery is still the reason for being for what remains of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
In July 1992, when the first moratorium was announced, there was a sense in the province that it was a temporary measure. The suggestion or thought at the time was that, while the fishery would close and it would be necessary to adjust and diversify the industry and support people's incomes, we were only talking of a period of 5 or 10 years, during which time the cod resource would be rebuilt. We would then go back into the groundfish industry that we had had for 500 years previously. The reality is that in the face of fisheries closure — and where fisheries have reopened, they have opened at very low levels — the announcement that these stocks will or may close at this point is a signal to rural Newfoundland and Labrador that there is no chance of recovery of that resource in this generation. This will be a very final message.
The result, we and the all-party committee believe, will be yet more economic resettlement and further depopulation of rural Newfoundland. The committee considered all of these things in establishing a context within which to do its work. While all that sound very negative, it is also important to recognize that the committee also saw that there were opportunities. There are opportunities on the positive side on a go-forward basis. I will talk a little more about that in a moment.
I have added this slide since the last presentation. I have talked about historic levels of the two cod stocks. The green area shows post-1961 catches of northern cod. The spike in 1968, it is interesting to note, represents approximately 900,000 metric tons of cod taken out of 2J3KL, 810,000 tons of which were caught by foreign fleets. With the moratorium in 1992, it drops off. Similarly, the white area on the bottom shows the historic catches in the northern gulf, or 3Pn4RS. It has consistently ranged between 70,000 and 100,000 tons over time; however, since 1992, those have dropped off the map. If you want to take a representative year after the extension of the jurisdiction in 1977, if you look at the late 1980s, we were taking in approximately 420,000 metric tons of cod out of those two stocks in the commercial fishery. Today, the debate is raging over whether the 12,600 metric tons we have been taking for the last few years is sustainable. It is obvious that something catastrophic has happened in the ecosystem to cause this kind of drop.
The committee established objectives to guide it in undertaking its work. Those were, first and foremost, to develop a plan to contribute to the rebuilding and conservation of cod stocks in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador; to develop a plan for effective and sustainable management to develop the stocks over time; to contribute to the maximization of benefits from fish resources to the people in the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Canada; and finally, to work toward a diversification and development of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy.
In its deliberations over a period of three months, the committee worked through a process using a committee and a subcommittee. The deliberations were broad in scope and lengthy, and the committee looked at a lot of issues in great depth. To give you a sense of that, there were a lot of discussions, which are mostly reflected in the appendix of the report of which you have a copy, that looked at length at the issues around fisheries science, scientific uncertainty, the dearth of fisheries science in some instances, problems in methodology, gaps in knowledge and the uncertainty that they leave for fisheries management decision makers. The committee focused at length on issues that relate to the sustainability of harvesting practices. It looked in depth at issues that relate to bycatch, the relationship between the bycatch of cod and other fisheries, and the potential for the cod resource to rebuild. The committee also looked at fish gear issues, the sustainability of otter trawling, the relationship between gill nets and ghost fishing, the relative merits of hook-and-line fishing versus gill net fishing, et cetera. We spent a large amount of time on seal issues, including seal management, seal science, overpopulation of harp, hooded and grey seals, and the relationship between seals, capelin and cod in the ecosystem of the Northwest Atlantic. We studied capelin as a food source for codfish, the relationship between capelin and cod in the ecosystem and the potential impact of the commercial capelin fishery on the availability of capelin as a food source for cod.
The committee looked at some length at the matter of foreign overfishing. It did so with the acknowledgement from the start that foreign fishing efforts on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks or the Flemish Cap are not an issue at this time in relation to 2J3KL or 3Pn4RS cod. The Gulf of St. Lawrence is entirely within Canada and there is no foreign effort there at this time.
The reality is that while there was a lot of foreign fishing pressure on northern cod early in the game, the distribution of the northern cod stock is about 95 per cent within Canada's 200-mile limit. The second reality is that there is so little northern cod in the offshore area that virtually none is being taken in the foreign effort on the nose and tail.
We looked at the issue of the recreational cod fishery and its relationship to fishing pressure mortality, cod mortality and the management and political challenges associated with the recreational cod fishery in Atlantic Canada, and particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador. The committee reached a consensus position on the recreational cod fishery. In the last 10 days since the report was made public, it is fair to say that the recommendation to close the recreational fishery has generated probably the most public debate, at least in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Beyond that, the committee looked at several other issues that relate to the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry and the role it plays in creating wealth and opportunities for communities. Trade barriers related to groundfish were examined at some length. There remain prohibitive tariff barriers to Canadian groundfish products entering the European Union. For example, there is also a 20 per cent tariff on Canadian cooked and peeled shrimp entering the European Union that remains in place today.
Post-1992, the shrimp fishery has become a very large part of the business in Newfoundland and Labrador. The resource is healthy and we have the fishing power to catch the shrimp. We have 13 of the most up-to-date, state-of-the- art shrimp cooking and peeling factories located here. In the absence of that tariff barrier into the European Union, which is the largest consumer of cooked and peeled shrimp, Newfoundland and Labrador would be the world's low- cost producer of that product. The effect of the 20 per cent tariff barrier is to make us the world's high-cost producer.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has spent time and effort trying to raise this issue and put it on the agenda at DFAIT. The view in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the view of the all-party committee, is that while it is an important issue for us, in the whole scheme of Canadian trade relations with the European Union, Ottawa does not view it as significant enough to rise to the top of the list.
The other issue on trade relates to seals, specifically the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the United States and its constraining impact on our ability to grow and develop a sustainable seal fishery.
The committee undertook a socio-economic analysis of the impact of the potential closure. The numbers on the slide here were based on the assumption that both fisheries would close. In undertaking the work, they had to select a scenario in terms of making an assessment, because the federal minister has a wide range of options available. He can close one, close both, leave both open at reduced levels, or whatever. These numbers assume the full closure of both 2J3KL and 3Pn4RS: 4,400 fish harvesters and plant workers would be directly affected by the closure of those fisheries. The committee estimates that 400 plant workers would lose their employment and effectively be forced out of the fish processing industry. A further 1,500 would suffer reduced incomes because of the reduced availability of raw material in the factories; and many of those 1,500 would end up losing access to seasonal EI benefits because they would fail to get enough work during a fishing season to qualify.
On the harvesting side, it is estimated that approximately 2,500 harvesters, primarily in the small boat sector, that is, vessels under 35 feet, would suffer some degree of income loss. Some would be forced out of the industry.
The under-35-feet fleet is the most marginalized section of the traditional Newfoundland industry. These people have the lowest incomes in the industry and tend to be highly dependent on cod. There are approximately 650 or 700 enterprises in 3Pn4RS on the west coast that are dependent for perhaps 50 per cent of their income on codfish. Most of the enterprises in the under-35 fleet are two-person operations; in many cases, it is a husband and wife who are fishing in small, open boats and are very dependent on cod. The reality is that there are no snow crab resources in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Most of these people are making a living on a little codfish and some lobsters. These closures would force them out.
As the senior public servant charged with coordinating this particular exercise, it was an interesting process. I was very surprised at how quickly the mix of people around the table arrived at the level of consensus that they did. The committee has put forward a package of measures that it believes need to be adopted virtually in their entirety if we are to have success in rebuilding and sustaining this resource in Canada over the long term.
The committee is taking the position that full closures of the two fisheries are not necessary at this time, but that continued fisheries at reduced levels must be accompanied by a variety of other measures if we are to find our way through the rebuilding process. Specifically with respect to northern cod, the committee is recommending the continuation of index and sentinel fisheries at low levels only for the purposes of gathering information. The committee did not arrive at a number and has not suggested to the federal minister what an appropriate level would be. I would leave that to the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which will report later this week. However, the committee acknowledges that northern cod is in trouble, but that nothing is to be gained by removing all presence on the water over the longer term.
In respect of northern gulf cod, 3Pn4RS, the committee is recommending a continuation of a limited commercial fishery. The total allowable catch last year was set at 7,000 metric tons. There is an acknowledgement that that number can be reduced, and perhaps should be reduced, but that there is a requirement for a continued limited commercial fishery on the west coast.
The issue with respect to the northern gulf is that the science is not very good. There are a lot of problems with the scientific methodology. The scientific survey data disagrees with fisheries data and mobile gear surveys conflict with sentinel data; it is all over the map. The committee believes that a limited commercial fishery can be sustained. However, as these fishing activities continue in both the north and the northern gulf, a variety of other things should be done.
The first is that these fisheries should be transformed into hook-and-line fisheries only. It speaks directly to the elimination of gill nets. There is a raging debate in the industry that goes back 40 years over gill nets. Ghost fishing is one of the issues, but there are also issues about the selectivity of the gear in terms of the size of the fish being caught, and those sorts of things. By and large, there is a view that hook-and-line fishing is a more sustainable practice for codfish.
Measures need to be developed and implemented to reduce the discarding of cod, including in directed cod fisheries, where fish is ``high-graded,'' for want of a better term, because of the way the pricing structure works. A big fish is worth more than a small fish. Fishermen with access to limited amounts of fish will tend to high-grade in order to maximize their own economic benefits.
Measures need to be taken to reduce cod bycatch in other fisheries. That is true in the shrimp fishery, but in others as well. Finally, where necessary, there should be limitations on seasons for fishing for cod, with a focus on protecting spawning and juvenile aggregations of codfish at certain times of the year.
Beyond that particular suite of measures that relate to the continuation of limited fisheries in the north and in the gulf and the rules under which those fisheries should be conducted, the committee recommended further measures that it believes are necessary to promote the rebuilding of the cod resource over the longer term.
The first of these is a program to reduce the size of the overpopulated seal herds in the gulf and north. I am talking about harp, hooded and grey seals. The harp seal population off Newfoundland and Labrador is estimated to be between 5 million and 6 million. DFO science estimates that harp seals consumed 37,000 metric tons of Atlantic cod, 893,000 metric tons of capelin and 185,000 metric tons of Arctic cod last year. You can appreciate the difficulty for fishermen and communities in Newfoundland and Labrador dependent on the cod resource in hearing the debate rage over the availability of 12,600 metric tons of codfish when the seals are consuming, at a minimum, 37,000 metric tons of that same resource.
The committee is of the view that DFO, in consultation with the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, needs to move immediately to prepare a long-term, comprehensive plan for the rebuilding of cod stocks in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador. The fisheries were closed in 1992. Some limited fishing was permitted again, beginning around 1997. However, there is no plan in place to proactively promote, guide and work toward the rebuilding of these once great resources. A plan is the place to start, in the view of the committee.
The committee has taken a strong position on more funding for scientific research, particularly as it relates to cod, but also to other elements in the ecosystem. In fact, an ecosystem and multi-management approach to fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic should be taken. We need more and better science if we are to understand what happened to the codfish and what will be necessary to bring them back.
The committee has recommended the establishment of a Prime Minister's task force on Atlantic groundfish mandated to investigate and determine what happened to the cod resource that led to the situation in 1992, and to provide recommendations and focus for a rebuilding program.
There was a clear sense among members of the committee as the political leaders of Newfoundland and Labrador, and among the people, that we are seeing an environmental and economic catastrophe of national and international significance in the Northwest Atlantic. An appropriate focus will be brought to bear only if the highest level of government in Ottawa engages in an area of federal jurisdiction. It is the view of the committee that the Prime Minister of Canada is the most appropriate person to do that.
The committee recommends that the recreational fishery should be allowed only where there is a full commercial fishery in operation. This topic was wrestled with at great length. It is a politically sensitive, emotionally charged and difficult issue in Newfoundland and Labrador. In places where cod stocks are in trouble, the committee does not believe there is room for a recreational fishery for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that there are numerous questions about control, management and misreporting in that fishery.
The committee also recommends that Canada must move quickly toward a Canadian-based fisheries management system for straddling stocks. I made comments earlier about how the foreign fishing effort on the nose and tail is not currently a big factor in relation to these two stocks. However, you will recall the slide that showed the 810,000 metric tons of northern cod caught by foreign effort in 1968. If we were successful in rebuilding the resources, there would be economic gain for foreign activity. They would come back on the nose and the tail to catch codfish. That must be dealt with now.
The committee further recommends that trawling for shrimp be banned in cod spawning and juvenile aggregation areas. This is a difficult recommendation to make because the shrimp fishery is very important economically to Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a sense that all measures have to be taken to protect the cod.
The committee believes that DFO has to invest more heavily in fisheries enforcement. There are high levels of illegal fishing in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador. This illegal fishing is domestic and foreign in origin.
The committee recommends a commercial capelin fishery moratorium because of the relationship between capelin and cod in the ecosystem. Such a moratorium would be in effect until such time as we better understand the nature of that relationship.
Furthermore, governments need to cooperate to investigate the feasibility of stock enhancement. It was tried as early as the late 1800s. Whether it is a feasible alternative remains to be seen, but the committee is of the view that it needs to be investigated.
The governments need to cooperate in looking at the potential use of special area status designation of marine protected areas as mechanisms to assist in protecting and rebuilding cod stocks. The Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, partnering with industry stakeholders, need to improve, and invest more heavily in, education programs on conservation for industry participants, harvesters and the general public.
On the opportunities side, the committee focused on three things. The committee feels very strongly that governments need to continue to cooperate on efforts to diversify the fishing industry. We have had considerable success in Newfoundland and Labrador post-1992 in developing a major cooked and peeled shrimp industry and successfully transforming from a groundfish fishery to shellfish, with a focus on snow crab, which is now worth $500 million a year to our economy.
The committee understands that the likelihood of 300 or 400 metric tons of groundfish becoming available is highly unlikely in the short term. We need to diversify the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly the rural economy, to provide economic opportunities for people who are traditionally dependent on the fishery.
The second focus on the opportunity side was on aquaculture. The committee feels strongly that Newfoundland and Labrador offers great potential for additional development in aquaculture. It is a relatively small but growing industry. There is a success story to be told of 500 people, predominantly in the Baie d'Espoir area on the south coast, who are now employed in the aquaculture industry.
People talk about fish plants in Newfoundland operating for 420 hours per year. A plant in St. Albans on the south coast operated for 39 weeks processing farmed salmon only. I believe that there are only two wild-fish-dependent plants in Newfoundland and Labrador that operated for a longer period last year. The focus needs to be on cod. The research and development, the expertise, the technology and the knowledge exist in Newfoundland and Labrador at Memorial University and its Marine Institute. The Scandinavian public sector, particularly the Government of Norway, is investing heavily in cod aquaculture. People from those countries are in St. John's, Newfoundland today, hiring our expertise and buying our technology. If we do not move quickly, we will be left behind in the cod aquaculture industry.
The committee believes that we need a higher profile for the seafood issues in trade relations, which I talked about earlier. There are many opportunities to build a stronger and more economically vibrant industry, but there needs to be a major focus on the part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, particularly with the new round of WTO meetings starting up. These prohibitive tariff barriers and other non-tariff barriers in the major markets need to be addressed if we are to maximize the economic benefit from those resources that are available to us.
I thank you for this opportunity and I will be happy to take your questions.
The Chairman: We have departed a little from our normal procedure. Ordinarily, we do not respond immediately to requests that we take a position as a committee. However, this case is quite different. We have been examining this issue for a number of months; many of us are feeling more familiar with the subject and are beginning to understand the issues. I know that some members of the committee have spent many hours — especially Senator Cook and Senator Cochrane — looking at the subject. With that in mind, our goal this evening is for the committee to secure a resolution, either in support of or against, or parts thereof, the all-party committee's position.
I asked Mr. Emery to review the recommendations as outlined in the all-party position, with a view to finding anything inconsistent with the positions of this committee in past years. Senator Cook and I have proceeded with the same optics to see if there were any inconsistencies if we were to adopt the recommendations of the all-party committee. It is my understanding that no inconsistencies with our past positions were found and I believe that Senator Cook would agree.
With that in mind, we would like to end the evening with the committee taking a position on the issue. Committee members will be returning to the Senate later to continue our evening session so we will proceed with questions now. May I recommend that we arrive at a resolution in support of the all-party position? Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Senator Cook: I want to go on the record as saying that I think the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Newfoundland and Labrador, is one of the most professional and patient men that I have ever met; he has wisdom. This report is excellent, and as Senator Cochrane knows, we had one thought in mind: to represent our people and put forward something that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could examine in a responsible way. This report reflects that. Yes, there are many unanswered questions and one of those encompasses the science component. It is not a report from which you could ``cherry pick.'' One point follows the other like a string of beads, such that if you break the string, you cannot just put back one bead and tie a knot; they all have to go back on.
I would hope that committee members could come up with a resolution to support this initiative. My inquiry, which will be supported by Senator Rompkey and Senator Cochrane, will go on the record in one-half hour. We are asking for support. The chair of this committee is advocating a resolution, and that is wonderful, but each of us in our own way will put on the record something about which we feel strongly. Together with the federal government, we should come to some conclusion that will benefit those most affected.
The Chairman: I think that means a strong ``yes'' in support of the resolution.
Senator Cook: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: I am looking at the time, Mr. Chair, and I am reminded that we have to be in the chamber at eight o'clock. Is that correct?
The Chairman: This morning, in anticipation of the meeting this evening with Mr. Samson, I asked for permission to sit while the Senate is sitting in the event that we prolonged our meeting, allowing committee members to be late arriving in the Senate. Permission to sit was granted.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Samson, I want to support Senator Cook's words in reference to your efforts on this issue and I am pleased with your presentation.
My question is about Dr. Art May, who recently appeared before the committee as a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Advisory Council on Foreign Overfishing. He said, and I quote:
The idea of custodial management that has been advanced particularly by the province could work very well. It would mean that one entity would manage on behalf of everyone else. That could be Canada. There is an alternative that I think has not been thought of but could be debated and that is using NAFO, itself, as a custodian should a country be unwilling to put its vessels at risk of being arrested by another country.
I would like to hear your response to Dr. May's suggestion that NAFO could play the role of custodian in a custodial management arrangement. From the perspective of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, could this approach work?
Mr. Samson: Yes, I suppose it could work. The challenge with NAFO is that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador remains unconvinced that the focus, or the objective, of the contracting parties to NAFO — the countries that make up the organization — are conducive to responsible custodial actions. It is the view of Newfoundland and Labrador of the way in which NAFO works that, by and large, the 17 or 18 countries that are the contracting parties are there for one purpose: to gain access to fish resources. There is not and has not been, from the province's perspective, any history of countries being concerned about conservation and the kinds of issues that would truly underlie working effectively in the role of custodian.
The province's view, as you and Dr. May have indicated, is that Canada would act as the custodian of straddling stocks. However, the position being put forward by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador does not preclude a role for NAFO in a custodial management regime. We try to explain our concept of custodial management by describing it as a redefinition of the roles and responsibilities of Canada as the coastal state, and NAFO as the regional fisheries organization. NAFO would continue to do some things, but Canada would do more than it does now. I do not know if that is helpful.
Senator Cochrane: I have heard that argument. Let me take another approach. We have heard arguments against the proposed approach to custodial management from witnesses. One was Mr. Robert Hage, who is the Director of the European Union Division at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He said custodial management would be seen as an extension of jurisdiction by another name. As noted in the government response to the standing committee report, unilateral extension of jurisdiction is not in Canada's interests. He says there is a total lack of support for unilateral extension of jurisdiction.
What are your thoughts on that? How you would respond to this gentleman?
Mr. Samson: My response and, I think, that of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, would be that if you look at what the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador proposes as an approach to custodial management, we believe that it is achievable within existing international law. However, it requires work on the development of an international consensus to do the right thing for the right reasons. Depending how you look at it, there can be a very fine line between what people describe as ``custodial management'' and what other people describe as a ``unilateral extension of jurisdiction.'' Unilateralism may not be necessary.
One of the major problems the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has is the categorical refusal of the Government of Canada, DFO and the Department of Foreign Affairs to even begin to try to advance the discussion in the international community. We recognize that there may be adjustments required to international law and that it will take time to develop international consensus about how to do things differently. The argument we make is that 3 miles became 12 miles became 200 miles. It took time, but it was a matter of someone taking the bull by the horns and beginning to build the case and advance the cause internationally. The categorical dismissal by the Government of Canada of this as a proper or appropriate approach is fundamentally unacceptable to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cochrane: I do not see why they dismiss it, because custodial management has been an issue for our fishery in Newfoundland for years. It is very puzzling that discussions have not been going on for years.
Mr. Samson: The Government of Canada has resisted all efforts and approaches by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the industry to begin to move in this direction. In the view of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, this is simply a case of where these issues sit on the broader federal foreign policy agenda. The conduct of a harmonious relationship with the European Union, for example, is more important to the Government of Canada in the broad context of Canadian foreign policy than a set of particular provincial interests such as the fish resources in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador.
The difficulty is the lack of will at the national level to take this on as a national priority, because only when it becomes a national priority will it be advanced on the international stage.
Senator Cochrane: We had Alastair O'Reilly, of Newfoundland's Provincial Advisory Council on Foreign Overfishing, before us. He said the problem we are facing outside the 200-mile limit is not, in and of itself, a stock assessment issue. It is primarily an enforcement issue and having the regulatory and jurisdictional authority to deal with it. I would like to hear your thoughts on that. What can be done, and what would the province like to see done, to address the regulatory and jurisdictional issues?
Mr. Samson: The province's view, and I would concur with Mr. O'Reilly's analysis of the situation, is that once you go outside 200 miles, you are effectively dealing with international waters and high-sea fisheries. Issues of national sovereignty and the roles of flag states come into play. It is a free-for-all outside 200 miles. The only ones who can control vessels outside 200 miles are the countries whose flags are flying on those vessels. The experience on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks is that those countries have little or no interest in controlling any activities of their fleets.
In the view of Newfoundland and Labrador, you would need a significant change in international law to permit Canadian vessels, for example, to enforce fisheries regulations outside 200 miles. It is the high seas; therefore, in the absence of a consensus agreement, for example, that Canada would manage straddling stocks, would establish, perhaps in consultation with NAFO, the rules under which fisheries would be conducted, and that Canada, or other contracting parties to NAFO, would be delegated or authorized to carry out an enforcement role outside of 200 miles, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador believes that reasonable parties to the NAFO convention ought to be able to find a way to deal with this in the best interests of the conservation of the resource.
Senator Cochrane: Even though they have not.
Thank you. I am so pleased that you responded, because I want these answers to be on the record.
Senator Adams: You mentioned here 4,400 plant workers, I think. Is that the same mode of employment that was lost in the fishing area in 1992? Is that affected by the collapse of the codfish reserves?
Mr. Samson: If I understand your question correctly, I would say the immediate impact of what happened in 1992 was that, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we moved from 225 fish plants to 125. We moved from in excess of 30,000 fish processing workers down to about 15,000, and the number of fish harvesters was reduced, over the same time period, by about 3,000. The impacts of the closures being talked about now would be in addition to the impact of what happened in 1992, which took about 20,000 individuals out of the fish business in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Adams: What happened to those 20,000 fishermen? Are some of them coming back? I was down there two weeks ago, and they have a little more catch. There is snow crab and other resources. Are those the same people coming back now to work? What is happening there?
Mr. Samson: Post-1992, significant numbers of people left the industry entirely. They worked at other things, retrained, moved out of the province and whatever. The remaining people switched from a dependence on groundfish to a new dependence, largely on snow crab, but increasingly on shrimp. However, because of the geography and the location of the resource and the nature of the fleets, there is still a group of people in the industry who remain heavily dependent on codfish. These are the people being referred to here.
Senator Adams: You mentioned you need more research. Is DFO doing more studies to see how the cod are doing, whether they are coming back or not? Have they given you any percentages since you stopped cod-fishing? Is it coming back up?
Mr. Samson: The DFO science effort, insofar as we can determine, is declining over time. We have seen a reduction in resources available to DFO to do the kind of work that we are proposing needs to be done on cod.
Senator Adams: What about the seals? You mentioned seal hunting. Is that good for employment? I think there were quotas of about 180,000 a year. Has that increased now or is it about the same limit?
Mr. Samson: The new three-year management plan announced by the federal minister a couple of months ago will permit removals of a total of 975,000 harp seals over a period of three years. Removals are not to exceed 350,000 in any year. The scientists are saying that between 500,000 and 700,000 seal pups are born annually; so, at best, it is a flat-line situation. The current management plan will not lead to reductions in the herd. The harp seal herd was traditionally about 2 million animals. When the large-boat seal hunt was stopped as a result of the animal rights protest movements and Greenpeace —
Senator Mahovlich: What year was that?
Mr. Samson: It would have been in the late seventies, 1978 or 1979 — we saw a rapid escalation in the harp seal population.
Senator Adams: Currently, if you take 300,000 seals a year, how many seal hunters would be participating? Is this one big company with a big ship that does that, or is it ordinary fishermen on the ice? If they have a 40- or 60-foot boat, can they go out harvesting?
Mr. Samson: It is really a land-based seal hunt now. There are no large vessels remaining in the hunt. The seal hunt is largely prosecuted by fishers using inshore vessels, 65 feet and under. It is almost a day-fishery type of scenario.
It was a very good year last year, with a record price for pelts. There are stories of prices as high as $90 or $100 for prime pelts on the wharf in Newfoundland. It was rather an extraordinary year in that regard. The fur markets have come back, and we are starting to make some inroads, particularly on seal oil, with the omega-3 issue. There is quite a lot of potential in seals.
We also have to look at the meat as a source of protein. It is hugely valuable as a source of protein if you can find a way to do something with it to make it palatable. We eat seal in Newfoundland and Labrador, but many people do not like it.
Senator Adams: I eat it all the time.
Senator Mahovlich: It is not popular on the mainland.
Mr. Samson: No, it is not, but it is very popular in parts of Asia.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned, on several slides, scientific information, scientific study or research. I believe it is at the top of your list of issues — scientific uncertainty. How do you feel about all the studies that have been done already? Have they been useful? I understand they have not solved the problem, but what sort of scientific studies would you like to see undertaken in light of the all-party committee's report?
Mr. Samson: The committee's strong view is that Canada needs to undertake a significant research effort at the ecosystem level in the Northwest Atlantic to try to determine the core issues in the relationship among cod, capelin and seals. What we have seen happen in waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador in the last 10 years is absolutely amazing. What was once water teeming with groundfish, predominantly cod, has become abloom in shellfish. Snow crab has greatly increased and shrimp is blooming; it seems almost limitless. We should know at this point that no resource in the ocean is limitless. However, something has happened in the ecosystem to replace cod with shellfish, predominantly shrimp at this point, and we do not understand why.
The way that fishery science is traditionally done, and is still largely done in Canada, is to manage codfish, shrimp and capelin as single species and no one is looking at the relationship among them in the ecosystem. The answer lies in that kind of broad-based approach to trying to find out what happened in the Northwest Atlantic ecosystem to cause the collapse of the cod.
Fishing was a contributing factor; by and large, people agree on that. I think seals were a factor as well. However, what is the effect of global warming — the melting of the polar icecaps? All of these issues play a role in what is happening in that ecosystem; yet we continue to study codfish on a stand-alone basis, and snow crab on a stand-alone basis, with no understanding or appreciation of how they all relate to one another in the ecosystem. That is the kind of work the committee believes needs to be undertaken.
Senator Hubley: When the cod, seals and capelin were studied previously, that was the way they felt it should be done. I think that has changed in many areas; we now look at the whole system.
Is this the work they are doing at Memorial University at the marine centre? Is this its mandate, to look at the whole economy, see how things interact and why one area seems to be faltering while others are successful?
Mr. Samson: There is some work of that nature, and with that focus, going on within Memorial University by Dr. George Rose and his group. Dr. Rose talked at great length to the committee about the relationship among capelin, seals and cod. However, the reality is that fisheries science is very expensive.
It requires ships, crews, laboratories, technologists and PhDs. The Government of Canada and DFO have those resources. Work can be done in the universities only when resources are made available. That is part of the challenge.
Senator Hubley: What is the contribution of the seal industry to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. Samson: I do not have the numbers on hand.
Senator Hubley: Just give us an idea.
Mr. Samson: I would think that last year, the seal fishery was probably worth maybe $20 million. If that is a landed- value figure, it would be $20 million on $500 million.
Senator Cook: I will be more frank than our colleague from Newfoundland. You saw the warning about inadequate science. That is the problem. The science is not being done. The cutbacks in the science department at DFO in the past several years have meant that the needed infrastructure is not there.
What can be done at Memorial University or the Marine Institute is like writing your ABCs. They can only do the fundamentals. That is not enough to find out what is and what should be.
You talk about inadequate science. Perhaps the deputy minister could nod if I am on the right track. The cutbacks have affected the work, and we do not have the funding and the infrastructure.
The Chairman: Let the record show that an affirmative nod was given.
Senator Hubley: It will be difficult to try to develop any kind of a fisheries policy if we do not have that information. I am glad you brought that up.
Senator Cook: If you had looked at the Estimates that came into the Senate this afternoon, you would have seen the cutbacks in DFO. There is a paragraph there that is very enlightening, and that is what you should focus on.
Senator Mahovlich: I notice that the government gives only about $3 million to the University of British Columbia for studies on fishery, yet for agriculture and veterinary colleges throughout Canada, the government gives $135 million to the universities.
What is the total commitment from government to schools in Newfoundland and the Marine Institute for studies?
Mr. Samson: I do not know the numbers specific to fisheries. It is a very small amount. At Memorial, Dr. George Rose, the Chair of Fisheries Conservation, works under a partnership arrangement between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the DFO, which provides an in-kind contribution of ship time. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador provides Dr. Rose with $300,000 a year in cash. FPI, Fishery Products International, has been a corporate partner in that, bringing some financial resources to the table.
Senator Mahovlich: It is minimal?
Mr. Samson: It is minimal.
Senator Mahovlich: It is minimal compared to what the government spends on agriculture.
Mr. Samson: Absolutely. DFO's budget in the Newfoundland region, including the Coast Guard, is in the area of $170 million. With those funds, DFO does ice breaking, aerial surveillance and all of those things. Somewhere in that mix is the scientific research undertaken by DFO as part of its core mandate in Newfoundland and Labrador region, but it is minimal.
Senator Mahovlich: With so many questions to be answered.
Mr. Samson: Yes.
Senator Mahovlich: You spoke about people from Norway coming to Newfoundland. Is that corporations or the Government of Norway?
Mr. Samson: It is corporations. We have Norwegian companies investing in aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador as well, for example, in the salmon industry.
On the cod side, there is significant public sector investment in Scandinavia. The Government of Norway has a program where a certain set percentage of offshore oil revenues are required by law to be invested in aquaculture developments. It is a mechanism to distribute wealth from one sector of the economy into more rural-based activity that can sustain rural communities.
You are talking about public sector investment in the tens if not the hundreds of millions of dollars in Norway.
Senator Mahovlich: It is not a bad system.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We are going to go to the resolution that we wish to make. I will ask the clerk to hand out a draft resolution for us to consider.
If we go with a resolution of this type, we might present it in the Senate in the form of a report. In other words, it would be an interim report, which would place it on the Order Paper so that any one of us could make some comments further to the report once it is tabled.
It is currently worded in the form of a motion or resolution, but it would be quite easy to change that into the form of an interim report. I will give you the chance to read it.
Since I am suggesting that we might wish to look at this as a report, then we should go in camera, as we do with all reports, and debate it in camera.
The committee continued in camera.