Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 5 - Evidence, May 6, 2003
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 6, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 7:03 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: Honourable senators, tonight we will continue with the mandate of the committee; however, that does not mean you need to limit yourself to those issues if you wish to venture into other areas.
We are fortunate to have two learned gentlemen appearing before us: Dr. George Rose, from Memorial University and Mr. Fred Woodman, from the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. Mr. Woodman, please proceed.
Mr. Fred Woodman, Chair of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council: Honourable senators, my comments will be short. My initial comments do not pertain to straddling stocks, but rather to the events over the past few days with respect to fisheries in Atlantic Canada. Certainly, the straddling stocks will come into play in June and in September of this year. None of us are truly happy with the length of recovery that has to take place.
The last week has been a real eye-opener to the dramatic decline that has and continues to occur. There do not seem to be any answers to the many questions that people are asking and so there is civil unrest.
I will make a short presentation after Dr. Rose makes his opening comments. Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.
The Chairman: Dr. Rose, please proceed.
Dr. George Rose, Professor and Senior Chair of Fisheries Conservation, Memorial University: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to present to you tonight. This is a very important topic for the country in terms of our overall fisheries, and particularly for Newfoundland and Labrador. I will try to provide a biological background and then I will move to some of the problems that are clearly political.
I will begin with one of my favourite quotes from one of Canada's most famous fisheries scientists: ``Fish don't stay in one place, they move around.'' Mr. Trudeau said this in 1978 and he was quite right. This comment followed all of the activities in 1977 that arose out of the extension of jurisdiction of the Canadian zone to 200 miles. Unfortunately for Canada — and particularly unfortunately for Newfoundland and Labrador — the 200-mile limit that works quite well for most of the coastal states around the world, particularly states that are fishing nations. However, it does not work well for Canada, and especially not well for Newfoundland and Labrador, because the 200 miles does not take in the entire Continental Shelf and some of the most important historical and present-day fishing grounds of the Newfoundland Grand Bank.
This slide shows the northwest Atlantic, which is a big area of a dynamic ocean. As you can see, almost in the middle of it is the Grand Bank of Newfoundland. This is the primary area that I will talk about tonight, although we could extend our discussion to other areas. I will try to provide a slightly broader perspective. This is the zone that Canada fishes and the zone that we are most concerned about in terms of conservation and the lack of it — particularly in the zone that is outside the 200-mile limit.
This mostly comes down to what is being called ``ecosystem-based management'' in fisheries, which is recognized by the United Nations and by most fishing states around the world as the way of the future and the way that fisheries will necessarily progress. I want to give you a brief background to that.
We are not talking about managing ecosystems because we do not have the capability and that is not how it works. Ecosystems manage themselves. We do have the capability and the responsibility to manage activities — primarily human — within the ecosystems. We are not doing that currently and that is why much of our fisheries management has failed.
We must understand that the geographical and time scales are not the same for all of the species that interest us or for the processes that we need to protect. We have large fish and small fish. We have fish that migrate halfway around the world. We have fish that do not migrate at all. There are many different combinations of things that make up an ecosystem and we have to deal with them all. We have to understand their life histories, where they go, how they reproduce and where they reproduce. All of this requires research and much of it is not being done.
We also have to understand about the food web and who eats whom and what, and so on. That is essential. We need to be able to protect sensitive areas, once we understand these things. Spawning in juvenile areas, for example, must be protected if we are truly to conserve ecosystems and fisheries.
In respect of the politics and management areas, one of the key points is that all of these activities within an ecosystem must be managed in the same way. We cannot have one thing being done in one area and another thing being done elsewhere. This would lead to chaos, confusion, poor management, the virtual destruction of fisheries, which is what we have had on the Grand Bank.
I will give honourable senators some examples of the big and small animals and the scales that occur on the Grand Bank. We have large pelagics, which are the big species such as tunas and swordfish. These fish migrate over the whole Atlantic. This is the scale that you have to think about. In terms of management, this is an international occupation and Canada cannot do this one alone. These fish do not recognize our boundaries. Even some of the small pelagics, such as mackerel — an important species in Atlantic Canada — are large-scale migrators and do not know international boundaries. Clearly, international cooperation is necessary for these fish.
We also have the local migrators, which comprise most of the commercial species that we have, such as cod, capelin, redfish and flatfish and many more. These species occur on the Continental Shelf and give us the greatest problems right now. A strong argument could be made that these should be managed by the coastal state within the Continental Shelf. I believe that and the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, FRCC, believes that and we will try to argue that.
The next slide shows one of the extremes that we have to deal with — humpback whales calve in the Caribbean and they come north to the Grand Banks in the summer to feed because the Grand Banks are one of the most productive coastal areas in the world. The whales know this; that is why they go there to feed. This is an example of a very broad scale species in our ecosystem that requires some kind of management at very large scales with international cooperation.
The only way we can get into the management and the political side of this is with a nested approach. We have the large open ocean migrators, which clearly require international cooperation on management; we have large-scale shelf migrators that also require, at a lesser scale, international management.
The species on the continental shelf, which is where we will focus, primarily the Grand Banks, are likely far better managed by the coastal state that is adjacent to it. That is where we are failing in Canada right now. We are not doing that.
Honourable senators have probably all heard of the die-off of cod off Newfoundland in the cold waters. I have been there monitoring this from the science side for the past several weeks. This slide depicts an example of a very large cod. This one, which came out of Smith Sound, weighs nearly 100 pounds.
Here is an example of a very large cod. This one weighs nearly 100 pounds that came out of Smith Sound. I wanted to use this as an example of life histories. This is a tragic event that has occurred for the cod in Newfoundland in the last few weeks, just when we did not need it. Many of these big spawning fish have, unfortunately, died before they had a chance to spawn.
Beyond these, capelin is the most important small forage fish. It feeds on everything in the northwest Atlantic. The movement patterns are all over the Grand Banks, even to the Flemish Cap. They do not recognize any of these human- imposed boundaries at all. This is the sort of thing on which we really have to base our science, certainly, but more importantly, perhaps, our management if we are to be successful.
Currently, NAFO — the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, which is a body of 17 or 18 countries, some of which do not even border on the North Atlantic — manages what we consider to be our fisheries. In some ways, it is outrageous that this should even occur. Nevertheless, we must deal with that situation.
Some of the most important historical species in Newfoundland and Labrador are on this list — species such as 2J3KL cod, 3NO cod, and turbot. I will say a few words about some of these species that have particular problems right now.
The 3NO cod is on the southern Grand Bank. It is an area that once supported a very large fishery. It is now under moratorium. Yet, fish are being caught there as bycatch by the NAFO fisheries at a very high rate. It is difficult to get information on this, but we are fairly sure that this is having the effect of not allowing this fishery to recover at all. This is a serious problem.
American plaice is in the same area. American plaice is a flatfish, for those of you who might not be familiar with it. It is quite a valuable species. It is under moratorium. Yet, more are being caught as bycatch by the NAFO fleets than would be allowed in any kind of a sensible fishery. It is completely without any control at all. That is another issue.
Turbot is not a traditional Canadian or Newfoundland fishery. Partially as a result of that, Canada has given away most of it to the EU. The turbot is now the larges groundfish fishery in the northwest Atlantic, yet about 80 per cent of it is not caught by Newfoundlanders or Canadians. As a country, we are not benefiting much from our resources.
Given the way that stock is being managed, it probably will not last. It is primarily a fishery on juvenile fish. More is caught every year than is contained in the spawning biomass. The quota is set way above the scientific recommendations, which are likely too high. We have another disaster in the making. Mark my words; we will see the result of that very shortly. The FRCC has been predicting this result for several years. Most of our predictions have come to pass in short order.
We must consider the interrelations among all these species. I will not go into any detail on this. It is the science side. You must realize how much in happening in a marine ecosystem. We must be cognizant of that and try to deal with that in management.
There are two fundamentally different regimes operating in the same ecosystem: The first is Canadian — primarily Newfoundland — managed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the second is NAFO. All those other countries have no interest in our fisheries other than to make a few dollars out of it. You can see this is quite chaotic. It is a recipe for disaster.
Not all areas are the same. We have particularly sensitive areas that need protection. The next slide shows sonar images from echo-sounders of spawning cod on the top and juvenile capelin on the bottom. These cover miles of fish schools. We need to protect these things. They tend to occur in specific areas. We know a great deal about where those areas are. We have not had a lot of success in protecting them — not even from Canadian interests.
It seems remarkable to me, having been involved in fisheries most of my life, that a fundamental point such as protecting spawning and juvenile areas requires endless discussion and debate to get that point across. It seems to be such good common sense it should be a given, but it is not. Knowing this, it seems that the only clear way ahead for Canada is some sort of unified management of the Grand Banks area where these straddling stocks exist. We do not have that.
As I mentioned earlier, we have Canada inside and NAFO outside. There are different rules, regulations and, in many cases, completely different mind sets about conservation and what should be done. As a result, the fish stocks continue to decline in those areas.
We have a major problem here. At its heart, the problem is biological and ecological, but is treated as a purely political situation. The people who are suffering from this are the fishing industry people and the fishers of Newfoundland and Labrador and the adjacent areas.
Here we have a picture of the Grand Bank. I am sure that there are 50 NAFO factory freezer trawlers out there fishing right now. We have had many problems, being here in Ottawa you have seen the result of this, in Atlantic Canada with our fisheries. People are losing their livelihoods. Yet, as we speak, there are dozens and dozens of trawlers out there fishing away without the slightest worry.
In conclusion, there is no single solution to the problem of straddling stocks. The large migrators clearly require international cooperation. The shelf stocks, which provide the most important fisheries for the coastal peoples all around the world — particularly in Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador — would be far better served by unified management under the coastal state. I think this is probably true all around the world; in most other areas of the world this is already in place, so it is not a problem. We would welcome any questions on this topic or others related to the fishery.
Senator Cochrane: I want to tell the members of our committee that Dr. Rose is a renowned scientist and he has spent his life on the water studying the fishery. You name it; he has been at it. Certainly, anything you say is Gospel truth, so to speak.
The Chairman: Is that not a great opening comment?
Senator Cochrane: I am serious, Mr. Chairman. The witnesses are quite capable of answering any questions, and the information they provide us will be concrete.
Let me begin with the fishers on the province's south coast and the future of our cod fishery. This follows the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, recommendation that the Atlantic cod be listed as a ``threatened'' species. An article from the CBC suggested that the science that the federal minister depends on is flawed. The article quotes you, Mr. Rose, as saying, ``They have lumped various stocks together and some of these stocks are in very different conditions.''
We would like you to elaborate on this. Is this type of approach a normal practice for DFO scientists and one that they follow? Would you elaborate on that?
Mr. Rose: To answer your last question first, no, it is not the normal process DFO science follows.
When COSEWIC was put into place, I expected they would follow the time-tested stock definitions that have been in place around Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed in all of Atlantic Canada, for quite some time. That is not to say that these stock definitions are absolutely right; however, they are what we know and what the data are based on and, more importantly, the fundamental basis for management.
COSEWIC, for whatever reason, decided not to follow that. They set up their own divisions that, frankly, make little sense. They are totally arbitrary. They could have used other ones. They have lumped stocks together that really have not very much in common. Thus, you would take a stock that was in relatively good shape and one that was not in good shape and come out with, I suppose, an average condition that would not represent either one.
It reminds me of the old joke about buying pants in the army. Half the soldiers wore 38s and half wore 34s. The clerk bought all 36s and they did not fit anyone. This is how I interpret that.
I also find the overall designations difficult to accept. For example, the 3Ps cod on the south coast of Newfoundland is generally accepted to be the stock that is in the best condition in all of Atlantic Canada; there are well over 100,000 tonnes of spawning biomass. The overall biomass is estimated at somewhere up to about 200,000 tonnes.
We have the strongest recruitment coming into that stock of any stock in Atlantic Canada. Frankly, we would be overjoyed if any of the other stocks showed such good signs. Yet, that one is listed by COSEWIC as ``threatened.''
Just across the way, we have the Banquereau stock. If you are not familiar with the geography, it is near the Nova Scotia banks on the other side of the channel. It is the first one you come to if you went south from Newfoundland. There is a stock there. Historically, that stock was as abundant as the stock in southern Newfoundland. Not so many years ago, it used to produce 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes of harvest a year. That is a significant amount; that is as much as the southern Newfoundland cod ever produced.
As unbelievable as it may be, the spawning biomass in that stock right now is estimated at 2,000 tonnes — and that is deemed by COSEWIC to be in better condition than the 3Ps, which is well over 100,000 tonnes.
When you see that kind of lumping together of stocks that really are very different and in very different conditions, it is hard to make much sense out of it. I am not convinced how helpful that will be in trying to fix some of these problems in Atlantic Canada.
There is some good in that report. The general feeling in the report that the cod stocks are in trouble — particularly in the north — is quite correct. There is no arguing that. Frankly, we knew that 10 years ago; we did not need another report to tell us that. The problem now is what do we do about it? Can we do anything about it? Can we fix these problems? I do not see any help there. I hope I have answered your question.
Senator Cochrane: You certainly did.
In the press release on April 17, Minister Thibault announced the Total Allowable Catch, TAC, for groundfish stocks off Nova Scotia in the Bay of Fundy. In that part of the region, with regard to the cod, the minister said there would continue to be a fishery for the 4X and 5Y cod and that the TAC for the 4X cod would remain at 6,000 tonnes. I know in this case the 6,000-tonne TAC was consistent with the FRCC's recommendations.
Perhaps you could explain to me how the cod stocks can be dangerously low in some parts of the region's oceans, yet cross an invisible line and the stock presumably can be safely fished. I do not understand.
Why are two different approaches being taken to the fishery in southwest Nova Scotia and off the west coast of Newfoundland? Does all the science support this decision? That seems to be what you have just said; I do not understand that, either. How do they reach this decision?
Mr. Rose: The science partially supports it. However, the science on the 4X cod is weak at present. The 6,000-tonne quota that has been set for 4X cod is certainly questionable. One of the big puzzles down there is that the haddock stocks have come back quite well and the cod have not done so well. It remains to be seen whether that 6,000-tonne quota is sustainable. It is certainly pushing things to have that quota set that high.
In a more general response to your question, these stocks do differ. There is no question about that. Generally speaking, the further south you go, the more productive they are. Stocks off New England, for example, and off southwest Nova Scotia can be fished harder than stocks off northern Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no doubt about that because they are more productive. There are fundamental biological differences between these stocks that need to be taken into account in management applications.
Beyond the biological differences, there are regional differences in how management is applied. In that area, they are pushing the limits of biological productivity with the cod, in my view.
Senator Cochrane: Do you think it is fair that fishing off the Nova Scotia coast should remain as is while the fishing off the south coast of Newfoundland should be closed?
Mr. Rose: Absolutely not. There is no biological rationale for that whatsoever, in my view.
Mr. Woodman: I would like to make a comment on that because I knew that there would be questions about what is happening in 4X. As Dr. Rose said, in 4X and the further south you go, the more productive it is. For example, at the fishery in 4X, they are harvesting fish at three years of age. It is almost to the point of recruitment fishing. Whereas, when you fish on the northeast coast for cod, in 2J3KL, it does not reach the same size as the ones off the southwest coast of Nova Scotia until it reaches six years of age, so the productivity is much faster. That is the rationale.
The stock status report this year was not complete. It did not give us an estimated biomass level. They could not do it because of misreporting and dumping and so on. They did not give us a true picture of the resource. We made our recommendation based upon the fact that we had two good-year classes coming in — 1999 and 2000. That being said, we looked at the high quota of haddock and decided that 6,000 tonnes of cod is questionable but nevertheless reasonable, considering the effects that the haddock fishery would have on the bycatch of cod.
Senator Cochrane: Are you saying that the science was not in place to make this decision?
Mr. Woodman: Based upon the stock status report, that is correct. We did not use the stock status report because it did not give us a biomass level.
Senator Cochrane: How was this decision made?
Mr. Woodman: It was based on the 6,000 tonnes. They did say that the biomass level had increased using the 6,000 tonnes, which had been taken over the last three years. Three years earlier, 6,000 tonnes had been taken each year. We went with that figure as being logical, in consideration of the fact that we had recommended 10,000 tonnes of haddock, which the minister rejected. He retained the figure of 8,100 tonnes of last year. That was the rationale being used for the decision.
Senator Cochrane: It is not current information. The decision was not based on current information.
Mr. Woodman: That is a fact. We did not have a complete stock status report.
Senator Robichaud: Dr. Rose said that the two stocks should not have been fished and Mr. Woodman said that what is being done is reasonable. In fishing practices, we sometimes try to be reasonable, but all the information is never before us when we need it. Are you saying the same thing?
Mr. Woodman: Yes, I am saying the same thing. As well, often when we make our recommendations, everyone looks at the numbers and reads the recommendations with respect to conservation because that is critical. However, the 6,000 tonnes was a different 6,000 tonnes than was recommended previously. We stipulated, for example, that dumping and discarding had to be dealt with. If not, the fishery should not proceed. We made fairly stringent to the minister with respect to how the fishery should take place. It was not the same recommendation that had been given three years earlier.
Senator Robichaud: When Senator Cochrane asked why it was open in one area and closed in another, you said that it was not right and that it should be closed in both areas.
Mr. Woodman: We did not close it. The minister closed the fishery.
Senator Robichaud: In that way, you disagree.
Mr. Woodman: The minister closed the fishery; we did not close it.
Senator Robichaud: The minister takes your recommendations into consideration. He may not always follow them, but he takes them into account, does he not?
Mr. Woodman: Yes. In this particular case and in the case of 4X, he accepted our recommendations. In the case of Northern Gulf cod, he did not.
Senator Adams: Dr. Rose, you mentioned that northern turbot would be lost soon. To give you an idea what is happening in Nunavut, DFO gave us 8,000 tonnes per year for the experimental licences.
We had the quotas but some people had no boats and could not fish. I was up there last month in Pangnirtung where the turbot are and people are catching them with hooks through holes in the ice. The quota is 8,000 tonnes per year in the area between OA and OB.
Do you have any idea how much fish is actually there? Not many Canadians travel up that far to fish because of the cost. How many foreigners travel there to fish those stocks? Could you tell us a bit about the future of turbot?
Mr. Rose: I cannot answer your question because I do not know about the status of the fish up there. There is no Canadian research effort, as I am sure you know, in that area. One thing with the turbot, even in the more southern areas, is that we are kind of reliant on NAFO data and other things. We do have one survey but it is only for one part of the area. There is a ``patchwork'' of science. We are playing with fire, in my view, in respect of the turbot.
I am fairly convinced, from the data that exist. This has been borne out over the past few years that we, in the larger sense of all fishing that is done — not just by Canadians — are overfishing this stock quite severely. Most of the catch is juvenile fish. Even at the present time, the estimated spawning biomass is quite low and most of that is thought to occur in the North, although there are some who dispute that.
I do not know what the status of the turbot stock would be in Nunavut, but it certainly should be taken on as the responsibility of Canada to know that information. Thus far, we have not done that.
Senator Adams: There are Russian, Portuguese and Spanish trawlers; there are also some from Iceland. They have a few quotas in Newfoundland but they do not catch much. In the meantime, they have to pay 27 per cent royalties. It is expensive to fish up there. That is why I asked the question.
We have not seen any results from the research that DFO has conducted up there over the past 10 years. We are getting only 3 per cent for the 8,000 metric tonnes. I do not know if that is true or not. It may be a little different up there. It is a short season compared to the east. Thank you.
Mr. Woodman: I would like to make a comment about the limited science we do have on turbot. Traditionally, the fish spawn in the North and the larvae float south and settle on the bottom of the Grand Banks. The reverse is true as the fish grow. They move north where we catch the larger ones. We catch the smaller ones in the south.
As Dr. Rose said, what we are doing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks is asinine. I would say that 90 per cent of our harvest is juvenile. These fish have never spawned, they have never added to the resource. We are hitting it too hard.
The FRCC made recommendations to the minister in 1998. The turbot was being fished too hard. It was a juvenile fishery and action should be taken. Science was saying that young fish were coming in, but they were not. They did not show up in the fishery. We suggested that the TAC be set at 40,000 tonnes. NAFO set the quota at 44,000 tonnes. Last year, the recommendation was 36,000 tonnes and this year it is going down again. It becomes a recruitment fishery. Eventually, you will run out of fish that way.
Senator Adams: We have had quite a few people from NAFO. We have an agreement with other countries at the 200-mile limit. Do you think that is a mistake? Should we go by deeper water? As soon as the water gets deeper, should it be the end for Canada?
The Grand Banks is spawning what the northerners are catching. What is the future there? As you say, no one can do anything because of the agreement. How will we stop it in the future if other countries catch all our fish?
Mr. Rose: There are some very fundamental issues here. I know that the government has taken kind of a band-aid approach to this. They recognize the problems with NAFO. This has been happening for years and years. The problems are recognized; we put a band-aid here and a band-aid there. We say that we will talk to them, we will do this and that. However, nothing ever really changes; nothing ever really works.
The entire system is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot be repaired. As far as I am concerned, the business of having these factory trawlers steaming across the Atlantic and in some cases, halfway around the world to fish coastal waters that are not theirs is an anachronism in this day and age. It is a relic of a bygone era and it should be stopped, period. It is inconsistent with modern ideas about conservation and marine ecosystem management. It is not conducive to having productive fisheries in the future.
We have been through so much of this. It all started after the Second World War with the advent of these large vessels that could go anywhere in the world and fish 24 hours a day. They could freeze everything in the ocean. They came over here and they found fish stocks that had been fished for hundreds of years — centuries — sustainably, and they pillaged them all. They did it all over the world. We know this. Yet, here we are in the 21st century still discussing whether this is a good idea.
Senator Adams: In Nunavut, we are only allowed one humpback whale every year. We did not kill them all off. Some of the whalers from Europe came here and caught all the whales.
Senator Cochrane mentioned the other day that DFO is putting in another $6 million to see if the seals eat the cod. Now they are going study it. We know that seals eat cod. Will that $6 million prove that seals eat cod?
Mr. Rose: Perhaps you should put in a bid for the contract. You have already given the answer.
Senator Adams: I would like the skins, not the $6 million. Thank you.
Senator Hubley: I would like to go back to one of your slides that showed the big cod killed by cold water in Smith Sound. I did a double take when I realized that that picture was taken this year in April of 2003. Is that a natural occurrence? Does cold water kill happen every year? Does it affect all the species or, is it just the cod?
Mr. Rose: It happens, but not very often. In this particular area, I quizzed some of the oldest residents that I could find. I talked to people more than 80 years of age. They had never seen anything like this before in that area. It can happen.
I was involved in another one, I think in 1994, in St. Mary's Bay on the south coast, but it was minor compared to this.
Senator Hubley: When you see the cod float, what can that tell you about the stocks? Does this give you any information about what is down there?
Mr. Rose: Not really. It verifies what we knew. It is tragic because this is the strongest, in fact, the only, large aggregation of spawning fish left on the northeast coast of Newfoundland in Smith Sound. They overwinter and spawn there.
I have been studying this group of fish since it was discovered about 10 years ago. I am quite aware of most aspects of it, but it is tragic to see them die. We probably lost more than 2 million pounds of fish from this population. If that is all that we lost, we were lucky, because the stock can probably sustain that, although it is a major setback when we do not need another setback.
This is a natural phenomenon. I am working with some scientists in Newfoundland to try to piece together why and how happened. However, there is no question that this is a very rare event, but it does occur. For it to occur on this scale is even rarer. It is rather tragic that it happened now.
Senator Hubley: If you had the opportunity to protect areas, would this Smith Sound area be one of the areas that you would protect? What would be some of the others?
Mr. Rose: It depends on how you define this, but in respect of rebuilding the cod — particularly on the northeast coast of Newfoundland — Smith Sound is by far the most important place. Some people might have argued with me about that five or six years ago, but I do not think I have too many critics now. People are quite onside with this. This is the only place.
If we are talking about the larger scale of the Grand Bank and the northeast coast up to Labrador, then that is not true. There are many other areas where there are remnant spawning and juvenile stocks that need protection. Frankly, for at least three or four years, the FRCC has been recommending to the minister and to the department to close some of these areas out on the banks to all intrusive forms of fishing, particularly to shrimp trawling. We have had no success at all in trying get that implemented.
If I could convince you of one thing this evening, it would be to do that. Other important areas include the Southeast Shoal, which straddles the 200-mile limit and is one of the most important areas out on the Grand Banks. The Virgin Rocks is another one, along with the Bonavista corridor and Hawk Channel — these are some of the areas where cod are now struggling to rebuild and we are not giving them a hand up at all.
In fact, in the last 10 years, we have ignored them and thrown hundreds of shrimp trawlers at their spawning grounds in juvenile areas. That is what we have done. That is not much help. If we were serious about rebuilding the cod, we would be doing much more, including closing those areas.
If you go back to the FRCC reports, it is all there. We spelled this out, but we got precious little support from industry and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to actually implement it; so that is where we stand now with that one.
Senator Robichaud: I do not think too many people in Canada — especially in Atlantic Canada — like the seals very much. I live close to Kouchibouguac National Park and there happens to be a whole bunch of them that congregate there right on the sand bar, right at the gully. I can tell you there are not very many fish in the river; people say that the seals eat them all. Those seals are great big things and they pollute the beach like you would not believe. You cannot stand the stink when you are downwind of them, and they eat a lot of fish.
There is a quota, a harvest that is allowed. Is it still 285,000, or something like that?
Mr. Woodman: No, this year the minister increased it to 315,000, I think.
Senator Robichaud: The problem is you have to sell, or utilize, the whole animal when you go out. Is that not so?
Mr. Woodman: I am not certain whether I would incriminate myself if I answered that question.
Senator Robichaud: I will not pursue it any further. However, it is easier said than done because whenever the government or the fishermen complain about the seals — as George Baker says, ``What do you think the seals eat, Macdonald hamburgers?'' Naturally, they eat food fish for the other species.
However, when you look at doing something to resolve the problem, the international community puts in place some boycotts on Canadian fish products.
Do you think bringing in killer whales would help? Right now, they have no natural predator, have they?
Mr. Woodman: There are a few killer whales still around, I guess. Polar bears are probably the only other predator, other than man.
You are on my favourite subject, sir. What has happened over the last few days should have some impact on the environmentalists, or IFAW or whomever. Today we have possibly between 5.5 and 6 million harp seals; we conceivably have between 800,000 and 1 million hooded seals; finally, there are about 250,000 to 300,000 grey seals. Look at the consumption model of what those animals eat over time. We look at the low biomass levels. COSEWIC and scientists are telling us that the biomass levels are so low that, in fact, northern cod may not recover.
Seals are, without a doubt, the greatest impediment to stock recovery today. Dr. Rose might disagree, but they are at the moment. They may not have been the cause, but they certainly are impeding stock recovery.
In the Gulf of St. Lawrence — where your home is — we have the grey seals. We do not have a market for them. We do not know how many there are; we do not have a consumption model of how much they are eating. Still, we stop fishing.
Somewhere in the piece, someone has to tell us how we will reduce those numbers of seals without having world opinion go against us. World opinion should be onside, when we look at the devastation that has taken place.
Senator Robichaud: I agree, but how do we get world opinion?
Mr. Woodman: The minister appeared before the House of Commons fishery committee over the last few days, I understand, and he has made a statement that he is quite willing to take more animals — the harp seal, for example, is in good shape, a good biomass level between 5.5 and 6 million animals.
However, now the sealers association and those involved in the harvesting sector of seals are saying that if you kill too many and flood the market, you will have a problem the other way. It is a double-edged sword.
Senator Adams: We heard George Baker talk about seals. We have lots of seals in the Arctic, although we do not have over 6 million in one area. In the slideshow the Liberal caucus saw last week, the area for seals was about 100 miles long and 50 miles wide. Is that true? Does that sound like the size of the area for harp seals right now?
Mr. Woodman: Do you mean on the ice?
Senator Adams: Yes.
Mr. Woodman: I flew over it a couple of years ago; you have to see it to believe it. It is incredible.
Senator Adams: I know. I have been hunting seal. At some time of the year, it gets very dirty with the waste on top of the ice. In the future, it could get so bad that the fish might die from disease because of the waste from the seals. In the meantime, those seals may eat close to 40,000 or 50,000 tonnes of cod per year.
Mr. Woodman: They may eat more than that.
Senator Robichaud: We have been talking about the closing of spawning grounds for a while now. I believe I have seen a change of attitude in the fishing community on the part of the fishers and the fish processors. In my area, for example, we are concerned about scallops. They just about scraped the last one from the bottom of the bed by using bigger and bigger rigs. There was talk of having areas where they could not drag for scallops. Although the stock is way down, they fish for about two weeks and then it is not worth going out at all. The fishers are still resisting the closing off of some areas to allow for the recovery of stocks and scallops.
To some extent, I can understand this because there is nothing else for them to fish — although there is some lobster. They were taking part of the snow crab quota but then all hell broke loose because they were given that quota. That is the intro.
You recommend closing part of the northern cod fishery in exchange for shrimp, in a specific year, but that pits one fisher against another. It is difficult to walk the line but it is necessary, is it not? Someone will suffer.
Mr. Rose: I agree that it is difficult; but it needs to be done. We have a situation right now, just off the northeast coast of Newfoundland, whereby crab fishermen are requesting that large areas be set aside from shrimp dragging for the same reason. They believe — and there is probably some justification in this — that shrimp dragging is destroying the snow crab stocks. It makes much more sense to them because the crab is a more lucrative product than is the shrimp.
Along those same lines, if you restrict certain fisheries, you will have to take a side on some of these issues. I would not look at it as pitting fishermen against one another — although some of them may see it that way. You want to conserve the resources for the long haul and try to maintain, or in some cases get back, a prosperous fishing economy in many areas.
We have had these problems in the past. That is how conservation was handled in the past. It was not deliberate but rather it was because we did not have the technological capability to going at the fishery 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. We had protected seasons and areas simply because we could not get there, and it worked. It worked best kind. We had sustainable fisheries for hundreds of years without quotas, without science, and without management. We now have all of those and we have fisheries in a mess. That is because we forgot what we should have known all along — some simple conservation ideas.
Senator Mahovlich: In other words, common sense.
Mr. Rose: Common sense.
Senator Robichaud: You say that we have fisheries in a mess. Would you apply that generally? I believe there are species, such as shrimp, that are doing very well, are they not?
Mr. Rose: That is no thanks to us. Mother Nature in Newfoundland and Labrador must love us a great deal because, after what we did to the cod and some of the groundfish, she gave us all this shrimp and crab. We did not do anything to deserve that. There was no great management behind that. That was just downright luck.
Senator Robichaud: Snow crab is not that bad off, either, is it?
Mr. Rose: Snow crab has been a multi-million dollar industry for much of Atlantic Canada over the last decade. The crab stocks are not holding up as well there as they have in many other areas. They are starting to decline off Labrador and off the south coast of Newfoundland in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Senator Robichaud: The Gulf has a natural cycle, is that not right?
Mr. Rose: That is what crab stocks will do.
Senator Robichaud: If you respect the cycle and have quotas according to the cycle, then you could stay reasonably well within the catch that should be caught.
I just wanted to say that in some places, things are not so bad. However, that is not to be said about the cod stocks. I do not know how that could get any worse.
Senator Mahovlich: I wish to refer to the Grand Bank. Is NAFO aware of our problem? Have we approached them? Have we presented them with the problems? Are they just ignoring us? You tell us that there are factory boats out there fishing.
Mr. Rose: Yes, they are aware of our problems. Mr. Woodman is more familiar with this aspect.
Mr. Woodman: Senator Mahovlich, I believe you have this binder of information before you. I would like honourable senators to take this binder home tonight for bedtime reading.
I want to make the point that NAFO is certainly not working in the way that those of us who are in conservation would like to see it work. The question you asked is whether NAFO is aware. I read somewhere that you may possibly attend a NAFO meeting this year.
Senator Mahovlich: Yes.
Mr. Woodman: You are in for one of the most exciting weeks of your life, so long as you do not fall asleep.
This binder contains correspondence dating back to 1994 when Herbert Clarke was chair of the council. Not all the letters are there, but I can send the rest along to you. These are my letters to the minister written over the last six or seven years.
They highlight the question that you were asking about whether they recognize the problem. All of those issues have been raised at NAFO. Unfortunately, very few of them were accepted. When the recommendations were made on conservation measures other than numbers, I do not know if we had one accepted. For example, Canadian fishermen use a 145-millimetre mesh; NAFO's standard is 130 mm. We have fish size, such as American plaice. We have 30 centimetres; they have 25 centimetres. The same thing applies to the Greenland halibut, which is turbot.
We have specific conservation inside measures that do not apply outside. Thus, we have two regimes working. That is not a recipe for success.
Senator Mahovlich: Who set those rules? You cannot have a game where one team plays with a smaller puck than the other.
Mr. Rose: That is what you have.
Mr. Woodman: That is an excellent analogy. They do not look at conservation. What they are doing is exploitation. They look at how much fish they can take home and they will continue to hammer the resource as hard as they can to take home as much as they can.
As Dr. Rose was saying, they come across the Atlantic or half-way around the world to catch fish. They are there to catch fish and make money. They have those super class freezer trawlers — the best in the world. At any given time there are quite a number of trawlers fishing and freezing fish.
I hope you look at this document. If you have any questions at any time please feel free to call. The paper provides a good insight of obstacles that we face with NAFO. Some people would probably say that is not true. Except for the observer program, I do not know what we have achieved.
Senator Mahovlich: It must be awfully frustrating.
Mr. Woodman: It is, sir.
The Chairman: I should like to cover some areas before we go on to the second round. Senator Cochrane referred to 4X cod in areas of Nova Scotia. I believe the impression may have been left that the cod might actually swim all the way up to the North. Nobody should surmise that, should they?
Mr. Rose: No.
Mr. Woodman: No, it is a distinct stock.
The Chairman: I wanted to be sure that they were two very separate stocks. If a quota is authorized off the south coast of Nova Scotia, it is a separate thing.
Mr. Woodman: In the COSEWIC paper, they treat Gulf cod, eastern Scotia shelf cod, and 4X as one group in one area. They are located west of the Laurentian channel, east of the Laurentian channel and the off the northeast coast of Newfoundland. They are grouped together in that paper, but they are distinct.
The Chairman: I understand.
I was reading through some newspaper clippings the other day. It was reported that that off the U.S. north coast scientists calculate approximately a 30 per cent discard rate. I think that there are some as high is 50 or 60 per cent rate for certain species of fish. The scientists actually factor into their calculations a 30 per cent discard rate across the board for most of these fish.
Are you aware if something similar is done in Canadian science? When scientists calculate their stocks do they factor in a percentage of what they assume to be discards?
Mr. Rose: I am not aware of any Canadian science that does that.
The Chairman: It is common knowledge that there is a discard. Given the kinds of fishing regime — quota system and so forth — most people are aware that it does happen.
Could not some weird scientific results be created by not calculating the discard?
Mr. Rose: It certainly would have an effect on the modelled outputs that are used to describe the state of the stocks. There is no doubt about that.
The Chairman: It is probably best for me to ask our fisheries scientists if they do factor in some kind of a factoring.
Mr. Rose: They do not factor that in. It is not because they are not aware of the problem.
The Chairman: Would it be politically prudent not to do it?
Mr. Rose: I would not say that. I think that it is because they do not have a good idea of what the problem is. For example, in 3Ps in southern Newfoundland, discarding in gill net fisheries has been debated back and forth ever since that fishery opened.
The Chairman: Might the motivation for not calculating such a discard rate be the fact that the department itself has been promoting the kind of fisheries that actually result in discards?
Mr. Rose: I would not agree with that. I do not believe that the department is really promoting that type of fishery.
The Chairman: It has not promoted ITQs and so on.
Mr. Rose: To some extent it has. However, you will get an argument about whether that really promotes discarding.
The Chairman: I might send you some articles.
I also read that off the coast of Senegal, the government had started setting up artificial reefs to discourage foreign countries from fishing its waters and create areas where fish could spawn. I asked an official from NAFO the other day whether it would be possible to start working on some kind of an artificial reef off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. It was suggested that the area was too large. However, if it were strategically placed, you could dump some rather large items that would foul up the fishing gear. It would discourage fishing in those areas. Have you given any thought to the dumping of old vehicles, buses and airplanes to create an artificial reef?
Mr. Woodman: There is nothing that we have not considered in that regard.
Mr. Rose: I would prefer a direct frontal attack on the entire NAFO regime. There might be a downside to dumping junk out there that we might not even realize. Certainly, whoever said that the area is large is correct. It is a big area.
If allowed any leeway at all, I have no doubt that the NAFO countries and their fishermen are clever enough to find a way around anything as long as they can fish out there.
The Chairman: I want to come back to your concept of unified management, which is premised on the fact that we have a management regime within Canadian waters. You are proposing that this regime be complementary to the regime set up in the NAFO regulatory area.
That is very intriguing. We have heard the concept of custodial management and ownership. This is a brand new approach. You are not necessarily suggesting custodial management but a unified management. I would like to know more about it.
Mr. Rose: The concept comes from approaching things from a biological or ecological rather than the political perspective. I am sure the fish do not care who catches them.
The Chairman: If Canada were to be a signatory, for example, to UNCLOS, could Canada not start making the case right now to the UN?
Mr. Rose: Canada could start making the case based on the ecosystem concept almost immediately.
The Chairman: Canada once had a great reputation at the UN for all matters relating to marine issues. I know that image has suffered somewhat in the last number of years because of our reductions in science and the loss of a great number of our science people. However, we still have a decent reputation at the UN. Would that not go a long way towards re-establishing our reputation if we were to propose such a concept? The UN has identified the extreme reductions in fish stocks all over the world.
Mr. Rose: As I am sure you are aware, Canada is a signatory to various conventions. We have also promised to rebuild marine fish stocks that are in a collapsed state. How will we do that? We have not made much progress yet.
Many people in Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador want to know where the beef is here? Is it all hot air or are we actually going to do something?
The Chairman: It has also been suggested to some of us that we should be trying to work more closely with worldwide environmental groups because they might actually help us in what we are trying to accomplish. I know a great number of us always shudder when we think of certain environmental groups, but those are the ones who have possibly not thought through what they are saying — the Brigitte Bardots and so on.
What about the other ones? There are other ones who are very sincere. They do not want to protect seals because they are cute and cuddly; they want to protect species that are in danger. Should we not be doing more work with such environmental groups? I will not name any, but is this an approach we should be using more?
Mr. Rose: I would agree with that. I do not mind naming names. There are environmental groups that have great respect for the scientific point of view; they have done great work around the world for conservation. Then there are others who are just out to collect money from people, and who really do not know any better and so on.
In respect of the former, the one that comes to mind is the World Wildlife Fund, which is a very reputable organization that has done remarkably good things all over the world and is now focusing on marine matters.
They have had a couple of meetings in St. John's. They are very interested in the Grand Bank ecosystem as being something that they can focus on. They are highly project-oriented; they like to take on specific projects. I can see that the Grand Bank may — I actually hope — become one of their projects. They are a responsible environmental group. They are not against fishing, hunting and sealing, like some of these groups are. They are for conservation, which fishermen and hunters should be, too.
The Chairman: Are they somewhat like Ducks Unlimited?
Mr. Rose: That is correct. I agree that we can get help from those people.
The Chairman: On the same subject, would marine protected areas on the Grand Banks, especially the NAFO areas, also be a way to go?
Mr. Rose: Yes. The name itself has developed a rather bad reputation — certainly in Newfoundland — because of some early initiatives that were made by Parks Canada that were not very astute.
The Chairman: We do not want to look at those.
Mr. Rose: The name may not be the right thing, but the concept of protecting areas of the ocean — not only from fishing, but also from other industrial activity like the oil exploration in seismic shooting, and other forms of development — is a sound idea that is gaining credibility all over the world as a method of marine conservation and for enhancing local fisheries.
The Chairman: It would be kind of hard for the NAFO countries to be against such an item.
Mr. Rose: I am not so sure about that.
The Chairman: Coming back to Smith Sound and the fish kill-off by the cold water, it was suggested by some people at that time that the seals were actually chasing the fish from the warmer waters up into areas where it would freeze their blood, knowing it would kill off the fish so that they could get at them. Is there any truth to this?
Mr. Rose: In a single word, no. That was an early idea, when people were groping for answers and putting out ideas as to how this could be happening. The investigation has shown that was not the cause.
The Chairman: Finally, on the seal question, it has been suggested that the seals can be neutered. Can this be done? Can we go out there and neuter a whole bunch of seals? As a joke, I raised this question on the floor of the Senate and called it the Seal Neutering Intervention Program, SNIP, where we could get a Human Resource Development grant to teach people how to do it. However, you would need to have some pretty big guys going out there after these seals — and fast runners as well.
Mr. Rose: I do not think that is a very likely method. Nature will likely provide some form of birth control or pup reduction down the line. Animal populations cannot just continue to grow. When that will happen, we cannot predict.
The problem with the seals is that we had a problem and we let it get right out of hand. As discussed earlier, it is hard to justify increasing the quota we have now from a commercial point of view, because you will kill your own market. It does not make a whole lot of sense. That is because there are so many seals there now.
The lesson from history is that we never should have stopped the hunt in the first place. We never would have gotten into this problem. Now we cannot harvest enough seals to reduce the population very quickly. We simply cannot do it. A massive cull is politically unpalatable and probably not very wise from many standpoints. We are between a rock and a hard place in terms of getting that population down to a more reasonable level.
It may be that we will have to increase the harvest as much as we can and then hope that the pupping rates decline, or — as has happened in other parts of the world — a virus gets in and causes a high rate of natural mortality. These are unpredictable natural events. We will just have to wait and see.
Senator Cochrane: In response to Senator Mahovlich's question, Mr. Woodman mentioned one of the things that we have accomplished with the NAFO countries is that we were allowed observers on the ships. Something rings a bell here. I am not sure if I am correct. Did we have to inform the NAFO vessels first that we were going to have an informer come aboard their ship to see if they were fishing illegally? Was that one of the stipulations?
Mr. Woodman: I really cannot answer that question, senator. I have read exactly what you read, too, that the observers were giving notice before the boarding. However, the ships that are fishing at sea are supposed to have observers on board 100 per cent of the time. Many people seem to think that those observers are not purely neutral.
Senator Cochrane: That is correct, because they stay on board with the crew and everything.
Mr. Woodman: The other aspect is they observe what is going on but the follow-up is the problem.
Senator Cochrane: The minister has also announced that there will be $6 million — this is what was in the press release — to study the seals.
My worry is that if we have a cod moratorium and if it takes two years for the study on the effects that the seals are having, what will happen to the cod? The seals will be out there, free to catch all the fish, and it will be a free-for-all for NAFO vessels. We will be left in the lurch with not a thing to do about it.
That is my concern. Could you comment on that, Dr. Rose?
Mr. Rose: You have put it very well. This is one of the concerns that people have in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the other Atlantic Provinces. The FRCC also had this concern, as did the Newfoundland and Labrador All- Party Committee.
The concern is that the closure of the tiny index fisheries that we have for some of these cod stocks will not rebuild the stocks. We are causing pain and suffering to many people by taking away their livelihoods and so on. If there were a real reason for doing that — if we truly believed that by causing all of this pain and suffering we would, in the end, have rebuilt the fish stocks for these people to come back to, I would be all for it.
However, that is not what we are doing. What we need to do — and this is backed by science — includes the reduction in the seal population; protection of the rebuilding of cod from other fisheries, international and national; reductions in the number of seals; and protection of the capelin stocks, which are the food chain to this. We are not touching most of these things.
What are we doing, other than closing down these small fisheries? We are studying seals, but we already know that seals are having a major affect on the fish stocks. Another two years of study may be nice but it will not likely tell us more than we already know. What is it? It is perceived as another delaying tactic and perhaps that is the way it is.
Are we doing anything about stopping the foreign fisheries? I mentioned this earlier. As I speak, there are probably 50 trawlers from Spain, Portugal and Russia out there fishing. Are we doing anything to stop that? No. We are not doing a thing. We are only stopping all of our little fishers on the coasts from earning a living.
It is difficult. This is why you have seen such a very strong reaction, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but also in some of the other provinces in recent weeks. This reaction will not go away, not this time.
Senator Robichaud: I do not think any minister would use delay tactics to ignore the problem. It is a difficult situation. When you suggest that it should be tackled right on, I hate to think of the reaction that you would have in Atlantic Canada if you were to use an approach whereby any other fishery that has an effect on cod would be closed down.
Mr. Rose: That is not what I said.
Senator Robichaud: Did you not say that we must look at the other areas, such as the shrimp fishery, and that any practice affecting the cod fishery should be stopped?
Mr. Rose: That is not what I said. I certainly never suggested that. We, the FRCC, have suggested for several years that the shrimp fishery be prohibited from key, critical historic areas of spawning and juvenile cod.
I have not done a formal analysis on this but do you know how much impact that would have on the shrimp fishery? It would have no effect at all because there are shrimp everywhere. There is so much shrimp that you could put a net down anywhere and catch shrimp. People know that. Any negative impacts on the other fisheries would be minimal but it may very well give a small, helping hand to the cod that are out there. We are not suggesting closing down other fisheries and hurting them economically. Rather, we are suggesting modification practices to better give the cod, and perhaps other species, a better chance to rebuild.
Senator Robichaud: Do you think that people who practice that kind of fishery would agree wholeheartedly?
Mr. Rose: Some agree and some do not agree. We have not made much progress to date.
Senator Robichaud: Straddling stocks ride the 200-mile limit, extending our jurisdiction to the Continental Shelf and the Flemish Cap. How could we do what you are suggesting?
Mr. Rose: I am not a lawyer so I do not know all the nuts and bolts of that. From the standpoint of a conservation argument, that is the card we should play. Internationally, if people knew the situation — and this is where organizations such as The World Wildlife Fund could help through public awareness campaigns — then world opinion would be on our side.
Perhaps the first step would be to pursue what I have called ``unified management'' to stop the existing disparity now. Canada would have to take the leadership role because much of this has to do with enforcement and management rules and regulations. As Senator Mahovlich said, we are playing with different sized pucks and sticks. How can you do that? It just does not work.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Woodman, have you any ideas on how we could do that?
Mr. Woodman: We have thought about it and talked about it at council meetings for a number of years because we knew there was a serious problem. There is no question that it is getting worse.
The legal jargon that is being used makes it a job for a layman such as myself to comprehend exactly what the implications would be. Judging from the reaction in 1995, you could get a huge reaction from the people who have fished there for a number of years.
The effort must be done collectively between the two ``sparing partners —the European Union, EU, and Canada. They have to come to an agreement on a strategy to rebuild the stocks and that potential is not there because there is still a mistrust within NAFO that any move that Canada makes is just another move to get the EU out of there. That is exactly the way the Europeans have expressed it in conversations that I have had with them. They say that any move we make in consideration of conservation is another move to make it more difficult for them to make a living.
The only way is for all parties involved to recognize that there is a serious problem. Those stocks that meant so much are in serious trouble. At some time, I hope they will mean something to Atlantic Canada again. At the moment, sir, it has to be done collectively with mutual agreement by the two parties.
Senator Mahovlich: A lawyer testifying last week said that there will be a meeting of NAFO and all the other organizations in New Zealand and that Canada should be represented there. Have you heard anything about this?
Mr. Woodman: I have read that in the press. I have heard nothing more than that.
Senator Adams: Is it true that outside the 200-mile limit, Canada has 95 per cent of the quotas? I thought that our NAFO witnesses said that. I am not sure.
Mr. Woodman: In the first section of our brief, there is a table titled ``NAFO Stocks; Historical Perspectives.'' I will use as an example American plaice, which is the third one down. Under the TAC levels, you will see the per cent share. If there were a quota established, Canada's share is 98.5 per cent. If you move up one to yellowtail flounder, Canada's share is 97.5 per cent. For witch flounder the share is 60 per cent; for 3NO cod, it is 47 per cent.
As a citizen of the coastal state with 98 and 97 per cent of a species, it is really bothersome to sit at a meeting table across from someone who owns 1.5 per cent and be subject to abuse. It is incredible.
Senator Adams: The Europeans are not listening to Canada. It would be easier to tell them not to come and pay them money.
Mr. Woodman: We did that for a few years. We had the carrot and the stick. Everything we have achieved in NAFO has been achieved by offering carrots. Nothing has been achieved on the point of being a conservation measure. It was achieved because we offered them extra turbot, redfish or some other species.
We have now run out of carrots. The carrots are gone and we are down to hard-core negotiations. If that does not take place, we have a serious problem.
Senator Adams: According to some Canadian observers, some of the European ships should be blacklisted because some vessels are catching the wrong size fish. Is that true?
Mr. Woodman: I could not answer that, sir.
Senator Adams: Can you catch any type of fish that you want? There is no limit to the size of fish?
Mr. Woodman: I would make one comment, senator. There was a presentation made in Denmark in February of 2002 and again in Spain the following September, that was prepared by Newfoundland region enforcement. That presentation would give you an indication of exactly what is happening. For the first time since it has been publicly printed, you can see the abuse that is taking place out there.
What measures are being taken? Once a boat has made its catch, it returns to its homeport. The boat is to be inspected there before it is unloaded. They are to check what is on board.
Before the committee finishes its work, Mr. Chairman, have a look at the presentation. You will see exactly what is happening.
Senator Adams: What year is that? 2002?
Mr. Woodman: Yes. 2002.
Mr. Rose: The fundamental problem with those fisheries is that these are large, expensive vessels, as Mr. Woodman has pointed out. We do not have many of that class in Canada. When they come all that way, they will not go home empty. I do not care what rules anyone has; those boats are not going home empty.
Years ago, when I worked for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I asked a senior enforcement official if Canada had ever boarded and searched a foreign vessel and found that they had honestly reported their catch. He thought for a minute and said, ``No. Not once.''
Some people wonder how they do it. They have these expensive boats and catch juvenile fish that cannot be worth very much. How can they afford to do that? Our Canadian fisheries cannot economically fish those stocks. They would not be able sell the fish. This may be a way to get at them, down the line. Their countries heavily subsidize those fleets. They are paid by their countries to come here and do what they are doing. Some of the environmental groups in Europe, the World Wildlife Fund in particular, is trying to get at them through the subsidization of this type of fishery. I do not know if that will be successful,
However, if you eliminate the subsidization of those fleets, it would probably be uneconomical for them to come here. That would be the best news for everyone.
The Chairman: I thank you gentlemen for sharing your knowledge, your passion and your great interest in this subject matter. You have been extremely helpful to the committee. You have shown us why people have respect for you both. You have made us an excellent presentation. I appreciate the time and effort that you have both given to this industry that you love.
The committee adjourned.