[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 27, 1996
.1534 
[English]
The Chairman: I see a quorum and it is past 3:30 p.m., so we should begin our meeting.
We have a little business. Diane, I don't know if you got a copy of it. It was given to Mike last week on the budget.
Mrs. Ablonczy (Calgary North): I didn't see anything from him.
The Chairman: I guess we don't have enough members to pass the budget. It'll take one more. I guess we'll have to postpone that and hope somebody arrives.
So we'll get right into our main meeting. I'd like to welcome Fred Woodman, chairman of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, and his vice-chairman, Dr. Jean-Claude Brêthes. Did I say that correctly?
Dr. Jean-Claude Brêthes (Vice-Chairman, Fisheries Resource Conservation Council): Close.
The Chairman: Dr. William Doubleday is the director general of fisheries and oceans science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Is Jacque coming?
.1535
Dr. William Doubleday (Director General, Fisheries and Oceans Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I understand he's coming, but I haven't seen him, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: If he comes, he comes.
Maybe we'll start with you, Fred. Give us your background, why you were formed and what role you play between the fisherman and the government. Our main interest is on the groundfish recommendations, and there might be some questions on your lobster recommendations of some time ago about what is current there.
I think it was the member from the Reform Party who suggested we bring you in. It's not before time that we have you in to give us a talk about the work you do, how you do it, how you cooperate between the department and the fisherman and how you come to your conclusions on recommendations for quotas and stuff like this.
It's a learning experience for us about your role. We've seen some of your reports but we'd like a little more intimate discussion about what you do, why you're doing it and why you come up with the recommendations you have in your report. We'll look forward to your presentation. I don't know if you have one prepared. Then we can ask questions around the table.
Mr. Woodman.
Mr. Fred Woodman (Chairman, Fisheries Resource Conservation Council): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, I have a prepared statement, but after I make the statement certainly we're open for questions. That's why we're here. I'm glad we got the invitation to be here. I think it's only right that people who make recommendations to ministers come before standing committees and be questioned on how and why they made their recommendations and so on. So we're quite happy to be here. I'm also glad to have my vice-chairman with me this afternoon.
I'd like to take you into when the FRCC was formed. It came into being in 1993 after the collapse of the northern cod stocks. Certainly since that time other stocks have come near to collapse. The council is at arm's length from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or from the government and it's a non-political arm.
The mandate is to recommend total allowable catches and other measures to ensure a sustainable fishery. The FRCC brings together government, academic scientists, industry managers and fishermen to focus on conservation issues.
I'll just let you know how we're structured. We have 14 council core members, we call them, who are appointed for, in the case of this council, three-year terms, which terminated at the end of May 1996. I came in as chair in April 1996. I asked that the council members stay on until the end of the year until we finished all our business that was in progress. That's where we are today.
On October 24 we made our recommendation, our fifth comprehensive report actually, to the minister. I hope everybody has a copy of it. If not, they're available. It's called Building a Bridge. We presented that to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and our recommendations for quotas and total allowable catches for landed groundfish for 1997.
All of our reports to date have advocated a conservation approach to managing and protecting Canadian Atlantic fisheries. In our past four reports we have expanded on the theme and advocated the need for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management as well as increased knowledge and more effective partnerships among the stakeholders, which is critical, especially when you have a situation like we have today.
We have moratoria in place. Everything at the moment east of Halifax, Nova Scotia, is closed. So it's critical that you have effective partnerships working among the stakeholders. After five years in moratoria we had hoped to give a more positive report this year. We felt the time had come to take the first bold but tender steps in moving from theory to practice.
In its deliberations the FRCC has always been confronted by broad traditional considerations predicated on the biological nature of the resource and the uncertainty of the available information on the status.
.1540
Better understandings of fish stocks as part of the oceanic ecosystem is a prerequisite to any fisheries management. This understanding includes the accumulated wisdom of fishermen, the recent observations at sea, as well as the observations and experiments of the professional scientists, all of whom try to understand the ocean and its resources.
In developing our recommendations, the FRCC fully considered the views of the stakeholders, studied the most recent scientific information available on each stock, including the Sentinel fisheries information and the most recent research vessel surveys. We reviewed the council's past stock evaluations, the work of the council's subcommittees and endeavoured to maintain an historical perspective, including the traditional knowledge of fishermen.
We also kept in mind, which is very important, the human face of this fishery. We on the council are all sadly familiar with the social as well as the economic devastation associated with the current moratoria. We're all well aware that expectations continue to be both varied and at times very emotional. Given the high degree of public expectation, this report has been a particular challenge for us in attempting to reconcile differing expectations, while at the same time erring on the side of caution.
The mood at the FRCC's public consultations was much more positive than in previous years. The tone was increasingly focused on a more prudent and cautious approach. I might add that after the release of the scientific stock status report, Mr. Chairman, we do consultations Atlantic-wide. This year we did 11 of those consultations in Atlantic Canada and we have the stakeholders' input into those consultations.
Many things might account for the change, such as the fishermen's own observations, information from the Sentinel fishing program - and I'll elaborate on what that is a little later - the overall improvements in relations between fishermen and DFO scientists, and importantly, the arrest of declines and the improvements in the state of certain key stocks.
The overriding message we heard and accepted was that our only future lies in consultation-driven sustainable fishery. It is critical that we reinforce the conservation beliefs and methodology that brought us to this point. We must stay the course and carefully build a bridge to sustainability. If we are to avoid the catastrophes of the past, effective fisheries management must be guided by conservation dictates rather than economic objectives.
Reopening because fishermen need an income or increasing a TAC to achieve a more equitable allocation of the resources are recipes of disaster. They must be rejected even in the face of continuing social costs that continue to aggrieve us all.
Once you look at the individuals who are in attendance at these meetings, you realize how they are aggrieved by not being able to do the things they took for granted for so many years.
Among our recommendations to the minister, we are moving forward very cautiously and prudently with low-level reopenings of commercial cod fisheries in 3Ps, which is southern Newfoundland, 3Pn-4RS, which is the west coast of Newfoundland and the north shore of Quebec, and 4TVn, which is the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. We have quota recommendations focused on rebuilding these stocks, while working with industry to develop conservation ethics.
The precautionary approach used has consisted of the following: basing the recommendations to reopen on the strength of biological indicators; taking into account the uncertainty of stock status reports; opening only at a level that can ensure a continued rebuilding of the stocks; and insisting on a solid assurance of management control.
Mr. Chairman, with reopening comes responsibility, and all involved in the fishery must adopt more responsible fishing practices. Our recommendations are couched in the words heard over and over during the past four years: the fishery cannot open the same way it closed. Still, our report must not be interpreted as a green light to return to pre-moratorium levels and practices.
The challenge ahead for those in the fishery has never been greater. They must come to terms with the difficult decisions involved in carefully managing and harvesting small quotas. The tough lessons we have learned and the sacrifices we have made must not be forgotten or repeated. The ocean has limitations, and those who continue to abuse that privilege should be dealt with severely.
.1545
The council has witnessed significant changes in public attitude and aspirations. We applaud those who have worked tirelessly over the past few years to effect these changes. But much work remains to be done to effectively convince the merits that we on council have defined as the precautionary approach. This prudent approach is a management strategy that holds that it shouldn't be necessary to prove the need for conservation. It should be sufficiently obvious that on the balance of the evidence it makes indisputable sense.
In retrospective terms of the centuries-old pattern of exploitation of the Atlantic fishery, this approach is an innovative one. So let us never forget the devastation that this moratoria has brought to Atlantic Canada and Quebec and to our home towns. The future depends on a collective commitment to rebuilding the fisheries.
For those who are not familiar with the Sentinel fishery program, after the moratoria came into being in 1993, there was the need for information and for other indices to use when evaluating fish stocks in Atlantic Canada. So the Sentinel fishery program came in. We took so many fishermen in every region and put them on the water to carry on their normal fishing patterns with the help of science.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your attention, members of the committee.Dr. Brêthes and myself are open to any questions you might have.
The Chairman: Dr. Doubleday or Mr. Robichaud, do you have anything to add?
Dr. Doubleday: Mr. Chairman, we're available to respond to questions from the committee, but we don't have a prepared statement to make. Thank you.
The Chairman: I have a note from Ms Ablonczy that she was unexpectedly called to another meeting, although it was her party who requested this meeting in the first place a week ago. They're not here to ask any questions. So I apologize for their absence.
We have some very able questioners at the table, and perhaps we should begin with Roger.
Mr. Simmons (Burin - St. George's): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Fred, and your colleagues.
I don't have a lot of questions, because I'm familiar with the work of the FRCC. As the members of the council know, I attended its hearing, preparatory to making its recommendations, held in Harbour Breton. Of course I've had a good look at the recommendations and I'm quite comfortable with them.
For the record and in Fred's presence, I was saying to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a few days ago that I was very impressed with the way in which the members of the council conducted themselves at the Harbour Breton hearings. I was impressed that they appeared to be quite genuinely listening to what the fishermen had to say. The aftermath was a good impression. The fishermen were pleased to have had the opportunity.
I know your recommendation for 3Ps is in the order of 10,000 tonnes and then 6,000 tonnes for 3Pn-4RS. I'm not sure what it is for 4TVn. It's 6,000 tonnes, as well, is it? That area only indirectly affects me; there are some boats from our side that go across.
That brings me to my question. The council didn't address any of the parameters...the type of gear, that kind of thing, that would be used. I gather it's your position that this would be up to your political bosses, if you like, up to the government to determine that kind of question. Does the council or the chairman have any thoughts on what kinds of gear we ought to avoid, or is that asking something he'd prefer not to talk about?
.1550
Mr. Woodman: Mr. Simmons, it's an area we have tried to avoid getting ourselves involved in. It's a management issue...and to get ourselves involved with the gear types. We do have an ongoing technology subcommittee, which is about ready to bring its report forward. That should be in the hands of the minister possibly by the middle of December.
We have not, as a council, come out and blatantly banned any gear at this particular time. We've just made recommendations on the abuses of gear, as we saw it, through consultations. So we have not made any recommendations, and as a council, we won't comment on gear.
Mr. Simmons: What was your reference to the subcommittee? I lost that.
Mr. Woodman: We have a gear technology subcommittee, which is just about ready to release its report. We're actually hoping to have it ready by the middle of December, certainly before Christmas - not Christmas week, because it won't get read. But it will not be prescriptive, as such, on banning gear - no, sir.
Mr. Simmons: Again, this may be out of the area of the witnesses' mandate, but was it the council's intention that the fishery not be reopened in January but later in the year? If you look at the chain of events unfolding now, you're probably not going to have a groundfish management plan in place at the normal time. We would normally get it in late December. Was the council specific on that point, or is there some advantage to fishing later in the season?
Mr. Woodman: In our recommendation to the minister on 3Ps, we didn't just open the fishery with 10,000 tonnes. We also made three recommendations and eight subrecommendations. One of the recommendations was that the total allowable catch be evenly divided by quarters to minimize the impact on substocks.
When we made the recommendation, naturally most members of the council felt at that time that the fishery would reopen and the management plan would be in place by the beginning of the year. But if it does not open, then that's out of our control, certainly, and in the hands of management.
Mr. Robichaud might have a comment on that.
By using the four quarters, naturally we felt the fishery would reopen in the new year. You'd have a winter fishery, a summer fishery, a trap fishery and then you'd have a summer line fishery and so on.
Mr. Simmons: I have one more question, Mr. Chairman.
Has the council given itself some ballpark expectations as to what kind of a fishery in 1997 would permit an expanded fishery the following year? In general terms, what kinds of results do you need to see in 1997 that would suggest we might get an expanded fishery in the following year?
Mr. Woodman: In our report leading up to chapters 3 and 4, we made certain recommendations with respect to ongoing... The Sentinel fishery program would be ongoing. We've also recommended there would be offshore surveys carried on in 3Ps.
Now, 3Ps is very difficult to evaluate. Perhaps I could ask Dr. Doubleday to comment on that. It seems to consist of many varied substocks. At any given time, there could conceivably be a lot of fish in 3Ps from other areas. Work is being done on that.
.1555
To answer your question, by having fishermen on the water this year in 3Ps, and having it expanded, and I would hope an offshore survey as well...because there are fishermen fishing, in the 65-foot class, other species like hake, flatfish, monkfish and so on. We are seeing a considerable number of fish on the sounders. That's the word we got from the consultations.
So those are the indicators we would be looking at in 1997 that would tell us to hold the fort, hold the line, or move forward, and certainly work hand in hand with the RV survey, and science as well.
So there are a number of indicators that we're hoping, by having the fishery open in 1997, would give us a better evaluation of the stock for 1998.
Mr. Simmons: Thank you.
The Chairman: Before we proceed, I would like to ask a question myself. On the southern gulf, 4TVn, there's a 6,000-tonne recommendation. How many fishermen do we have in that area?
Mr. Jacque Robichaud (Director General, Resource Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): In the gulf we're talking about possibly 3,000 licensed fishermen. They could have other licences, such as lobster and many others, but still...
The Chairman: Theoretically, those 3,000 fishermen could be going after 6,000 tonnes.
Mr. Robichaud: That's right.
The Chairman: Which would be 2,000 tonnes each, right?
Mr. Robichaud: About.
Mr. Woodman: No, two tonnes each.
The Chairman: Okay, two tonnes each. Theoretically, we're opening up the fishery in the southern gulf so each fishermen can get two tonnes of fish. How much would it cost a fisherman to gear up to catch those two tonnes?
Mr. Robichaud: First of all, one of the reports on gear said that the existing gear is not sufficient unless the industry, in the harvesting plan, was to agree that we should move to a different gear size in terms of what gear could be used.
The whole operation as well of meeting a harvesting plan, a fleet arriving at a harvesting plan, will decide on these components. But how much would it cost a person to equip if he were not equipped? I could not venture to say. Certainly there are fees that would come into play, with dockside monitoring and additional costs that are at this time, during various consultations, being appraised and taken into consideration.
The Chairman: So to recommend that many tonnes and to open that fishery up for even half as many fishermen, or a quarter as many fishermen, to catch 6,000 tonnes of your most mature fish - or I assume so, Dr. Doubleday - what effect would that have on the stock? Is it worthwhile for fishermen to be getting involved in a fishery like this for such meagre returns and to really hurt the fishery? Those fish could be breeding and reproducing. It seems to me to be such a small amount of fish and such a small return for the risk we may be taking.
As the chairman said, if we're erring on the side of caution, why are we doing such a small thing to get fishermen probably quarrelling with each other about who is going to be the fisherman to catch those fish? They're probably quarrelling already. As to the different gear types that may be used, they're already quarrelling about that.
To go through this whole scenario for such a small return doesn't get me too excited about what we're doing here.
Dr. Doubleday: Mr. Chairman, part of your remarks contained a question directed to me. Our stock status report for southern Gulf of St. Lawrence cod indicates that a catch of 6,000 tonnes will result in the adult population being approximately stable. So it won't reduce the spawning stock and it probably won't increase it, either. Very roughly, it will result in the adult stock and the spawning stock being about the same if 6,000 tonnes are taken.
The Chairman: I can understand the message it's giving. It's a very positive thing. At last we're seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, and it's not a freight train heading our way. There is going to be a fishery there after five years of sacrifice and so on.
.1600
But I guess the question I'll ask is, is it really too early to be getting involved in this? As chairman, are you completely satisfied, Mr. Woodman, that what we're doing here is the proper thing to do?
Mr. Woodman: Mr. Chairman, chapter 2 is... I could just take you through it for a moment. You mentioned 6,000 tonnes divided by 3,000 fishermen is two tonnes of fish each. Let's assume that in 1997 and 1998, or the year 2000, we'll open the fishery with 24,000 tonnes. They'll still only have eight tonnes about. So in terms of the number... And we go back to chapter 2 of the report on conservation issues; it comes under ``managing capacity''. I think if there's a message right here - and you've highlighted the message - it's that we have the capacity, tremendous capacity, not only in the gulf but everywhere in Atlantic Canada, far in excess of the resource to sustain. So the message is quite clear. The message is on page 5 of our report, under the heading ``managing capacity''. We've made recommendations with respect to that.
But we do feel comfortable in taking the 6,000 tonnes. Granted, if 6,000 tonnes was left there, if 6,000 tonnes would be there, we hope, next year, and would have a chance to spawn or whatever the case might be... But in actual fact, we feel that it will not do any damage to the stock, and we're certainly going to give a message that we have to start managing small quotas.
The Chairman: If the witnesses will forgive me for a minute, we have a little housekeeping item here we have to get through before some of our members leave, and that is our budget.
I'll entertain a motion to adopt the budget, which people have in front of them. The floor is open then.
Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): Mr. Chair, as you know, we have a budget before us, which is a budget in order for us to proceed. Firstly, one of the things we would require this funding for is operation between now and the end of March. Secondly, it's for a review of Bill C-62, the Fisheries Act, which will certainly be coming before this committee following its completion of second reading in the House. Therefore, it is very pertinent that this funding approval be forthwith. I would therefore be delighted to move acceptance of this funding requirement or request.
The Chairman: Do we have any discussion on the motion?
Do we have a seconder for the motion?
Mr. Wells (South Shore): Seconded.
The Chairman: It's been moved and seconded that the budget, as presented, be adopted.
Mr. Verran (South West Nova): I want to discuss the motion.
The Chairman: You go ahead, Harry.
Mr. Verran: Mr. Chairman, personally I disagree. I do not approve of the budget as laid out for the particular reason that there doesn't seem to be any allocation of funds for us to consult with the fishermen, the real fishermen in this industry.
The Chairman: This is not a budget to travel with the bill. This is just to operate until... If the bill comes to us, if it ever comes to us -
Mr. Verran: I stand corrected, Mr. Chairman,
The Chairman: - and we've already agreed we're going to be travelling, at that time we'll be requesting a budget of the House. This has nothing to do with travelling.
Mr. Verran: I see. It's my misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wells: It's my misunderstanding too, Mr. Verran.
The Chairman: Initially to bring some witnesses in we may need some of this $49,000 that's in there.
Mr. Verran: But why couldn't we do it together?
The Chairman: Because we don't know for sure if we're actually going to be travelling or not. We have to get the bill first, and we have to ask for a separate order to do that.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Verran: Thank you.
Mr. Simmons: As the chairman has indicated, the House leadership requires a particular motion relating to travel and to the dates of your travel before they will consider a request.
The Chairman: Right now it's just theoretical that we'll be travelling because we don't have the bill yet.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: We're just leaping off our capacity. Maybe we should go then to Harry.
Mr. Woodman: Mr. Chairman, maybe Dr. Brêthes can make a comment on 4T.
The Chairman: Okay.
Dr. Brêthes: If we wait until a point where every fisherman would have enough fish to make a living with cod, it can last ten years maybe. So what we have to consider is 6,000 tonnes this year and maybe also 6,000 tonnes or 6,500 tonnes next year and for the next several years.
.1605
The Chairman: What are we going to do with all those fishermen out there with licences?
Dr. Brêthes: The basic argument there is the fishermen, the industry and the managers have to get used to dealing with more quotas - and not just for the cod; it's for all the stocks as well.
The second point is, as Dr. Doubleday said, with 6,000 tonnes it's breaking even. In a risk analysis provided by a scientist that's a point where there is no growth in the spawning biomass. We have to recall that no growth in the spawning biomass doesn't mean no growth in the stock because there are more fish coming in. We know that there is recruitment, more fish, age four next year and so age five in 1998. As they come in, these fish will reproduce and hopefully will produce new fish for the stock. So even if the spawning biomass remains stable, the stock may grow again. We hope so. It's what we say and what we expect.
The Chairman: How many fishermen do we have in 3Ps?
Mr. Woodman: The last figure I saw, and that's subject to verification, was somewhere around 1,400. Plus we have some what we call overlap licences, which come in from the east coast of Newfoundland and from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I think it's around 350 plus of what we call overlap licences. So we have about 1,800 licences total.
The Chairman: And the others on 3Pn and 4RS, how many fishermen are there?
Mr. Robichaud: Globally we estimate that it should be about 3,000 when we talk about the gulf.
The Chairman: So that's including 3Pn and 4TVn?
Mr. Robichaud: Yes.
The Chairman: So that was wrong then, 4TVn is not 3,000? It's the two together.
Mr. Robichaud: Yes.
The Chairman: The two is together now, Mr. Robichaud?
Mr. Verran: No, three together.
Mr. Robichaud: No, three together. Three thousand original is stocked with the southern cod stock, and that would be right. I don't have the precise number for the northern gulf.
The Chairman: Okay, I was just curious there.
Harry, do you want to want to ask a question?
Mr. Verran: I'd like to thank the people for being here today too.
Doctor, the statements you've put forward in the last year regarding the stock, this 6,000... This really annoys me, because I have seen the same scenario by the department for the amount of time I've been really personally involved. It seems to me that when you send that many boats, or that many potential boats and fishers, after that number of fish, there's only one reason why the department would even consider such a thing, and that is to get these people out there because there's not enough fish to make it worth while to go to a mix between them.
It's not good business, and it seems to be the direction to knock the little fishermen out. It's not National Sea or Risley going after that amount of fish; it's the little guys who are the majority of fishers along our coast. I see this as just a continuation of a program that was put in place by the Tories when they were in power, and we as a Liberal government are continuing on with the same damn policy to wash out the little guy. So in the end we're going to end up with six, seven or eight big international companies. To me, there's no other reason why we would do or consider doing such a thing, because our fish year after year are not going to grow under a system like that, but by God there would be a lot of so-called small fishermen and fisherpeople who get out of the industry. That seems to be the only reason why we have such a policy here or we consider such a policy.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Fred why. This committee is supposed to be arm's length from the government. Why doesn't the committee at least consider pure technology as a recommendation? You may not have the power to change it, but it could be a recommendation to the bureaucrats and to the government. Where are they going to get their information if they can't depend on or we the people on the coast can't depend on you to look at all aspects and at least recommend what you feel would be best?
.1640
Thirdly, and this is for Dr. Doubleday probably, is the issue of Sentinel fisheries program and science. We have one hell of a selling job to do with fishermen. I can't speak for Newfoundland and all of Atlantic Canada, but I certainly can speak for southwest Nova Scotia. We have one hell of a selling job to do to convince the fishing people in this area that the conditions found supposedly by science are legitimate, because really there are so many people in the fishing industry.
This is not just me here spieling off. I'm only spieling off because I'm getting it from the fishing people in the coastal communities that I represent. They really do feel that it's an old scenario, that you go out there in a boat on May 1 of this year, this past year, or the year we're in right now, for example, and you do a study of that one particular area and at the end of the day you put an X on the bow of your boat and you come back in and you go back out there again May 1 next year and you do another study. I know Fred has been a fisherman all his life until recently, but any fisherman or fishing captain will tell you that fish do not operate and go that way.
This is really what people in the fishing communities have on their mind. They really believe that this is about how scientific those findings are. And if you speak to a captain who has been at sea for many years fishing, he will tell you that the fish are migratory, they're not hanging around. If you give them the licence to go do the study, they'll take you and show you where the fish are, etc.
Those are three things that just come to the top of my mind, without any notes.
The Chairman: Good questions, Harry.
Dr. Doubleday, do you want to take it in reverse order? We'll go to you first, then toMr. Woodman.
Dr. Doubleday: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm a bit puzzled about the reference to southwest Nova Scotia, because in that area for the last couple of years we've had a cooperative program with fishermen, where they've been carrying out surveys that complement our research vessel surveys. And my understanding from the consultations the FRCC made in southwest Nova Scotia, this year in particular but also last year, was there was no real difference in view between the fishermen in that area and the scientists with respect to the state of the stocks.
I think there are questions in the minds of fishermen across Atlantic Canada about the reliability and accuracy of research vessel surveys, and the department is continually trying to improve the quality of the survey information and cover the entire areas where stocks are found, recognizing that fish do move, and also improving the sampling technique we're using.
This year, in particular, we had a difficulty in 3Ps, off the south coast of Newfoundland, where our survey was timed for March in order to avoid cod that had been moving out of the Gulf ofSt. Lawrence into the western part of 3Ps in recent years. And in doing that the survey was carried out after some of the cod had moved inshore of the area that we can survey. So there is a question of whether our survey covered the entire area, and if you look at our stock status report, you can see that this certainly complicated our assessment and limited the extent to which we could draw conclusions.
So we're aware that our surveys are not perfect, and improving them is certainly a high priority for us, but I think in most of the areas I don't see any very large differences in view on the state of the resources between our scientists and the fishermen who have been consulted.
.1615
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Doubleday.
There is the question on the recommendation on technology and the other question was on eliminating the small fishermen in favour of larger fishermen. Mr. Woodman, would you care to tackle those two?
Mr. Woodman: They are tough questions, Mr. Chairman, but I guess as chairman of the FRCC I can expect them.
Mr. Verran, in terms of your question with respect to gear there may be a point in time when the request will come through - and I think will probably go through some management, and it'll probably go through science and probably the FRCC - to evaluate the effects of any one gear on the decimation of a fish stock.
At this point in time when we came into being, there was no clear-cut scientific proof that any gear was detrimental to the fishery. It came across loud and clear in many of our meetings, our consultations - and we had an excellent turnout this year in 1996 at just about all meetings down your way and all over the Atlantic region - that there are certain technologies that do come on the floor and they would like to see banned. There are also certain species of fish certainly that you have to use different technologies to harvest.
For example, we've heard it loud and clear many times ``ban the draggers''. But there are certain fish you need dragger technology to harvest, namely redfish and flatfish, flatfish like plaice and those types of species. So in terms of having a blanket statement that you're going to ban the technology, you have to be very clear on what you're doing.
With respect to your comments on the total allowable catch, I can assure you, sir, and I think you know a lot of the members of this council, that at no time was there any intent by setting total allowable catches to decimate any sector of the industry in Atlantic Canada. I can assure you that there is no effort on anybody's part on this council to do that. With respect to the total allowable catch, which we brought forward, exactly what we're trying to do is try to evaluate... There is a lot of frustration out there with respect to the research vessel survey; Dr. Doubleday expressed that, and we get the same message from those consultations. So by having fishermen on the water, which was their request in just about every area we went to - give us some fish, get us on the water, and let us see what's out there - hopefully by this time next year we will have a better assessment on the stock situation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Wells, please.
Mr. Wells: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Robichaud, did you want to say something before we go on? Go ahead.
Mr. Wells: Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Robichaud: I would maybe like to add another point, which is about this fishery that used to be harvested with certain gear - and Mr. Woodman presented a couple - but it's in the line of the flatfish. For example, for Greenland halibut in the north, in the 2GH area, for a certain type of boat they found that it's more efficient now to harvest it with gill-net versus mobile gear. So it does change. The gear is operated in the right fashion, proper mesh size, allowing for proper escapement. In this case, they found it's better to fish it with gill-nets, for example.
There's the issue of at times the gear is viewed by them as meaning access, but as well the operation of the said gear if operated efficiently - and we've done a lot of tests on it, invested a lot in cooperation with fishermen - can be selective. It is said some are more than others, but again we shall await the line on the report.
You asked earlier if I was going to make a statement about the number of fishermen and stuff like that, and maybe I should have, because the preparation of the advice and the discussions on reopening have been ongoing for some time.
.1620
Let me turn to what a fishery should be. Way back there was a meeting in the gulf, which was followed up at another meeting not that long ago in Rimouski, regrouping gulf interests and looking at what the elements should be that guide a new fishery, and looking at the fishery, such as in South West Nova, people working and bringing new elements such as a control into their fishery. When I count numbers, for one reason or another - and it's not easily done - we have made a lot of progress in developing tools.
Maybe this was one of the reasons the minister, after Mr. Woodman of the FRCC presented the report in his press release of October 24, indicated that before he will reopen these fisheries he will want to be satisfied that all these things can be conducted without compromising the significant investment we have all made in rebuilding these stocks.
Now, at my previous appearance in front of this committee I talked about management criteria. There was this fish, and so on, and I did provide some copies. But maybe I should briefly review some of the components.
I will go straight to some of the measures, such as a conservation harvesting plan. As a matter of fact, some of these measures have been suggested, as well, in the present report: small fish protocol; gear selectivity; fishing season; targeting, or fishing the right size of fish with the proper gear; by-catch protocol; monetary control; fishing effort control.
Where you have no more people, you can look at the number of people fishing. You look at the period of time, season, maybe even with timing. It may be more apropos to let the fish spawn. Additional measures include mandatory landing; observer coverage; testing the fishery to open fishing zones; redirection of fishing efforts; sanctions; a code of conduct; professionalization. Those are some of the issues that fishermen in these areas have been discussing for some time.
In his press release the minister had indicated that a series of consultations addressing those, and prior... I'm talking about those that are suggested for reopening; we want to see where the people would come from. Since early October the fisheries were held in fixed gear. There were a fixed-gear seminar in Scotia Fundy, and I could go on. The series of meetings... As a matter of fact, another one was completed today - the gulf, in Moncton.
In the particular area of 3Ps next week there will be some specific, more detailed... There's been groundfish for the whole world, whether it's turbot in the north or the due-to-be-reopened fishery. There will be further consultation, more at the community level.
One of the key elements is that industry... A lot of those have been chaired by industry people - they can co-chair, and so on - to come up with elements that would guide the harvesting plan, so that the conservation measures taken, and the significant progress achieved, is not jeopardized. And one of these, which is very important, is effort control. It's not a new thing, because progress in this field, difficult at times, as I mentioned, has been achieved in certain areas.
So prior to fisheries opening, a group, a fleet must present a harvesting plan, and they will have to do that. Of course in the Atlantic at this time we have ten conservation harvesting plans. It's not that many, because they can regroup themselves within the fleet, and we will have to wait and assess the progress.
The intention is to announce the general groundfish management plan by mid-December, and we will see what progress has been achieved at that time on those three specific fisheries. The minister will wait and consider that, and will decide what he can announce on those at that time.
I regret that maybe I should have explained that a bit earlier.
The Chairman: There are more questions coming out of your presentation, but I think we should go to Derek.
Mr. Verran: I have a supplementary, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I think we'll come back to you, Harry. Derek.
Mr. Wells: I'll be short, Harry, and then we'll come back.
.1625
Mr. Woodman, I'm sorry I missed your presentation, but you probably didn't say anything that we didn't discuss previously.
Mr. Woodman: Nothing out of the ordinary.
Mr. Wells: No, okay. I've read the report and I'm going to ask you some questions I've asked you in the past, but I want them on the record. I think some of them are important, and I'm going to talk only about 4X.
The haddock numbers in 4X have gone up slightly. Let's talk about haddock. Can you tell me what the response from the industry has been to haddock, and then give me the reaction of the industry to cod in 4X, the numbers you are suggesting? You're suggesting a 200-tonne increase in haddock, and a 2,000-tonne increase in 4X cod.
Mr. Woodman: Well, we thought the initial reaction to our recommendations was positive. Our consultations, which we had in Yarmouth, just previous to the release of the recommendation to the minister... Granted there were others who would like a higher number, rather than 6,700, but there was nobody at that meeting who was asking for significant increases.
I think the stakeholders down in South West Nova, and especially the 4X area, who are fishing in your constituency, I guess, were quite pleased with the FRCC recommendations over the last two years, which have taken the precautionary approach with respect to 4X and 5Z cod, haddock and pollock. I think they're reaping their rewards by taking a conservative approach.
The one area where some questions were asked was on pollock, because the FO.1 level for pollock in 4X, if I remember correctly, was somewhere around 21,000 or 22,000 tonnes, and we came in significantly lower, because that was a dramatic jump. I think it was something like a 120% jump from the previous year.
So most of the stakeholders in that room, on the day we had the meeting, said hold it a minute; let's look at this another year, and just go closer to 50%. And our recommendation was 15,000 tonnes.
To answer your question with respect to the reaction from the stakeholders, there hasn't been what I call a great negative groundswell. We haven't sensed that in the FRCC.
Mr. Wells: The reason I ask is that you'll recall last year there were reports of lots of haddock in 4X.
Mr. Woodman: Yes.
Mr. Wells: And there was some expectation that it might be higher than 6,700. But I would concur that... I meet monthly with my fishermen at a regular round table and this has not been seen as an unreasonable increase.
I think people are looking at maybe the year after, and the year after that, for some substantial gains. Have you been able to look at your class that's coming up to get a sense of what we might be looking at, maybe two or three years down the road, if we keep this conservative approach?
Mr. Woodman: That was the stock status report. That's what led us to maybe hold the line a little with respect to the 6,700. We had two year classes coming in there, 1993 and 1994, which are significant. We're saying here that the 1993 and 1994 year classes are strong. Measures are required to protect incoming recruitment. Assuming those two year classes are protected, then the real picture of what haddock is in 4X will come through.
Bill, can you answer what haddock in 4X is in three, four, five years?
Dr. Doubleday: Yes. Haddock tend to grow relatively quickly until they reach about four years of age. So it's undesirable to catch these young fish before they're about four years old. After that the growth slows down quite substantially.
The 1993 and 1994 year classes are considerably better than the previous ten or so. And with very early information, it looks like the 1995 year class is relatively good as well. These would contribute to an increase in the stock and would be a fishable size in a few years, but not in 1997.
.1630
Mr. Wells: As we discussed before, 1997 is toeing the line. Based on what you're saying, 1998, 1999, the year 2000...based on the year classes from 1973, 1974, 1975, would you say it looks quite positive?
Mr. Woodman: From the stock status report it's certainly looking very positive. As I said to you at our last meeting, there is one area in Atlantic Canada where there seems to be tremendous improvement at the moment. We'll wait to see what happens when it hits the trawlable age, but it looks very positive at the moment for the future, and certainly the same thing applies to cod as well.
Mr. Wells: That was my next question. I wanted to deal with haddock, because that was a lower quota and one where the reports last year were for a very strong improvement. For 4X cod as well, then, you're saying the same thing would apply in your class of 1993, 1994, 1995?
Mr. Woodman: There's a one-year class coming in, and that's why we were a bit cautious with respect to 4X cod. If I remember correctly, the 1992 year class is strong. The biomass has been increasing since 1994, when it was historically low, because of recoupment. So we are getting improved recoupment. As you know, you have environmental conditions that are very favourable in South West Nova. Environmental conditions have improved dramatically over the last couple of years and are still showing. So in South West Nova the groundfish is looking up.
Mr. Wells: Is it too early to suggest what levels we might be able to go to in 1998-98? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I'll accept an answer saying it's too early to tell. As chairman, do you have any sense of where we might be going with quotas in the next couple of years?
Mr. Woodman: Put it this way: I would certainly be disappointed if it wasn't, but I would say we're optimistic. But to say at what level I would not care to say; we'll have to wait until next year. Hopefully we will reap the rewards of the sacrifices that were made.
Mr. Wells: That's what we're all waiting for.
My last question has to do with your section on conservation issues. I want to ask you a question about your comments about effort control. Traditionally, in my discussions with DFO they basically rejected effort control as a way of managing the fishery. You're suggesting an analysis of the use of direct effort control measures. I'd like you to expand on what you mean by that. What types of effort control are you suggesting, and how would you envisage this pilot project you're referring to? How would it take place?
Dr. Brêthes: I can try to answer that.
We don't have any firm ideas of what should be effort control, and we certainly don't want to impose any model.
Looking at the past - and the scientists agree - trying to control fishing mortalities through TACs, as we usually do, is not enough to control the mortality. Just setting a TAC is not enough to control a TAC. So the idea there is try to mix the TAC with other ways to control the fishing activity outside. So it depends on the people.
The effort is not just made at sea, it's also the number of people going out, it's also the size of the gear, it's also the mesh size, it's also protecting specific areas for a season. Just setting a TAC is not enough to guarantee that we achieve the fishing mortality we target. We have to analyse all the systems that go along with TACs to control the fishing activity.
So if there's a zero option there... And I know that some fishermen don't like to see control at sea, for instance, but it's just one way to control the efforts. Closing an area like the haddock box in Nova Scotia or closing for a season and spanning concentration is also a way to control the efforts.
.1635
Mr. Wells: A lot of the fishermen have been advocating effort control over the last number of years, and there are some good ideas circulating that I'm sure you have.
Mr. Woodman, you spoke in your report about releasing in the near future a discussion paper that would contain this. When do you expect that discussion paper to be released?
Mr. Woodman: That should be in December sometime. It's in the final stages.
Down your way, you have effort control already. In 5Z, for example, you have a six-month closure. That is what I call real effort control.
Mr. Wells: There are other types of effort control -
Mr. Woodman: You see, where fishermen might become a little fairer stakeholders...I should say, they become a little paranoid.
By the way, the request for other than total allowable catches came from the industry.
Mr. Wells: I understand that.
Mr. Woodman: It's not something we -
Mr. Wells: I've discussed it with DFO, and they've rejected it. That's why I was quite pleased to see it here. Traditionally, it's been seen as a very difficult way to manage the fishery if you control, for example, the amount of trawl, the amount of effort.
Mr. Woodman: The haddock box, for example, is another example, as is closed spawning areas. Days at sea has been tried in other fisheries in other parts of the world. I don't think we've tried it here in Canada, to my knowledge, but that's another one that's been brought forward as well.
Mr. Wells: I think it's positive that you have it in here. I want to compliment you for doing so, because I think it's something we have to look at. I look forward to your discussion paper and I hope we have the opportunity to discuss it after it's released. I don't want to anticipate what's in it, but I think it's a positive move, and I compliment you for it.
Mr. Woodman: Thank you, sir.
The Chairman: Mr. Culbert.
Mr. Culbert: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly welcome Mr. Woodman here this afternoon, as you so capably did, Mr. Chairman.
It's a little bit embarrassing, since it was at the request and suggestion of the Reform members of this committee that the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council representatives be brought in for a hearings, and unfortunately, I see only empty chairs. Nevertheless, it provides us with an opportunity to gain a great deal of knowledge and experience from your expertise.
There are a couple of points I'd like to touch on. Probably very consistent with your report is Bill C-62, which is before the House at second reading. As you would know, one of the emphases of Bill C-62 is to manage the fish or the resource versus managing the fisheries, as perhaps we have in the past.
We talk a great deal about ``partnershipping''. I'm sure you heard a great deal about that when you had your interventions at the various hearings in Atlantic Canada. They've been talking about partnershipping for years - for instance, how about starting to listen to them for a change, from, so to speak, the fishermen's perspective? They're out on the water every day and do have some expertise. So I'm very interested in that.
When I look down at the combination of the representation that's here today and I look at what you're doing, I have to think, well, this is true partnershipping. When you look at Jacque and fisheries resource management, when you look at Dr. Doubleday, with science, and when you look at the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, you couldn't have much better partnershipping right there, working together as a unit and a team.
I'm getting at a couple of questions. First, maybe I'll aim this at Dr. Doubleday. As he probably is well aware, I've been a great proponent of the science element. I'm a strong believer that the future of our fisheries will depend a great deal on our biological research and our science component. I've been a great supporter of that, from the perspective of both the traditional fishery and the aquaculture industry, which is so important to us.
One of the things I always fail to understand is that when we look at the downturn of the cod fishery, and we look at such things as how much effect seals have on cod consumption, and how much effect water temperature has on the downturn in the fishery, and how much effect the environment and the availability of food sources has on the cod fishery - or any other fishery, for that matter - we seem to always get the response that it may be part of the problem. We can't really define anything and say yes, part of this was due to the warming temperatures of our Atlantic coast waters; part of this was due to overfishing; part of this was due to the excess number of seals that are eating the cod and so on.
.1640
I would ask Dr. Doubleday if he could address that. I'm looking for something more direct: bang, here are the results of what happened before.
As you would agree, Mr. Woodman, we don't want to see this happen ever again to this point.
I guess that's the point I'm getting at. How do we put the protective measures there to ensure that we don't get ourselves ever again in this situation?
Dr. Doubleday: That's a very important, serious question, and one that continues to be a focus for our efforts to clarify and make more precise the scientific statements we can make on the issue.
As you know, we've made some general statements that the decline in the cod stocks is a result of a combination of factors. Without being specific about to what extent it was due to cold water, to what extent it was due to seals eating young cod, to what extent it was very high fishing mortality, we've been making general statements, but we've also been working hard to be more specific. Within the science sector we have a series of what we call ``high priority projects'', which involves bringing together teams of scientists from different regions and different disciplines to work on important issues like this one. One of the projects is called ``Partitioning of Cod Mortality'', which is aimed at giving more precise answers to these questions.
We're now almost at the end of the second year of this project. I think I can say with some confidence that we're making progress on it. Some parts are becoming clearer, although we still don't have definitive answers, and may never have them. The cold temperatures undoubtedly played a factor. The growth of cod was systematically lower towards the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s than it was previously. By the time you get to the early 1990s for northern cod, for example, which is always a key stock in everyone's mind, there were twice as many fish in a tonne than was caught there 10 years earlier.
So the growth productivity of most of the cod stocks was reduced, and I think it's pretty safe to say that temperature played a role in that. Growth of cod is pretty tightly linked to the temperature of the water.
It's also clear that the number of young cod that are entering these stocks has been very low in recent years in most of the northwest Atlantic stocks. Some of them are getting about one-quarter to one-fifth as many young cod entering the fishable ages as they used to.
We've determined how many cod are being consumed by seals. We're refining those estimates, and it's a substantial number. The harp seal in particular eats very young cod, those younger than a year, one-year-olds, and not too many older than that. So a tonne of these young cod adds up to a lot of individuals.
Grey seals and hooded seals also eat some cod. They tend to be older ones, so a tonne of their food doesn't contain as many individuals. But the cod are eaten at an age where they're closer to be entering the fishery. There's still a lot of debate about the extent to which these fish would have survived and contributed to adult populations if the seals hadn't eaten them. That's a difficult issue to resolve, but we continue to refine our calculations on that front.
.1645
The cold conditions in the early 1990s were also associated with very poor conditions for cod. Cod entering the winter were very skinny, with very little energy reserve and very little fat. We've been carrying out laboratory experiments to determine how serious this poor condition was.
One effect was that in some stocks the cod didn't seem to grow at all in those really bad years, the early 1990s, but there's also reason to believe that some of them didn't survive the winter. They don't have a good opportunity to feed between November and when they spawn in the spring. There's reason to believe that in some cases there is significant mortality due to that.
We've also tried to improve our knowledge of the changes in the fishery that took place in the late 1980s. In the past, we've tended to have a more complete database on the large-vessel fishery, which is easier to monitor than the inshore fishery. We've been carrying out surveys of fishermen to find out the extent to which they increased the number of nets or the number of traps they used, and the frequency with which they were using that gear. This is giving us a direct measure of the extent to which the fishing pressure was increasing during the 1980s. It's better in some areas than others.
So we're making progress on this. Actually, we're having a meeting of scientists next week to go over the results of this year's work. A series of papers will be presented to the annual meeting of Canadian fisheries scientists at the beginning of January to present the results of this research.
I can't say we're at the point yet where we can say that the collapse or the rapid decline was 15% due to this factor and 20% due to that, but the picture is steadily becoming clearer. I'm optimistic that we'll be able to be approximately right in the near future and be able to give some useful information to the FRCC, the minister and you people with respect to what could happen in the future.
Mr. Culbert: Thank you. Just about the time I mentioned Bill C-62, I got handed a note that I was due in the House in 10 minutes to speak on Bill C-62. I'll have to be excused.
The Chairman: Harry has the next hour all to himself.
Mr. Culbert: I know I leave it in good hands, Mr. Chair. Harry can look after it, that's for certain.
The Chairman: Harry, you have another question.
Mr. Verran: I want to point out to the gentlemen from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the other witnesses, that the questions I ask sometimes seem to come across as though I'm negative about things in the fishery. But it's not often I get an opportunity, in representing the people from my constituency here in Ottawa, to speak to the department officials and others in an official capacity. When I do, I have to take the best advantage I can of that. I hope you understand that I'm just trying to get some basic answers to questions people are asking me.
.1650
I know sometimes the way you look at things - and I say this doubly, to both organizations here - is that you're hearing one thing and I'm hearing something else. But I honestly believe I'm hearing from real fishermen. I believe your information is selective. I think it comes from selective people in some different sectors, because you don't seem to be hearing what I'm hearing.
I get a sense, when I ask these questions, that Mr. Robichaud from the department thinks I don't know what I'm talking about. Well, maybe I don't always have the same philosophy, because we're speaking to two different groups. I'm talking to the people down on the wharves, the people who do the hard work and the labour in the fishery. I'm not being critical of anyone personally. I am being critical of the system, but not of individuals, because that's the way things are set up in DFO.
I'm glad for your committee, Fred, working on things, because it's no secret that we have a long way to go. It's generally considered that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, over the years, when it comes to the little fisherman, is mismanaged in a very bad way.
I'm sorry if we don't have that sensitivity, but I'm telling you, I'm talking to the real fishermen. I'm sure you're speaking to real fishermen, but they seem to be at a different level, or in a different class. The department is very selective in who they speak to.
You'll get a chance to answer this in a minute, sir.
Fred, in terms of gear selection you say you're not in the position to make any recommendations, but surely your committee must have some ideas on gear selection when, for instance, it comes to square or diamond mesh, and size. They might both be destructive to some species of fish, but which one is the best to use for conservation and to carry on in the trend we want to go?
Second, you mentioned there's a survey being done in one area. It's very encouraging, but you didn't say where that area was. Are you referring to Placentia Bay? I'd like you to answer that right now.
The Chairman: Perhaps we could -
Mr. Verran: I'm not finished yet.
The Chairman: How many questions have you given us here? You have three out there now.
Mr. Verran: No, Mr. Chairman, I have two out there right now.
The Chairman: Could we get some answers before we forget what the questions were?Mr. Robichaud first.
Mr. Robichaud: First of all, personally I've operated both in HQ in Fisheries and in various other areas, and as well I have worked in regions, responsible to Fisheries again. I'm back. I'm still in Fisheries, in resource management.
I've worked with various fishermen and industry people at various levels. I will continue, as will other people in the department. You have RDGs in areas that have been here, and they are in regions. People have a cross-section of expertise.
.1655
The way we proceed and consult has very many facets. In the process of developing an approach to managing the fishery there are various ways. You could go out and inform people and then go and develop your management plan. You could go and consult, provide advice, and adjust your management plan. What the department has moved into a lot is co-management, where people, industry representatives of different sectors, depending on what fishery it's in, and the department co-chair all co-manage the fishery. Now we are going further, talking about partnerships where the agreement and objectives are set and people sign a contract.
At the end of the day there are various points of view. The difficulty of course is always weighting, which one has more weight than another. Should fleet share be changing and should another one get the fish instead? Those are components.
In the end all the measures taken to enforce the management plan come from a process of consultation which is evolving and various suggestions to improve are always welcome. That's what we're seeking: an improvement to the system and getting industry more involved in the decision-making. We're very open and that is what the new act talks about, among other things.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Woodman.
Mr. Woodman: I was trying to reflect my thoughts when I mentioned being optimistic in a certain area. The area was down in 4X. For 4X haddock, 4X cod, and 4X pollock, all indicators are pointing upwards. We hope that is going to make the fishery of the future a little better.
On your comments about the clientele or the clients we speak to, our consultation process is not selective. It's a very open process. We put out notices of meetings Atlantic-wide when we're having them.
Mr. Verran: I'm sorry, that question was not meant for you but for the department. I understand about your public meetings. I've attended some and I appreciate the openness there.
It's the department, Mr. Chairman, that says ``we consult, we consult, we consult''. They consult, but they consult with three or four specifically selected people; sometimes more. That's not the way you're -
Mr. Woodman: Mr. Verran, if you have any comments about the clients we speak to or any way we can make ourselves available, we would love to get them.
Mr. Verran: Those comments were meant for the department.
Mr. Woodman: About the gear technology, I can't make a comment at the moment. I just hope you will bear with us for another couple of weeks or so. I think your concern about gear applies not only to otter trawls, it applies to gill-nets, for example. Those are the concerns we get when we go to meetings. We hope a lot of those concerns will be addressed in our gear technology report, which we hope will be out in a couple or three weeks. You'll no doubt get a copy of that report, and if you have comments, they certainly would be appreciated.
Dr. Brêthes: On the same topic of gear selectivity, we have in mid-December this report from the groundfish or gear technology committee, but also we'll publish at some time early next year, I hope in January, a conservation framework for groundfish, for which a mandate was given to the council through Fred last April. We're now in the process of working on this report, and we'll address the issues you raised. We may end up with precise recommendations: as you say, a square mesh for gadoids such as cod or haddock, etc. We may end up with something like that.
Also, what I would like to underline is that when we discuss gear, it's not just gear. In itself gear is just a tool. What is as important is the way we use it.
I will take an example out of the Canadian fisheries. Drift-nets had been used for 2,000 years in Europe with no problem. Now we realize that in the Pacific drift-nets for tuna are very destructive, because the technology has improved in this gear and the way people are using it is destructive. So what's in the reports and what will be in the gear technology report that will address the question of the way we use it?
.1700
There are already things being done. For instance, everybody agrees that trawling in sensitive habitat may be dangerous, and it's why there is a haddock box in Nova Scotia, to prevent the destruction of this area where the young fish are. Similarly, fishermen agreed to restrict trawling in the Shediac Valley, in the gulf, because it's the place where the young cod are.
Even if we don't ban, it's not in our mandate to decide which gear has the right to fish. We can end up with a recommendation for no trawling in sensitive habitats. The problem is, where are the sensitive habitats? We are asking the question of science in this regard. All these aspects will be dealt with in our gear technology report, as well as in our groundfish conservation strategy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you.
That bell is calling us to a vote, but we have a few minutes. Would you like to -
Mr. Woodman: That's what I thought it was.
The Chairman: I'd like to ask you a question on capacity before we go. You say in your report that ``although there have been pockets of success, the overall reduction in capacity has been disappointingly small''. How do we deal with capacity? At the end of all this, and the end of TAGS, we're still going to have way too many fishermen, as you say, dealing with very small quotas. It has stymied everybody for years. Is there any way to get capacity down without dealing with technology? Are you going to deal with capacity in your technology report, and how to...?
Mr. Woodman: We can't. As a council, it's outside our mandate. But in every report,Mr. Chairman, since the council's inception in 1993, we have mentioned the capacity issue.
I think almost everybody who lives in Atlantic Canada realizes that there is a capacity problem. There are just not enough fish in the system to go around. They tried to deal with it under the HABs harvesting adjustment program, which was partially successful, but from day one what we got in our consultations was that it was only going to touch the periphery rather than the core of what was needed in the actual reduction of capacity, because what we were looking at was the term the minister of the day used, a ``50% reduction''. We're not anywhere near that. In fact, if we look at the overall advancement in technology since 1993, I think there is possibly more capacity. Maybe it's not more in numbers, but there is more technological capacity today than there was when we closed the fishery. So how it's going to be addressed, sir, is the $64-million question.
The Chairman: So it's going to be a political question, more than anything else.
Mr. Woodman: Exactly.
The Chairman: I think it's going to be a political question too, of who fishes your recommendations for quota. I don't think fishermen can conclude on their own which of them is going to fish the 6,000 tonnes or the 10,000 tonnes. It's putting the ball in somebody's court for such a small amount of fish that it's... Speaking as a politician, it's going to cause a lot of grief about who makes the choice: does Mr. Robichaud pick out the fishermen? They won't be able to decide themselves. They're not going to go for another draw on who is going to fish this, unless you have hand-lining or something like that for everybody so everybody gets a crack at it. It's going to be a real problem: who is going to fish that small quota that's been recommended?
I don't know how you solve that, or who is going to solve that, but I suspect it will have to be solved politically. We're asking fishermen to do a lot of things these days, but to get them to decide who among themselves is going to fish that little quota... I think it's asking a lot of the fishermen to do that.
Harry, do you have a short question before we conclude?
Mr. Verran: Yes. I would just like to mention one other thing, Mr. Chairman, before we conclude.
.1705
Dr. Doubleday, you spoke about partnerships. And I'm not sure if it was you or Mr. Robichaud who spoke about going into partnerships with people. Indeed, that's the trend the Department of Fisheries and DFO is taking. But speak to the other partners, the other side of DFO - there's a partnership with the department. They will tell you that there's no partnership. They partner and talk and discuss, but at the end of the day it's the department's policy that comes through and they're forgotten about. That's a real problem.
I would really appreciate you taking it seriously, and if you doubt my word, come down to South West Nova with me. I hope you wouldn't have to do that, because I hope you would know that is a problem. Take it back to the deputy, take it to the minister, and spell it out in spades for them. That's a real problem, because as far as the department goes, there are partnerships on a piece of paper that they can show the public of Canada. We're in great partnerships. But the people on the line will tell you there's no partnership because it's DFO's will at the end of the day, and they often have no say. You get the exception but so often.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thanks, Harry.
Thank you, Mr. Woodman and Dr. Brêthes, for coming in. Thanks also to the departmental people. I think this is the first time you've been here for some years. We look forward to you coming back on a more regular basis. You'll be coming in with regular reports, and I think the committee would like to talk to you about your reports as they come out. We look forward to speaking to you again. Thanks for coming today and making your contribution.
Mr. Woodman: Thank you. I think it's only right, when we make those reports that are dealing with the fisherpeople in Atlantic Canada, that they be fully informed and that the members of Parliament who live in those constituencies be fully informed. We're available at any time to explain any matter. It's unfortunate that all of us weren't here today to ask questions, because I think the flow of information to people will alleviate a lot of concerns.
The Chairman: You're right. Thank you very much.
This meeting is adjourned