Fisheries Committee on March 24th, 2009

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Bevan]

I wouldn't touch that with a—

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Bay of Fundy? Did you say Bay of Fundy?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

No, I didn't.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

There are two things.

Madam Watson-Wright, you indicated that you're working with industry partners when it comes to the additional funding. Can you please describe or elaborate a bit more on what you meant by that? Which partners in industry are you working with compared with, as you said, the academic ones? That's the first question.

The second question is for you, Mr. Bevan. Is the department now or in the future contemplating an IQ system or a quota system for lobsters?

The last question is one we tend not to ask very much. After the Marshall decision and the integration of the 34 bands of the Atlantic and Quebec regions within the aboriginal fishery, are you discussing with them or asking them their concerns about the lobster fishery as it comes to the aboriginal component of the Marshall decision?

Thank you.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

I'll begin.

In terms of who we're working with, we are working with most of the larger organizations, such as PEIFA, FFAW, and the Maritime Fishermen's Union, on a number of specific projects, largely catch samplings and settlement work, and things like that.

If I could say one thing, though—and this is just something I'd like to put on the radar screen for the committee—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Excuse me for one moment. The bells are ringing, so I need to interrupt and seek unanimous consent to either continue or suspend.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

The bells have stopped, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

All right.

I'm sorry. Continue.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

There is one item I would like to put on the radar screen for this committee, and it comes back to the issue of climate change, in this particular instance, the potential effects of climate change on lobster.

This has to do with ocean acidification as a result of the increased carbon in the atmosphere. More than a quarter of the carbon in the atmosphere is taken up by the ocean, which produces, through a chemical reaction, carbonic acid. And what it does to animals such as lobsters and other shellfish, besides destroying coral reefs, as you've heard, is that they cannot access the calcium carbonate they require to make their shells.

I don't have solutions for you, but I do think it's an issue that is exceedingly important and becoming more and more critical. Since we are talking about an animal on which we and many Atlantic communities depend, and one that could be most impacted by this, I think it's an issue that would be good for the committee to learn about in the future.

Now I'll turn it over to my colleague.

[David Bevan]

The quota system was something that was suggested in the FRCC as a way to stop the investment in the competitive nature of the lobster fishery. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested by fishermen to increase capacity. As long as that's the model, it means that there's more pressure put on the stock. What they suggested was a quota system, but the trouble there is that we don't have the science to support it. There's no understanding of the relation between abundance of lobster and lobster recruitment.

There might have to be some other model contemplated. Individual transferable traps is one that was being considered. Another was TURFs, territorial-based management that would help create new incentives. These incentives would seek ways to cut costs, increase value, and expand net income. Right now, in some locations you need $3.80 a pound just to break even. That's too high in today's market, and even in better times it was a fairly low margin. We need to find a way to make this happen.

We agree with the Marshall decision. We have a legal obligation to consult with first nations, and we are doing so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for helping us to understand this issue a little better.

I just want to make sure I actually understand the problem. We need to get to solutions as well, but we first need to understand the problem, so let me try to put it in the simplest terms that I can.

Say I'm a lobster fisherman; I catch and sell lobsters. There are certain input costs that I have in order to do these things. If I'm one of those lobster fishermen who's in difficulty, which is the purpose of this study, or if I'm having trouble making money, then I assume there's one of a few things at play. Maybe I'm not catching enough lobsters, either because there are fewer lobsters to catch, which is a stock issue, or because there are more people fishing. The problem could also be market pressures: prices are too low for me to make a living.

I'm wondering whether we can generalize from these 40 or so LFAs. It seems that the lobster fishery is not homogeneous by any means. For example, the FRCC report says that the gross revenues from 2004 ranged from $245,000 in LFA 34 to $45,000 in LFA 20 and LFA 25. That's quite a big difference. Yet if you look at the chart that they provide in their report of landings of lobster by LFA, LFA 25, which had gross revenues of only $45,000 on average, was actually one of the higher areas in the number of lobsters landed. I'm not sure what's going on, but I assume there are too many fishermen in that area.

Can you comment on this to help us understand the problem?

[David Bevan]

It's pretty clear that the formula can be rather simple. The price per pound times the catch gives you your gross income versus your costs. If you have an LFA such as LFA 25, where you have fairly high landings but you're sharing it among a lot of people, your individual catch will be low enough that your costs relevant to that will be high. So you end up needing $3.80 or thereabouts to cover your costs because you don't have a lot of catch to distribute it over. You have roughly the same number of people in LFA 34, but the catch is much greater. They have a larger volume, so the cost of catching it per pound is less.

But in all areas we've seen a race to the fish. The incentives have been the tragedy of the commons. Everybody is under pressure to fish harder and get bigger boats, bigger engines, more electronics, and bigger gear. That's a dangerous trend, because it puts more and more pressure on the stock. It also means you catch the fish a lot quicker in the season and there is only so much available in the legal-size range. If you have all that pressure you can catch it more quickly. That compresses seasons and means other structural problems for the fishery.

This works fine when you have a high price and you continue to have high volumes. We run into problems in some LFAs where there has been a downward shift in volume, like LFA 25. Everybody has seen a downward shift in price. This year access to capital by the American buyers is a real problem. Access to capital by the Canadian processors and potentially Canadian buyers is a problem, although it's perhaps less than the final market. All of that is putting downward pressure on the price, so the break-even or net income will be reduced or lost completely if the price and the catch don't add up to the cost of fishing.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the department officials for coming this morning and allowing us to have a clear understanding of the department's perspective on the lobster fishery. We certainly appreciate your time and input here this morning.

Committee members, I'd like to take a very brief break for the committee to go in camera to have a brief discussion before we complete our meeting.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]