Fisheries Committee on March 24th, 2009

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

Here's my last question. Last year, as you know, and the year before, there were a lot of concerns regarding the herring fleet coming out of New Brunswick and towards P.E.I. I remember from a few years ago the battle that was happening there regarding where the fathom line should be. I wonder if you could tell us what the plans are for this year and the following years in that regard.

[David Bevan]

The herring scene is actually our gulf herring scene; they can go from western Newfoundland through to the southern gulf. Right now, those plans have not yet been provided to the minister. We are looking at some challenges around some of the abundance concerning the spring spawners, but we haven't taken those to the minister. I don't anticipate a lot of changes relevant to some of those decisions that were taken in the past.

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

What's the fathom line now?

[David Bevan]

It's 25 fathoms off the north coast of P.E.I.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm looking for clarification, because I think I've heard some conflicting testimony here, or perhaps not conflicting testimony, but some different numbers.

Ms. Watson-Wright, in your presentation, when you quoted the value of the industry, I believe you said it was $500 million and some.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Landed value only.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay, landed value. Can you differentiate?

Mr. Bevan, you said something about a billion dollars. Can you explain to me what the difference between those two numbers is, please?

[David Bevan]

Yes. The billion dollars would include the export value of the fishery. It's not just the landed value, but also the processed value added, etc. That's why it's larger than the landed value.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Good.

Ms. Watson-Wright, you brought up eco-certification, you brought up larger consumer demands, consumer influence, consumer knowledge about ethical fishing practices. There has been a lot more attention paid in the media and so on about fish abundance in the sea, and there are reports out saying that in 30 or 40 years there won't be anything left in the ocean, and so on.

The last time the FRCC was here, I noticed there is one place of refugia in all of the lobster fishing areas, and I believe it's in lobster fishing area 34. Also, if you take a look at the graph they show on page 14 here and at the number of landings, fishing area 34 is probably the largest area of landings, and yet we don't have any refugia or anything else in any of the other lobster fishing areas. We have bigger boats, we have more fishermen who can get out. The fishery has evolved from being just a few kilometres off the shore and a small boat to basically a lobster trap can be placed in every area, not only in the gulf but all around the coast of Newfoundland and so on. So it's getting harder and harder, I think, for lobster, and we see that through the FRCC's report, where the carapace length is going down in areas where we have more effort being applied.

I just want to get a handle on this from a sustainability perspective. What are the department's plans in protecting the females, first of all, the ones that are critical? Are we looking at increasing carapace length for females? What are we doing on the enforcement front on that side, whether it comes to poaching, whether it comes to illegal lobster being brought in—because if that's the case, that's going to be an issue or a factor as well.

And what are the departments plans with refugia? We have these lobster fishing areas. If you take a look at that graph on page 14, LFAs 8 through 5 in the bar on the right-hand side—I know you have to be looking at the graph for this to make sense—basically account for what looks to me like not even 10% of what lobster fishing area 34 does all by itself. So when we're talking about the rationalization of the industry, are we going to rationalize it by changing the fishing areas? Are we going to rationalize it by where people fish? Are we going to rationalize it by boat sizes? What are the things the department has insofar as making sure we have enough fishermen making a decent living and enough stock there to make sure it's sustainable in the future?

[David Bevan]

Clearly you're raising a number of issues that were on our minds when we asked the FRCC to take another look at lobster ten years after their first report.

We are concerned about the fact that over that ten-year period the vessels have changed substantially. The fishing patterns have gone from a person setting the gear and leaving it there and hauling it once a day to moving gear from place to place and covering much more ground, etc. So we share your concerns.

We have asked, in the gulf, for example, every LFA to come forward with a conservation plan for the next ten years. Some have come forward and they've gone to a carapace size that will allow at least half the females to reproduce once before they're subject to pressure in the fishery. We are looking at those kinds of steps. We have introduced carapace size increases after the first report, and escapement mechanisms and so on, but we have a lot more to do.

We have to work with the industry on those issues, and that's not related to the economic performance alone. An increase in carapace size does mean your individual lobsters are more valuable, but it's not just the design for economics. That's primarily focused on sustainability.

In addition to that, each LFA is going to have to face the facts as well that tracking and traceability requirements are coming in. If you want to sell into the European Union, as of January 2010 you're going to have to be able to trace the product back to at least the fishery and at least the zone, if not right to the boat.

The other thing we have to do that for is health and safety issues, and to reduce the risk to the entire industry in the event that there is a problem in one lot of lobsters. So we need to be able to track and trace the lobsters back to the area of harvest to prove that they're legally taken. That's going to take a lot of effort on the part of fishermen, but also it's going to provide more tools for our fishery officers in the future. So tracking and traceability will be important.

They're also going to be under a lot of pressure to get Marine Stewardship Council certification, and that will mean they're going to have to adjust the fisheries to achieve the necessary proof that they have a sustainable fishery.

And whether we go to more refugias, I don't know what the solutions will be. We'll look at that in the context of each LFA, but clearly the pressure has built. Those catches have gone up to record levels, or historically high levels. If you look at a 100-year timeline, they're double the average over that 100 years, and I think it's not only based on some abundance increases, it's now based on huge investments in extra pressure. We're going to have to try to manage it, and at some point we're going to have to try to find a way to get the incentives focused on net income, reducing costs, and increasing value rather than just building bigger, faster, more effective lobster-killing machines.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I did mention it. It was brought up when FRCC was here. I did ask about poaching and I didn't get any direct response on that. I'm just wondering whether there are any plans in the future for dealing with tougher penalties on poaching. Do we have a handle on how much poaching actually happens?

I know in the FRCC they've talked about a tribunal rather than laying charges and going through the court system. Are there any plans from the department on that front?

[David Bevan]

Clearly, the latter was part of the proposal in the Fisheries Act that was being proposed. I think, generally, that the fishermen and most communities would agree that this kind of approach--administrative law and tribunals--provides much quicker and more suitable penalties.

Having said that, there has been a trend in some areas for higher penalties, and that's had an impact on people. We also have maintained some traditional patrolling for dealing with poaching, etc., but we're also looking at more forensic audits in cases where there is collusion between irresponsible buyers and so on, where there could be undersized lobsters marketed or where there could be illegal lobsters marketed. So we are looking at those kinds of investigations to try to stop the larger-scale poaching as well.

Lobster is our biggest fishery, so I guess it's no surprise it's also one of the biggest focuses for our fishery officers.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Getting back to traceability, in Alberta, of course, this is a huge issue when it comes to our beef exports. We see that when we're trying to export beef, each province is basically left to its own devices underneath the federal guidelines for traceability and age verification. Basically, we can trace an animal right back to a farm. Now, of course, this is what the export markets are demanding that Canada do, in light of some of the issues that we've had, notably BSE.

Can you tell me how much of an impact that has? Do we have an assessment on market access, what we're capable of for market access, what market access we would be losing if we're not going to be able to implement traceability in the lobster fishery?

[David Bevan]

The lobster fishery is susceptible to this issue, in particular, with respect to the European market. There will be possibly requirements, from a food safety point of view, in other markets as well, but we need to move ahead with options the industry can look at for being able to demonstrate where those lobsters are coming from. It could be anything from numbered or coded bands--every lobster has those--to other solutions. But we're not looking at dictating solutions. We're looking at providing standards to assure our trading partners, but then leaving some options open to the various groups of fishermen and companies.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So there is no loss of market access right now. It's just that if we don't have a program in place that could become a factor in the future. Is that correct?

[David Bevan]

The future being January 2010, so it's imminent.

And that market would represent what percentage of our lobsters, do you know?

[Robert Elliott, Director General, Economic Analysis and Statistics, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

On the European market, I can get you that.

In 2007, out of total lobster exports of $391 million, $43.6 million went to the EU.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

It's substantial.

[David Bevan]

And we already have seen problems with the $40-million Japanese market as a result of PSP in tomalley, and we are going to have to start doing a proper tracking and traceability program so we can identify where those individual lobsters come from. Because the bands are on every lobster, that's one potential way to do it, but I'm not going to prejudge how the industry wants to respond.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Okay, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Murphy, I believe you're going to split your time with Mr. Oliphant.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

I just have a couple of issues, Mr. Bevan. One issue that you've lived with, I guess, your entire life is the whole issue of enforcement and complaints that there's not enough enforcement. But the constant frustrations of the whole industry, as far as I'm concerned, are the penalties and sanctions that are imposed after a person is caught and prosecuted. These prosecutions aren't cheap. They take a long time, and you see somebody get the $1,500 fine or the $1,200 fine.

It seems to me if people want to participate in a regulated industry, and they get benefits from the regulated industry, there has to be some mechanism that they play by the rules. Is it not time, when we go forward in this regulated industry, for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to up their game and just make a one-year suspension for anyone caught violating the regulations set down by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

We've had a couple of situations in my province lately where a person goes out with short lobsters or fishes illegally outside of the season and uses illegal gear, and the fines are between $1,000 and $1,500, with maybe one or two days of suspension. They're back in the water right away.

Is this something that is being considered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or is it something that should be considered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

[David Bevan]

As you may recall, we did consider licence sanctions in the past. We put in place a program for licence sanctions. Unfortunately, we lost several court cases, and under the existing act that is no longer possible. We cannot do licence sanctions. They're extraordinarily effective. They really do make a difference in terms of the whole compliance in a fishery, but we don't have the legal authority under the current Fisheries Act to do so. As noted earlier, we were seeking tribunals with that power to have real teeth and a quick response relevant to what we're going through now, but that's not legally possible under the existing act.

It's something we have considered. It does work. We know it works, but we have to seek new legal authorities to put it in place.