Fisheries Committee on March 12th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We'd ready to begin, everyone.

I'd like to welcome the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council this morning. I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. d'Entremont, who will make some opening comments.

Mr. d'Entremont, you could introduce your delegation as well.

Once again, thank you very much for coming here this morning.

[Jean-Guy d'Entremont, Chairman, Fisheries Resource Conservation Council]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the standing committee for inviting us and having some discussions over our report.

We've provided you with three items. I think you all have a copy of the report, which is the reason we're here. We have a short presentation, and then there are a few charts that I added on. Some of them are not in the report. I find them quite interesting. They may help you and help in the discussion.

I am going to take a few minutes to make my presentation and then we will try to answer your questions. I will make the presentation in English this morning.

With me, I have other members of the council.

By the way, I'm in the fish business in Nova Scotia. I'm an Acadian. We fish mainly haddock. I am not a lobster fisherman. I'm chairman of the council.

Go ahead.

[Donald Walker, Member, Fisheries Resource Conservation Council]

I'm from the Quebec region. I've been member of the FRCC for the last two and a half years. I'm an inshore fisherman, a lobster fisherman. I come from the Gaspé region.

[Gerard Chidley, Vice-Chairman, Fisheries Resource Conservation Council]

Good morning, everyone. I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador, from the Avalon riding. I own and co-operate a multi-species fishing vessel, the Atlantic Champion. It's a pleasure to be here.

[Arthur Willett, Executive Director, Fisheries Resource Conservation Council]

I'm the executive director of the FRCC's secretariat here in Ottawa.

[Jean-Guy d'Entremont]

I'll just tell you a little bit about the FRCC and what we are.

In 1993, following the collapse of the northern cod, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans created the FRCC to provide advice. So we're an advisory council, and we were established to provide an opportunity for harvesters to have input into the management and science of fisheries.

We're an arm's-length advisory body for east coast fisheries. There's a PFRCC that's responsible for the west coast. We provide advice publicly to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

We're comprised of 12 members. We have harvesters, scientists, processors, aboriginal people. We also have provincial representatives from each province of Atlantic Canada, who are ex officio members of the council.

The strength of the council is basically the diversity in the membership. Also we have the opportunity to go to the fishing communities and consult with them and learn what they have to say. We go directly to the fishermen themselves. Often they say, “It's great to see you guys, because we finally have an opportunity to provide input in the process.” That doesn't often get done just through DFO.

Also, we provide a long-term strategic framework. So we provide advice that is basically the “what” that should be done--this is what should be done, and you, DFO and industry, determine how to do it. The “how to” we try to leave for DFO, because we don't implement the recommendations we provide. We simply provide the advice, and the report is stand-alone.

To touch on the 2007 lobster report, council was mandated by the minister to review the 1995 report. The FRCC wrote a 1995 report on lobster, a conservation framework, and then in 2007 we were asked to look at what has happened since 1995, give an update and then provide advice looking ahead to the future.

We consulted with the fishing industry. We had 20 public consultations throughout Atlantic Canada--all the provinces, in specific areas. We timed it according to their fisheries. It was set in two stages, because we wanted to ensure that fishermen had ample opportunity to come and talk to us. We also received over 85 written briefs. This is the most the council has ever seen. There was a lot of interest in giving us information, because it's so valuable. A $600 million industry touches a lot of communities.

The consultations were very focused and constructive. We received information during these consultations that we weren't quite clear on, so we went for clarification. We set up a three-day workshop. We invited 35 or so fishermen from across Atlantic Canada and discussed those issues thoroughly to get a good opinion.

As far as the review of the 1995 framework is concerned, we found that very little had been done since 1995 in reducing capacity, reducing effort, and minimizing risk. So the 1995 report and the toolbox within are still very useful today.

There has been some carapace size increases, or minimum legal size increases, but they were slight in most areas. But there are some areas that did engage and did very well to improve their conservation situation. Some of those were in Newfoundland and in the Quebec region. The Quebec region is a leader when it comes to conservation frameworks in the Maggies and the Gaspé region. I'll talk a little bit about that.

Why did Quebec take on this challenge? It's mainly because of the strong leadership in the industry. They had a vision. DFO had that same vision and they worked together and made it happen. They didn't quit. They had a lot of push-back, but they kept to it, they kept on their vision and kept focused on the objectives, and they got it done.

The cooperation between DFO and industry was good. What they did was go gradually instead of having a huge shift. Roger Simon, who is the area manager in the Magdalen Islands, said that we would increase the minimum legal size by a credit-card thickness per year. He said that we had all kinds of trouble, but that we had it made. We increased six or seven millimetres. Now they're landing larger lobsters with more value, and they have reduced some of the effort by reducing traps. It's explained in the report.

They adopted and adapted the 1995 report. When we went to consult with them on the 2007 report, they raised the 1995 report. That was their bible. They followed that, and I think that's why they were so successful. They were successful enough that they have had two ten-year plans. Very few fishing areas have ten-year conservation plans, and they were able to do that.

The thrust of the 2000 report, this one here, which we passed out, is that it's all about managing risk. We found that the risks are higher and that the situation is more risky, I guess. We need more information. For a fishery that's worth over $600 million, we do not even have correct landing information or true landing information. We need to increase egg production, factor in ecosystem considerations--the exploitation rate has to be reduced--and improve compliance. We heard a lot about non-compliance in this fishery. It's sad that it's still a big factor. It was in 1995 and it still is today, or it was two years ago.

In the fishery, as you'll see, if you're planning to go out and talk to fishermen, there's a large dependence on lobster. Lobster is the main fishery for many inshore fishermen. There used to be a groundfish fishery. There used to be others, but right now there's not a whole lot, and everybody is focusing on lobster.

Landings remain high, and I have a graph that talks about that, but the effort is increasing. Compliance is low and investment is high, so economic sustainability could very well be at risk, and with the lack of good information, it's that much riskier.

On fishing effort, when we looked at fishing effort and saw what happened in 1995 and then in 2007, we asked ourselves why the effort was increasing. Why is that? We tried to look at the drivers. What is driving this effort up? The main reason is competition. The fishery system, the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada, is set up as an input control, and competition is very fierce. There's overcapitalization. Employment insurance is also a factor keeping people in the fishery who otherwise might leave.

So we provided options to reduce effort. Again, this is the “what”. What should be done to reduce effort? How? Input controls are one way. Buyouts are another. Output control is another. There are territorial user rights fisheries, or TURF, and transferable effort allocations.

Each area is very diverse in Atlantic Canada. The fisheries are different, and therefore, one shoe doesn't always fit all, so it's important that DFO and industry work together to find the solution that fits best.

On the science, the advice we provide is to get better information, maintain the focus on increased egg production, assess stock structure, consider the connectivity of lobster fishing areas, set exploitation rate targets, and build upon organizations such as the FSRS in Nova Scotia, in which fishermen and scientists work together to find scientific information that's very necessary.

Under the topic management and compliance, as I said earlier, compliance, or lack of, was a dominant topic in the consultation. There are still a lot of illegal traps out there fishing. There are still people selling undersized lobsters, and penalties are just basically too low--this is what fishermen have been telling us. Harvesters are generally poorly organized. They don't speak in one voice. So the advice we provide to the minister is to please work together with industry and set up a shore-based monitoring program. If we can at least know what's coming out of the water--the size of the fish, the landings, the volumes--then we will have a better understanding of where things are going and how to assess in terms of change.

A change of attitude is required. There's a basic lack of understanding in the fishery that the fishermen have the most to gain and the most to lose by being responsible and accountable. This is something that needs to change. Harvesters need to get organized. It's not just having a group. It's speaking in one voice and having plans and moving toward that.

The other issue we raise in terms of advice is a sanctions tribunal. Going through the courts is a very slow, arduous process for both DFO and industry. We feel that if it were dealt with by a few people in the industry, with a swift and severe fine or sanction, it would be more powerful. And the industry asks us for this.

This concludes my brief overview of the report. We'd be very happy to respond to questions and comments. I'm sure we'll have some.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. d'Entremont.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

This is a very comprehensive report you've prepared. We're delighted that it's not collecting dust, not by any standard of the imagination. Of course, the issues in the industry are just as pertinent today as they were in 1995, and again in 2007. It's definitely an evolving file--one that will probably never have an end, and one that needs action now.

Carapace size is probably the most contentious issue in the gulf region. We're about to embark on site visits. As a committee, we will meet directly with fishermen on this particular issue. A ten-point plan has been developed. It enjoys the support of a significant number of lobster fishermen in certain areas of the maritime region, of the gulf region. It does not enjoy a certain amount of support in other areas.

Would you be able to enlighten the committee today on certain aspects of the ten-point plan that's currently before the minister, and also on the whole issue of carapace size?

[Jean-Guy d'Entremont]

To be clear, and just to reiterate what I said at the beginning, our role is to be an advisory council. Our role is to consult with the fishing industry, determine what is the best approach and way forward for 10 to 15 years down the road, and provide advice to the minister. Once we provide advice, the report is stand-alone. We don't debate or discuss or negotiate with the department or implement the report--not in any way, shape, or form.

Because we're involved in the fish business and the fishery, we understand that these plans are in place. The ones that you mean, the ones from the Maggies, I'll ask Donald to talk about.

Basically, when reports are provided to the minister publicly, then it's up to the department to implement them. We don't really have any attachment to the report other than discussing the report itself. We don't have any implementation power. We have lots of influence in how decisions...and how things continue, but we have zero decision power.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you very much for that. It's an important perspective for us to know and understand.

Perhaps I could reword the question, then. During the course of your consultations, and in the course of preparing your report, what did the FRCC find with regard to the issue on carapace size, and what were your recommendations in that regard?

Maybe Mr. Walker can respond.

[Donald Walker]

I will respond on that, because in different areas they have different varieties of sizes. Different increases have been made over the past few years.

When it comes to an increase in carapace size, some reasons were economic, but most thrust was put forward on egg production. In some areas, it was very easy to increase egg production by going with a very small increase. In other areas, you had to go farther to get a carapace size that would double egg production.

In most instances, it's where the fisheries was developed around small-sized lobster that the problem became apparent in increasing carapace size, just because of the economics that had been built around that fishery. The sale of lobsters was developed for that type of lobster. So to change that model would take a lot longer than in areas that were not developed around that--in Prince Edward Island, say, where they have a canner, or in New Brunswick, where they have a canner fisheries.

In our area, where it was not processing--it was mostly live market--you'll notice, as in most areas that have a larger lobster, it's more curtailed toward the live market.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Just for the sake of all of us, myself included, carapace is the size from the tail to the nose—

[Donald Walker]

No. The carapace size is measured from the eye to the back, where the tail starts.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

The tail to the eyes, okay.

In terms of the actual adjustments to carapace size, the fishermen of course use a gauge to determine this. From a management point of view, when you change the carapace size, how do you actually set that? Did you find during the course of your consultations that that was a significant issue, that it's difficult to enforce relatively minor changes to carapace size? Or is that sort of—pardon the expression—a red herring?

[Gerard Chidley]

I think this will probably get right to your question. The carapace size is related to trying to have at least 50% of the females spawn at least once before they enter the harvest. That is the main and ultimate goal, if you want to look at a progressive stage.

When you look at page 20 in our book, you will actually see a graph of how close each area is and how to determine what would be needed. It's economically crippling if you move in too-big increments. This is the whole idea, to try to move people along a gradualism.

In some areas where you may be farther apart, you may see other management measures that are in place, like protecting the large females, which certainly produce a hell of a lot more eggs. You may have a size measure that produces something that's five inches and up. Well, that group may not have the goal as tight to the 50% level as someone who doesn't have something in place to protect the....

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Is carapace size the most critical tool in the conservation basket? Is it relatively minor? Could you sort of weight that whole issue of carapace size in terms of scale?

Finally, can you engage in a discussion about whether this industry on a significant downward spiral throughout all regions or some regions, or is it sustainable? I know there are declines in some regions, stability in others. What was your forecast for the future in your 2007 report?

[Jean-Guy d'Entremont]

I don't want to drop the minimum legal size. I have distributed one that says “Percentage of lobsters which reproduce below the minimum legal size”. You have that chart in front of you. The top number you'll see if you go up and across is that 83 millimetres is the legal size and 90 millimetres is the size at which 50% of the females are mature. If we catch the lobster at that carapace size, 10% to 15% of the females will have the chance to reproduce.

If we take another one, which is P.E.I. southern gulf, 68.5 millimetres was the size that was the minimum legal size, but 70.5 millimetres is the size at which 45% of the females that are caught at that size are mature.

If you look in the Bay of Fundy area down to Southwest Nova, 82.5 millimetres is the market size at which they land the lobsters, but 97 millimetres is the size at which 50% of the females are mature. So only 2% of the females that are caught at that size have actually reproduced or have had the chance to reproduce. It is very risky in the Bay of Fundy, as you see, compared to other areas in Atlantic Canada.

What the FRC proposes is that you should try to have 50% of the females having a chance to reproduce before you catch them. However, in areas such as southwest Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy, where it is so far off, then for God's sake, please protect the large females by leaving them in the water.

We have a graph as well that shows how many eggs a female produces. As you go to your bottom access, if you go right you get to 100 millimetres, you'll see 20,000 eggs are produced, but if you have a female that's 150 millimetres, 160 millimetres, you're up to 80,000 eggs produced. Not only are there more of those eggs, but they are healthier. They're larger and there's a better chance they will survive.

The other reason why minimum legal size is very important is that it's measurable and it's enforceable.

You try to keep as many females as possible, because egg production in the lobster fishery is very important.

The other question pertained to the risk. The major difference between 2007 and 1995 is that there are no fewer vessels in the fishery. There are more of them. They're larger and more powerful. They cover more of the fishing grounds. They start fishing at night, not only in the day, because they're limited by season and by trap limits.

We heard in spades at consultation that a lot of fishermen are fishing beyond their limit because it's very hard to enforce trap limits. If you're in some areas like the south shore of Nova Scotia and southwest Nova Scotia, just for example, if you go out 50 miles and you have 200 miles of coastline, to have a patrol boat haul every buoy out there is virtually impossible.

What we state in the report is that most of the cheating that is going on is by commercial harvesters using illegal traps. The lobsters they land are legal, but how they caught them is not. And it's difficult to pinpoint how and who is doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. d'Entremont.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you very much for coming before us and helping us to get started on our study of the lobster industry.

If I may, I would first like to turn to Mr. Walker, whom I know quite well. First of all, Mr. Walker, welcome. Could I hear your views about the option that has been recommended or put forward by the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionels du sud de la Gaspésie in response to all the happenings in the lobster industry. Both in Gaspésie and the Iles-de-la-Madeleine, this has been occupying people’s attention for some time, though they may have chosen different approaches. They have been experiencing difficulties in Gaspésie for some time. I would specifically like to hear you talk about the buyout of licences, since that has been recommended as an approach. In the report, you are very apprehensive about the licence buyout option, but it is not necessarily an option for everyone. I also understand, I think, that, depending on the region, or part of a region, there can be completely different approaches that can be very helpful. I would like to hear you comment on that.

[Donald Walker]

I will answer in French.

We put a plan in place very early because of the crises that our fishing sector was going through. We know that the option changes over time and that it has evolved into its present form. It has changed recently. It started with the licence buyout just because we knew that the fishing effort needed to be reduced. To start with, we went with a percentage, which we tried to reach by measures like reducing the number of traps per fisherman, the maximum size of the traps, and we started to use a standard trap. Then, as to the buyout option, we started using our funds to buy out businesses 100%. That has changed over the years. We now get the fishermen to participate. It is not just the government that invests, there is also an investment from the fishing industry. This means that the fishermen have a stake in protecting their resource and in investing in the future.

We know that that the fishing industry has to be restructured everywhere in the Gulf and in the Atlantic. If we want to face the future, and the declines, we must accept that it is too big; there are too many players for the amount of the resource. There is no long-term stability in the fishing industry. The entire industry has to be able to make it through lean years. For that to happen, the fishery has to be viable, and to be able to prepare for the worst. If there is a huge decrease in the price of lobster this year, say if the price fell to $2 per pound all over the Atlantic, there will be an economic crisis that will be out of our control. We are trying to avoid that in the long term, but the problem is that it takes an enormous investment from government and from the fishermen to restructure the fishing fleet. It is big; this is no small structure that we are trying to reduce. There are places where it is completely different. There are different methods of reducing the fishing effort. We are reducing the effort ourselves, but, in other places, different plans are needed to meet the same goal.

Second, buying licences has evolved. In the future, it is possible that two businesses may buy licences together in order to reduce fishing effort. We always come back to the same thing: in the present economic crisis, it is not easy for fishermen to make investments. It is not clear where the money will come from.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Unless I am mistaken—and Mr. d'Entremont can comment on this—depending on your background, the economics, the fishing area, there are different...For example, we all know that the boats used to fish for lobster in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine are different from those in Gaspésie. In Gaspésie, in places like Cannes-de-Roches and elsewhere along the Gaspé coastline, the boats are a lot smaller than in the Îles-de-la-Madeleine. It is an in-shore fishery, in fact. In the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, they have go much further out to sea. That is why the boats are much bigger.

So the fishing effort is not at all the same for all businesses and in all places. There can be differences in the lobster situation as such. While your committee says that licence buyout is an option that you are moving away from, it could still be an option that would be interesting and appreciated in other places.

Is my understanding correct?

[Jean-Guy d'Entremont]

Yes, it is correct.

Donald explained what happens in his area, and it works well for him and his group. One of the situations where licence buyout works is in small groups. His region is divided into little zones, “zonettes“ if you like. That is one of the reasons it works.

As well, it is not just a question of the government buying back the licences and then leaving the fishermen on their own. The licence will be reimbursed, the government will be paid back by the fisherman, who then reduces his effort. That is what we need to do now.

For example, a comparison of buyouts has been done for groundfish, a fishery where licences have been bought back. Everyone came from all around and caught the fish that would have been caught by those who had sold their licences. So the fishery filled up again. For us, licence buyout is the quickest way to reduce the effort.

But it has to be understood that we cannot stop there. Later on, we are going to be forced to reduce the fishing effort again, because it will come back. In effect, the system is set up for people to land as many lobster as they can throughout the season, depending on how many traps they have.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Stoffer.

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

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I thank you gentlemen for coming before us today.

As I read the four elements in your vision statement on page 10 of your report, am I correct in suspecting that you base this report and the previous reports on the fact that lobster, like other species, is a common property resource?