Fisheries Committee on Dec. 10th, 2013

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes, there is, and we have two programs in our science world, the aquaculture collaborative research and development program and the program for aquaculture regulatory research, which continues to have expertise around this and continues to work with people in the private sector and be available to them.

I remember appearing before this committee when you were doing your study. We were talking about demonstration projects that were in their early stages. They seem to have moved along, and the industry continues to develop in this way. My sense is that the report you provided has been very helpful in that regard.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Let's turn to fisheries protection in the province of B.C.

There was certainly a desire to provide enhanced compliance and protection tools, provide greater clarity, certainty, and consistency of regulatory requirements through the expanded use of standards, regulations, and time limits. This has come up before, but can you respond to the changes in the definition of “permanent alteration”, how we may have actually stepped forward in enhancing our protection? I'd also like someone to comment about the definition of “serious harm” and “death of a fish”, whichever one of you who would like to deal with those things.

[Kevin Stringer]

Sure. The definition of “serious harm” is permanent alteration or destruction of habitat. It's one of the challenges that's being put out there. It's different from a HADD, which is harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of habitat, and it is indeed a different level. We have ensured that permanent alteration or destruction of habitat is linked to the definition of habitat, which is very broad, as I said earlier, and it covers all the life processes of the fish. We're ensuring that it's addressed.

The other thing is that we are focusing our application of this definition, and this is now in our policy statement on our website, on the productivity of the fishery. The permanent alteration is addressing.... If the impact on the fishery is permanent in terms of the productivity, that's the key.

The other thing, in terms of enhanced compliance, enhanced protection, is that there's a number of other pieces. I'd point to the penalties, which are much stronger than they were previously. The Fisheries Act was known for weaker penalties. We've now got much stronger penalties. We're able to identify ecologically significant areas and set them aside in regulations. We haven't done it yet but I believe we will. That is the plan, to give them enhanced protection. We've got new regulations coming forward and new powers in the act that are enabling new regulations on aquatic invasive species. We're trying to broaden the set of threats that we're protecting against, and there's a number of other pieces as well that we are hoping will have a positive impact.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

In the prohibition—you're cutting me off again, aren't you, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Weston. No, I'm just telling you when your time's up.

Go ahead, Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be back in the game.

I'd like you to expand a bit, on the lobster fishery issue, Mr. Stringer. On the maritime lobster report, you indicated there were, I think, five specific recommendations that you were dealing with. Also, in your answer, perhaps you or somebody in the panel could comment on the question I asked previously with respect to WTO and the CETA, looking at where we were a number of years ago with the WTO with the small craft harbour repairs, tax cards, EI, and that type of thing.

Also, I would like you to add into the answer, if you could, whether the subject of fleet separation and owner operator policy has raised its ugly head in your department again. Where are we on that? I'd like to have an answer.

[David Bevan]

I think the previous minister made it pretty clear as to the position of the government regarding fleet separation and owner operators. That was reinforced in the House and that is the direction we are taking on the subsidies, etc., that were raised quite a number of years ago relevant to fishermen's EI, small craft, etc. That wasn't an issue that was raised through CETA, and we haven't wanted to—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Or the WTO.

[Kevin Stringer]

—no, and it hasn't been brought to us in any recent time. I think the last time that was dealt with was quite literally decades ago, if I recall correctly.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

No, it wasn't. Anyhow, it was a while ago.

The chairman indicated I had one question, so I had my question. I would like you to respond to the lobster management question.

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes. Overall, it was a very comprehensive report. The P.E.I. one was also quite comprehensive. They spoke to the requirement for better organizations, or more organizations for the LFAs themselves, the harvesters, to marketing, to quality in handling, to a lobster market institute, to price-setting mechanisms, and to industry-funded levy. These things are largely in provincial areas of jurisdiction, but they are things that we'll have to work with them on.

Where it spoke to DFO, it said to continue to rationalize fleets where that's possible, and move away from consensus-based decisions.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Could you explain the phrase “continue to rationalize fleets”?

[Kevin Stringer]

The idea is, and as you know, we had the Atlantic lobster sustainability measures initiative, whereby we—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

That does not mean combining licences. It means removing licences from the water.

[Kevin Stringer]

It can be. It says, “rationalizing”. It wasn't specific. You could combine them. In the Maritimes region, for example, we have an arrangement whereby you can put two sets of traps on one vessel, but with 50% less of the second licence.

Those types of initiatives are promoting us to work with industry. It was suggested and we've said that we'll work with industry when industry asks us to do stuff, and they're saying a consensus base is not sufficient; we should in fact develop the change guidelines to say what type of input will be required to be able to make changes. It's also to develop a modern data collection system for catch and effort. That's something we have to look into as well.

Those were specific to DFO, but there were a couple of others that really affect us. They talked about seasons, trap plans, and those types of things that we're going to have to work on with industry.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Was there any discussion on seasons and quality of fish that's been harvested at the time?

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes. All those things are in play. It really is quite a comprehensive report, as is the other one.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I'd like to wish you a Merry Christmas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay. That's the longest one question I ever heard.

I want to thank our guests for being here today. We do appreciate your taking the time to come before the committee to answer our many questions. It certainly is appreciated by the committee members. I echo those comments on behalf of the entire committee.

Members, I had circulated a letter from provincial ministers with respect to our request for them to appear with respect to the maritime lobster panel report, so take that with you and we'll have a look at that when we return after the Christmas break.

On that note, I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, happy holidays, and we'll see you again in the new year.

The meeting is adjourned.