Fisheries Committee on June 3rd, 2008

[David Bevan]

That's an interesting question, given that we're talking about not factoring science into it.

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

With all due respect, I just presented cases where science was not factored into this, where scientific evidence came forward to you and the minister that incomplete scientific analysis was done. For example, the Alfred Needler did not conduct proper scientific activities in the north, which led to a shutdown in the fishery. That shutdown was inappropriate.

So with all due respect, don't come here and say there is a schism here in the testimony. Science is not doing its job. It hasn't been doing its job for quite some time, and it continues to not do its job. You simply sit there, shrug your shoulders, and say the cost should be borne by the fishermen. When are you going to give it up?

[David Bevan]

Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

I believe science is doing its job and provides us with the best information possible under the circumstances, within the limits. You cannot expect.... There is nobody in the business of fish management around the world who has perfect advice, perfect information. It simply doesn't exist.

We have to take decisions in the face of uncertainty and we need to deal with risk management. In the north, there is less risk now than there was in the past. Therefore, we can have a fishery.

I'm not sure, in retrospect, that the decisions in the past were right or wrong. I can't make that kind of conclusion. I think people come to those decisions based on their own experience. But we're way, way below the potential on both these stocks. We have a fishery that in the north is a shadow of its former self. We have decided, as a group--that's the fishermen and managers, etc.--to cap it off, to take advantage of the potential growth now, and not to take a less risky approach and let it grow bigger so that we can have a bigger income in the future. We have decided that. That is a joint decision. The fishermen have decided that's what they want to do.

In the south, we have high, high risk. If we take the wrong decisions in the south, we are not going to come back. We are going to be like 4VW, where there's not any growth possible and where we're looking at a situation in which we can't see a future fishery because the stock keeps continuing to decline. So the question we have before us is which path do we want to take?

It's easy to say spend a few more million bucks and find more fish. That's not a realistic approach. No amount of money will remove uncertainty. All of us have to make decisions in the face of uncertainty and we have to make decisions based on the risk that we're facing.

In some fisheries, we can take decisions that don't follow the advice exactly, because the risks are low and the consequences of them being wrong are minimal. In other fisheries--and I'd argue that the southern gulf is one of them--if we make an error, it won't be losing a few million dollars today, it will be wiping out the potential to ever rebuild a stock that used to support a multi-million-dollar fishery. That's simply not responsible. We need to take those kinds of considerations into our decision-making process.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bevan. As much as I'm enjoying this between you two gentlemen, I have to go to Mr. Blais.

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

Thank you. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Asselin.

The demand for a 4,000 tonne quota spread out over three years, as is being called for by Mr. Cotton's group or groups, and the idea of a moratorium, are entirely different proposals.

Can there be a compromise between the two?

[Sylvain Paradis]

Pardon me, but is the demand for 4,000 tonnes over three years or 4,000 tonnes per year?

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

Four thousand tonnes per year.

[Sylvain Paradis]

Therefore, the quota would be 12,000 tonnes over three years. The scientific opinion is known, and those within the industry have aired their grievances to the minister. The minister must take this into consideration.

Under the current approach, we present biological information on the current state of the resource, and the minister must also assess the socio-economic repercussions of a decision. As Mr. Byrne was saying, in the past, decisions made did not stem directly from scientific opinion, and this was all for the better because the situation ended up improving. It is incumbent upon the minister to make the decision.

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

Mr. Bevan, what do you think?

[David Bevan]

I think it's difficult because fishermen are not catching the 4,000 tonnes, obviously, and the fishery represents approximately $2 million per year. If there were a moratorium, there would be a loss of approximately $1.5 million. If we were to fish 2,000 tonnes, there would be a net gain of $2 million for fishermen. However, it is difficult to obtain this data. We still have not carried out a study to compare the—

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

Between zero and 4,000 tonnes, is a compromise not possible, even if it means reassessing the issue next year?

[David Bevan]

We can suppose that if we were to maintain the catch at 2,000 tonnes, fishermen would earn approximately $1.5 million more than if a moratorium were to be imposed. However, a moratorium does not truly achieve what it sets out to do. There will still be catches even if people are not fishing for cod. There will be accidental catches and fishermen will earn a bit of money.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, there's something I'm wondering about when it comes to the seals. The previous witnesses said that the number of fishers in the southern gulf had gone down, and the number of seals had gone up by 7,000. There are now about 70,000 seals there.

If we have a large number of seals, should we not use the best logical indicator, which is the impact of nature? If the number of seals has gone up so much in 30 years, by 7,000 to 70,000, it is because the seals are finding food.

There are no physical boundaries for birds, who fly through the air, they can go from the north to the south and from the south back north again. The fish in the sea are in somewhat the same situation. Except when they are fed... There are a lot of birds around my cottage. What do I do to make them stop at my cottage? I installed bird feeders. Obviously we have to take regeneration into account, but if there are large numbers of the species' main predator... Sometimes, fishers find the cod they catch have no tails. That's not because some disease made it drop off, it's because they've been eaten. The problem has to be dealt with at the source, without hurting the fishermen in the process.

How can we deal with the problem at the source? Earlier, you talked about a study in which the stomach of seals would be opened and a camera inserted so that scientists could see what the seals were feeding on. Fishers have a great deal of trouble finding cod in August, and so do seals. If you did the study in September, the seals would probably no longer be there. So how could that study be carried out? In the period when there are seals, because probably that is when they have food. If they had no food, they would not be there.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Could I ask you for as quick a response as possible, please?

[David Bevan]

We are in the process of studying the issue to find ways of dealing with the seal problem. Obviously, we have to find some way of reducing their numbers. The grey seal hunt is not enough. Even with a total catch of 10,000 seals, all the hunters really took was 2,000. So we have to find another way of dealing with the problem.

We agree with both fishers and the scientists. The problem has to be dealt with, but we need time to do it. The solutions are complex. There have to be enough fish in the ocean to allow the stock to recover.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bevan, of the fixed gear or mobile gear, which one catches more of the cod that are there now?

[David Bevan]

Right now we have what's called a re-entry policy. The fixed gear is the active gear, and mobile gear is not active.

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

Which one catches most of the fish?

[David Bevan]

Well, it's fixed gear right now. The mobile gear has a share, but the rules are that until the population of a fish hits a certain level they won't be re-entering the fishery.

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

Of the fish that were caught last year, you indicated that 2,000 tonnes TAC was set, and they didn't get that. Are they closely monitored at the docks when they bring their fish in?

[David Bevan]

Everybody has dockside monitors.

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

Regarding bycatch from other species, when people are fishing shrimp or other species, are there strict controls and monitoring of that as well for any cod bycatch?

[David Bevan]

Yes.

Shrimp is a fairly clean fishery right now, with the Nordmore grates, which knock the groundfish out and then select only for the shrimp. There are some juveniles that have to be looked at, but there's work done to ensure that those fisheries do not cause much mortality of groundfish.

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

I would say, sir, with your years of experience, that you know the difference of opinion between fishermen and scientists is nothing new. I think it's been going on everywhere in this country for a long time.

I go back to my earlier comments to Mr. Paradis. These fishermen are obviously very frightened for their families and communities down the road. I know you can't say it, and none of us can say that if the worst happens and there's a shutdown to protect the stock, they would be looking for some form of compensation. I know none of us here can indicate that. It would be a government decision, if it were to happen.

One thing they have consistently asked for, and we've seen it today—and I'll say it again, to be on the record—is to be players and partners, in cooperation with you. I encourage you to do everything you possibly can to encourage that dialogue and cooperation. If the evidence you present is absolutely correct—and I'm not questioning it—and they have confidence that it's correct, then I think they'll see that maybe DFO is doing what's best. It may be a tough love approach, or whatever. But If they have suspicions, then they become disappointed, and everything else happens around that.

So I would encourage a much more open dialogue and continuation of cooperation with the fishermen on this particular issue.