Evidence of meeting #83 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
So 200,000 traps are out, because the large landings have been depressing the price. Am I on the right track there or not?
Director, Resource Management, Atlantic Region, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think by removing 600 licences, what it's done at minimum is that the total landings have been divided among fewer participants in the fishery who are dependent on that fishery.
Director, Resource Management, Atlantic Region, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think the evidence is that the landings themselves haven't gone down a lot, for a variety of reasons that we've talked about. Nevertheless, I think the program is successful in the sense that the number of harvesters dependent on the fishery has been reduced, and therefore the profits accordingly are—
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
That's what I was trying to get at, so thank you for saying it correctly. This suggests to me that people in the lobster industry at least know that perhaps there are too many licences out there to be profitable. Is that correct?
Director, Resource Management, Atlantic Region, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I wouldn't want to speak for the industry, I suppose, but I think the approach that the ALSM program took in reducing licences was supported by industry. So I guess the logical conclusion from that would be that they supported a licence retirement program.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I would add that this is certainly the view at a time when prices are low. The challenge is that when prices are high, there may be a different view.
Director General, Fisheries and Aboriginal Policy, Program Policy Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The situation is not equal in all lobster areas. The number of participants in one area will be 2,000, and in another area 20, so it varies.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've had my turn, so I'll be brief.
First, I'd like to welcome Mr. Richards to our committee. He's from Alberta, and better known for Prairie oysters than Prairie lobsters, I think—
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Earlier, in answer to Mr. Easter's question, we were nibbling around the edges of this individual quota fishery for something like Atlantic lobster. I understand that there isn't a lot of enthusiasm, although I did see in an article not too long ago that Ian MacPherson from the PEI Fishermen’s Association said that now is probably the time we should at least start talking about it. I hope we would all agree with that.
If the primary thing is that it's a supply issue, and the fishermen don't want to talk about a mechanism that could well adjust supply and address the problem.... And over many years it's been a somewhat lucrative fishery, so I'm having difficulty accepting the fact that fishermen then expect the federal government to launch a new program or bail them out in some way, when up until now they haven't been very open to considering some things that might address the problem. I don't know if you have a comment on that. It's more a comment from me, I know, than a question.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Good question. My colleagues are looking at the table, so I think they're expecting me....
Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thanks for the comment.
It's very instructive to take a look at the FRCC report, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, of 2007. It actually said that we should be looking at quotas or IQs, and then said that we should look at other mechanisms such as TURFs, which basically would determine that each group has a different area where they have exclusive use.
As Adam has said—and I think I said it, as well—it is a challenging time. There isn't, as far as we can tell, a willingness to go down those roads. What our big concern is at the moment.... I said at the beginning that these stocks are in good shape. And they are in good shape: we're getting good returns. It's remarkable, the types of returns.
There is concern about the exploitation rate, and there is concern about what happens if this starts to decrease, because we don't know what's going to happen five years down the road. There are dials that we have: increasing egg production, and dealing with carapace size. You've talked about or identified a couple of them.
As long as it's in the healthy zone, we need to be working closely with industry about what it wants to take on and what it decides it wants to do. But we need to be watching carefully and talking to industry. They are open to discussions about a broad range of things. We need to be careful about what we raise, because we really need to bring industry along with us on this; it's not something that's easily imposed by the department.
But I think there is an understanding that we can't keep going through this for the next number of years. We need to look at what dials we need to address.
Adam.
Director, Resource Management, Atlantic Region, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think you've covered it.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you very much.
At this time I would like to thank the officials for being here today. Once again I thank you for your patience in coming before this committee. You're right that the third time was lucky.
So thank you very much, Kevin. Thanks for being here and answering our questions.
Members, we're going to go in camera now for some committee business. We'll suspend for a moment while we move in camera.
Thank you very much.
[Proceedings continue in camera]