Fisheries Committee on May 5th, 2014

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

You may have heard Yvonne Jones talk about where the fish could be caught. You say in the offshore. The fact that somebody isn't there on the offshore perhaps ought not to be an entitlement to an income stream forever because of that. We're not talking about the development of a mine or something like that with a significant infrastructure.

Is there any requirement that those who can fish literally offshore or farther north are expected to do so, or can they fish wherever?

[David Bevan]

They're licensed to fish in a number of zones. That means that they are permitted to do so.

The original quota of 37,600 tonnes was split among various areas. For example, 11,000 tonnes of it at the time was in SFA 6. The expectation of those in the offshore is that they'll still be able to fish the level of quotas that were used to establish the departure point for the new entrants. That is, 37,000 tonnes and above were distributed in a different way, based on adjacency, etc. However, those people would expect to fish in the south. If they have to go north, it costs them more and there is more uncertainty.

So it's an issue wherein the people who are dependent upon it without options are looking to move them out and the people who are looking at what historically happened in 1997 are saying, hold on.

Those are factors the minister will have to consider when we're—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Leef.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Chair.

I must say to everybody, members of Parliament and ministers and even the people fishing, that the east coast fisheries is really acronym-heavy. I'm trying to catch up on all these acronyms, being from the Yukon, where we have a couple of simple ones.

Having said all that, we heard Mr. Ball, I believe, talk of the need for knowledge based on hard science, but then he made an appeal for the consideration of traditional knowledge. Speaking more from our more terrestrial-based background in biology, in Yukon we encompass traditional knowledge with our science, but more for land-based species. For the east coast fisheries, there's a bit of a challenge between the demand for hard science and the need for traditional knowledge. We reach an agreement quite well when the two match, but as soon as science says something that doesn't quite jibe with traditional knowledge, the locals will reject the science. Science will equally reject traditional knowledge, because it sees traditional knowledge as self-serving for the industry's own needs.

How responsive is the department to taking and absorbing traditional knowledge? How are we able now to incorporate it into the scientific body so that the two marry a little better. The example Mr. Ball gave was the increase in the cod stocks pushing shrimp into a different water column. Are we recognizing that, and is the science saying, okay we can take that information and start to deploy our research-gathering capabilities consistent with what we're hearing from the people who are actually working in the fisheries?

[David Bevan]

I'll turn to my colleague, David Gillis, in a second, but I think it's fair to say in the fish management business, you always need to deal with uncertainty. You will never get enough certainty to narrow the confidence limits to a point where you have a very precise number. You're always dealing with some degree of uncertainty. The whole point of the precautionary approach is not to fail to act even in the face of that uncertainty.

But in this case, I think we have a time series of data showing a fairly significant trend. While it's not predictive of what'll happen next year with shrimp, I think we have a pretty high degree of confidence that what we're seeing in crab is going to be a bit of grim news in the coming years, because we measure the fish as they go through their life cycle and get bigger to the point where they enter the fishery.

Dave, on traditional knowledge....

[David Gillis, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you.

I have just a couple of points about that.

First off, I think what I would say, at least in this case, is that I don't see a fundamental conflict in what the science is indicating and what the industry and other users are indicating they see. That's not always the case, but in this case I think there seems to be general agreement.

We certainly do use information that comes from fishers and the fishery throughout our whole assessment process, both in crab and in shrimp. The surveys for both species are actually done heavily in collaboration with industry. The main indices that we use for the northern part of the shrimp zones that we manage, and virtually all of the crab zones, are derived from surveys where industry have a very, very heavy role with us, including the design of the survey. So that's a very good input for us to be getting and a very good involvement.

Then, of course, we use a lot of fishery information. It's not just about the survey. The survey is a very important tool for us, but we also season and sprinkle into those results a lot of information that we collect from the fishery, which is obviously information that's generated by the activities of fishers. So that's another input.

Then, very importantly, in our assessment process, when we meet to condense all of the results that we've been able to get from our scientific analysis and bring folks together to review it in the peer review process, industry plays a role in those meetings with us. They have an expertise that we want to have in the room so that we can make sure that we're incorporating their view and knowledge of what they are seeing going on out there as well.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

So right now they would have confidence in this downward trend both for snow crab and shrimp in some of these areas. So the call for greater science, more indexing, really, of these populations, as Mr. Sopuck says...we're not counting real numbers of shrimp—

[David Gillis]

We are indexing the counting.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

So with that indexing model, is it a matter of just doing more trawl sets dealing with the bigger ocean, with more resources? Or are we on the right track to model this? And the real question is, just how do we spread out the pain, as we heard, by waiting for better ocean conditions or waiting for better population numbers?

[David Gillis]

There isn't a scientist anywhere who wouldn't tell you they could use more information and more resources to gather information. That's what we do. But in this case, we feel that our advice and our stock assessment are credible. There are always uncertainties. The uncertainties that we see in this case are not unusual to us; they are the kinds of uncertainties that are quite typical from a sound assessment. All of the information, including the basic analysis that we do, is in the public domain, and we very much encourage folks to have a look at that. If they feel there are ways we can improve our science process, or the way that we collect our information, then we're certainly very open to that.

On the whole, in these instances, we're quite comfortable that we have a read on what these key stocks are doing and that the advice we're providing around them is sound.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

This may be more of an industry-based question, but with cod stocks coming up a little bit, is there any anticipation that a rising cod price will increase with this? Or is that market a stable pricing?

[David Bevan]

There's a lot of cod in the world. We don't have a lot of it, but there are a million tonnes in the world, and that may be a rounded number, but hundreds of thousands of tonnes exist, and the markets will not notice our fish, so the price will not go up.

There is a caution, I think. I was taken to task by the science I quoted the last time that we were getting within 30% of the limit reference point, which is the point on abundance where you can actually start thinking about a fishery. It turns out that that was a simplification. We had quite a lot of catch in the surveys, but the science advice after analysis is that we're 18% of the way toward the amount of fish that would be needed to say we can have a fishery of some directed nature on this stock.

[Kevin Stringer, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

This stock being northern cod, 2J3KL, and just the limit reference point being the average of what it was approximately like in the eighties, and we're at 18% of that now. A few years ago, a decade ago, we were at 2%.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

It's growing, but there's still a ways to go.

[Kevin Stringer]

So it increased nine times, and millions more, but it's still 18% of the average of the eighties.

[David Bevan]

We have to avoid the temptation to start cropping it off. We've done that in the past. As soon as it starts to grow, we crop, and we had to shut it down again. So I think we have to be very prudent with that. As I said, it has done better on the Flemish Cap for biological reasons, and better in 3Ps, but it's not yet in a position to be an offset for the shrimp fishery for those draggers.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Simply speaking about those shrimp fisheries—you tied it into the bloom and the patterns there—how flexible are we and how possible is our responsiveness to big spikes in that? It would seem to me that population could spike heavily and decline heavily, based on seasonal conditions. Are we flexible and responsive to that?

[David Bevan]

I think the answer would be yes, that we don't want to manage to noise. We've done that in the past as well where we see something.... For example, 3Ps cod has great noise in the analysis, and if you manage to that, you're just going to create biological and economic chaos. It's better to damp it out. So if we see a huge spike, we'd have to ask ourselves, what's going on? But if the time series starts to reverse, for example, and shows abundance, we could definitely do LIFO in reverse. The inshore people got 90% of it on the way up, and that could happen again if we had that abundance, but we don't expect that to happen.

While science will not say they can predict what will be there next year, I think our personal experience as managers is it's on a downward trend, and there would be no reason empirically to think that will be reversed in the short term.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation today.

These are all very interesting discussions for sure, but just to respond to the question of my colleague across the way, first of all, I would say to you that we're happy to see the cod coming back, but there is a realization, a very strong realization, that it's not going to replace the declines that we're seeing in shrimp and crab from a financial perspective. That's why we're here today with regard to this northern shrimp. We feel there is a better way to manage the reductions in quota to ensure that there is minimal impact on communities and people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The mere fact that the minister and the leaders of the two parties in Newfoundland and Labrador show up at the standing committee on fisheries to make their case on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be evidence enough of the huge importance of this issue in the province and the reality that there needs to be change in how it's done.

First of all, you may have heard my earlier remarks, but just so you know, the area that I represent in the riding of Labrador includes the greatest efforts in the shrimp fishery, whether in the Hawke channel, the Hopedale channel, or the Cartwright channel. The people I represent are directly adjacent to these shrimp stocks. However, they've had to fight the federal government tooth and nail over the years to even gain access and allocations to those quotas.

Their access came very late, long after there were maybe a dozen or 14 licences offshore that had already been established. Does it make it fair that they would be the first people to be pushed out the door?

First of all, when I see the LIFO policy that the government has in place right now, I look at it and I think that it's a tremendously effective excuse for not having to realistically look at what the downsizing in quotas is doing and how it's impacting the inshore sector and the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and the aboriginal groups in the areas I represent.

I'm not disputing that the science is showing that quotas need to be reduced. I also hear that from fishermen I represent every day. I have a lot of constituents who fish offshore on those offshore trawlers and they tell me the same thing. I am not disputing that. But what I'm disputing is the fact that the Government of Canada is failing to make the proper reductions in quota to mitigate the impact, first of all, on the people who are most adjacent to the resources, meaning the people of Labrador. I would like to see a shift in policy and principle of how it's done to ensure that these people are treated more fairly. In this day and age it's absolutely ludicrous that the people of Labrador, and the aboriginal people who have land claims agreements with the federal government, should have to be lobbying and fighting to have access to a resource that's on their doorstep.

I'm asking what your view would be in light of that and how this change could be implemented so that we have the least impact on those people that are affected.

[David Bevan]

From our perspective what's unfortunate is that we don't see a way to avoid negative impacts. Now, that means that the minister has the unfortunate job in this case of having to determine how to manage that negative change. In the event it continues, that's the reality to be faced by the minister. She will do the same thing she did this year. There will be scientific advice, recommendations that are discussed with the industry on TACs, and then there's going to have to be a discussion as to how to manage those TACs in the event they go down.

The minister will be making that decision at this time next year. It's going to be exacerbated by the fact that in 3K in particular we expect to see a continued decline in the crab stocks there. Even though the TACs haven't gone that much because we've been trying to look after the fishermen, it will be difficult making a go of it on those mixed species fisheries between shrimp and crab. The minister is going to have to make a whole suite of very difficult decisions next year, following advice from the department, yes; following a lot of input from stakeholders; and following, no doubt, meetings between the minister and stakeholders.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

When I look at how changes could be made that would have really mitigated what the impact is right now in our province, I think that the federal government, in managing this resource, also has to say to themselves, do we want to ensure that we're going to execute the entire inshore shrimp fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador? If that's what you want to do, that's exactly the road we're going down. That has to be a fundamental decision, a principled decision of the federal Government of Canada right now.

We've already seen a number of processing plants close. We've seen a number of licence holders getting out of the industry. It's not because they want to, but they're being forced out because of this reduction in allocation.

Yet, we know that the offshore shrimp fleet still controls and harvests the bulk of all the shrimp in those particular areas adjacent to where these people live. We also know that they have the ability to go into the OB areas, area 2 and area 1, where we're seeing increases in quota, and they're not being looked at as an alternative.

It's unfair that over the last number of years that 56% of the reduction went to inshore fishers, and 27% went to special allocations, which again, affected the inshore and the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, where only 10% went to the offshore. There has to be a better way to do this, and there has to be a decision taken by the federal government. If you want to execute the inshore shrimp fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, you're on the right road. This LIFO policy will make sure that gets done.

If you don't want to do that, there is a time and an opportunity now to make a change. As we manage this particular industry and we manage the reduction in quotas, we can do so in a way that we're able to preserve the industry for the communities and the people who live adjacent to it as well.

[David Bevan]

I understand that point of view.

Obviously, these are hard decisions, and I think it's not going to get any easier. It's going to get even more difficult, possibly next year. Those are points of view that will have to be taken into consideration as we move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Ms. Jones.

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of questions, and I'll turn it over to Mr. Sopuck. I know he salivates when there's a scientist in the room.

We've heard a number of times, both today and other days, about the disproportionate nature of the cuts on the way down. Of course, we haven't heard too much about the disproportionate nature of the increases on the way up. In fact, I think they were, by policy, intended to mirror each other.

Can you tell me the rationale? Was it the principle of adjacency that determined that 90%, or close to that, of the increase on the way up should go to the inshore fleet, and only 10% to the offshore fleet? What was the discussion at the time to come up with this? Was it a principled decision, is my question?