Fisheries Committee on May 5th, 2014

[Keith Hutchings]

My understanding, and I could be proven wrong, is that in all of these eight zones we haven't seen sufficient research to get a good understanding of the biomass. There's been research done in particular zones, but we're saying that's not good enough. When you look at the region on this map that produces the shrimp resource, we need an evaluation of all of those zones to get a true reflection of what the biomass is, understanding as well that this year there was an updated survey done. It wasn't what you would call a full-blown survey.

We're saying, through this recommendation, that we want the full-blown survey done every year and that we want surveys and research done in those eight zones. So let's see what we're talking about when we're talking about the biomass.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

That's a legitimate request, for sure.

Mr. Hutchings, I was curious about your distinction between a scientific review and a scientific survey. I noted that immediately when you made that point. Can you tell me the difference? How do you see a scientific review being different from a scientific survey?

[Keith Hutchings]

That was in the recommendation, was it? Where did I say that?

[A voice]

Yes, recommendation number three.

[Keith Hutchings]

The committee is calling on the federal government to carry out an immediate full scientific assessment of the northern shrimp resource, and a full assessment should occur annually during the time of the apparent resource decline. The committee also strongly believes that quotas must be determined by full scientific reviews and not surveys.

Well, I guess that's a review of the culmination of the surveys that are done. I spoke before about our eight zones and to know the full biomass, you must get a reflection of what's in each zone. So that would be a review of all those surveys that are done.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Or basically, I think you're saying that the surveys should be done further north. Again, I think that's a legitimate request.

[Keith Hutchings]

Do you want to talk to that?

[Dwight Ball]

Yes, I would just chime in for a second. To use your own words, this is a big ocean and you mentioned the 1,100 trawl sets. From my perspective, when you look at the coast of Labrador and way down to the south coast of Newfoundland, I would argue that 1,100 trawl sets is really not much at all, when you look at the size of the ocean you're dealing with here. Added to that is the fact you have just under 300 active harvesters right now, so this information is critical.

So what we're asking for here is some hard science. Really, this information needs to be shared with individuals and with the province in general so that we can get a full understanding of what's happening to this biomass, because what we do know is that they are connected. You know, if you talk to harvesters right now, they will clearly point out that what they're seeing is an increase in the cod stock and does this mean that...is it warm water? What is causing all of this?

So this is the hard science that we're talking about. Some of it may be just the stock itself, but there are also the impacts and how this is happening. This is the importance of the hard science that we could use to make these critical decisions, because it is important for this province. I can't stress that enough, how important this is to rural communities in our province, and we do feel right now that there is a disconnect between the research done by the province and that done by DFO nationally.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I've been informed that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has recently made investments in fisheries science with the purchase of a research vessel. Are you partnering with DFO on any science work in the area to help fulfill what your recommendations would be to expand the sampling program?

[Keith Hutchings]

It's something we can certainly look at, something that we as a province would certainly entertain with DFO.

I know right now that my officials certainly share with DFO some of the science that we have, when there are consultations back and forth in regards to that science.

If there's something we could do, like a partnership together, we're certainly open to that.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

That's good.

One thing that I think is a bit of concern if this. We had a representative of the Marine Stewardship Council here at one of our earlier meetings. I must say I was fairly critical of him and what his organization does. I view them as meddling somewhat in our natural resource management affairs. I would expect that people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Surrey would be very sensitive to the meddling of foreigners in our natural resource management practices.

But given that most industries want to have MSC certification in order to market their product, what would your views be on making sure that MSC certification is retained? In order to do that you will have to seek quota reductions. Is that a fair comment?

[Keith Hutchings]

I think as a province, we've certainly supported MSC certification and what it means for sustainability of any species. When you look at it from a business perspective, in terms of marketing to other nations and the recognitions given to MSC.... So I think we would agree with your statement.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Just getting back to the science itself, there's never enough information when it comes to open ocean fisheries. As I said in the previous meeting, I did some fish stock assessment myself in a previous life, but they're usually in inland lakes of 100 square kilometres.

Would you agree that the near impossibility of accurately assessing fish and invertebrates stocks is an extremely daunting task? I don't think anyone in the world has ever been successful at actually determining the biomass of these resources.

How do we deal with that?

[Keith Hutchings]

Well, if you're talking about a specific species, as we are here about shrimp, we know where the species is being harvested. We know the degree and the volume of area we're talking about.

We need to come up with a fair way or an expectation of how we survey those particular areas and come up with the best idea we can. Certainly there's an opportunity to use the experience and knowledge of fish harvesters. As an example, a fish harvester has told me that because of the prevalence of cod coming back and where shrimp is on the bottom, the shrimp sometimes is coming up into another column of water. So when you do the actual survey, you're not picking up the shrimp.

So that's some of the knowledge and things we're hearing from those who are in the business. I think we need to stop and listen to them and use that as we go forward with surveys, and maybe we need to change the things we do. But I don't disagree that it's a huge challenge. It's big ecosystem, a big ocean. But that said, it's such a valuable resource that we need to pursue and find the best ways we can to get that science.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Agreed. I have one last question.

Can you speculate on the issue of overabundant seal populations, and fish and shellfish stocks?

[Keith Hutchings]

As a province or government, we've certainly supported the sealing industry, as you know. We've continued to support it. We've worked with Carino, the only producer in the province right now, in terms of seal pelts and getting them to market.

We believe, again, that they are a key part of the ecosystem. The estimates now are that there are 7 million plus seals. The TAC now is 400,000. Last year we took 100,000. This year we're hoping for that amount. But again, to say they have a huge impact on the ecosystem is an understatement. The amount of cod that a harp seal or a grey seal consumes is staggering. That's all part of the ecosystem and it needs to be dealt with as well.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thanks, Mr. Sopuck.

Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Certainly, welcome to our guests today. It's very nice to see you all here. The fact you come as a group, as an all-party committee, tells me right away the serious impact this issue is having throughout your province and the serious concern you have as leaders in trying to mitigate, as much as possible, that impact.

First of all, I looked at your presentation and the five recommendations you've put forward. I think they're very good. They're solid recommendations that need to be looked at. They show there is tremendous concern for stocks, but there's also concern for how allocations are done and how they are reduced.

The one addition I would make is with regard to aboriginal people. As you know, I represent the riding of Labrador. Most of the shrimp discussion that we're having here today pertains directly to shrimp fishing areas in the Hawke channel, the Hopedale channel, and the Cartwright channel. Those areas are directly adjacent to the communities I represent and are on the doorsteps of the aboriginal groups living in that particular area.

In the past when we've seen reductions, we've seen aboriginal groups, for example the Innu Nation, have their quotas cut as well and being directly impacted. They were watching offshore trawlers and other fishers from different parts of the province directly off their doorsteps, and they certainly felt that it was a wrong decision government was making in making cuts to their aboriginal government.

In addition to that—and I don't know if the panel is aware—in the Nunatsiavut Government area, when the land claim agreement was negotiated with the federal government, there was actually an agreement that 11% of the allocations should go to the Nunatsiavut Government and their communities. Today this aboriginal group holds less than 7% of the allocation. This year they did not get reduced in area 4, which we were very afraid would happen. But there are implications for them with the quotas they have and for the adjacent fishers in area 5 as well, and there are concerns for them on a go-forward basis.

What I have seen inside the Department of Fisheries and Oceans thus far is that in the territory of Nunavut, the principles of adjacency have been applied in the allocation of fish resources. The federal government has taken their issues seriously. They have ensured that all new allocations of fish go directly to Nunavut and to the adjacent areas that are impacted. That policy has not been flowing to the people of Labrador or to the people of Newfoundland, and that is wrong. There is a recognition right now by the federal government that they have to do things differently if they're going to show real respect for people who live adjacent to resources.

Dwight, in your comments you said that the real change came in 2007, when the Hon. Loyola Hearn was the Minister of Fisheries, representing Canada. It was when he made that change to allow these temporary licences to become permits that we started seeing tremendous investment in onshore processing and by inshore fishers.

Today, because there is no clear pathway for these people with their investment, they are the people who are going to be most affected by all of these cuts. To me, it shows complete mismanagement by the federal government in not providing the protections for those people in the inshore fishery or for people in aboriginal fisheries.

Could you outline for us how you would suggest the federal government start correcting this problem immediately, beyond the five recommendations you've already given us, which are very good?

Some suggestions have been made to me. There are science quotas out there that have now been turned over as permanent quotas to offshore fleets, and some of these science quotas should have been where the federal government was pulling back first, which would have given some relief to inshore fishers and aboriginal fishers.

But I'd like to hear the responses you have to those issues.

[Keith Hutchings]

You've identified some of them in terms of science. There's also a quota of 500 tonnes, a small quota, farther up north, as well. Some of those aren't being fully utilized.

If you go back to 2007 and look at the threshold at that point in time when that commitment was made.... In terms of figuring out equitable allocation of the resource, we could look at the threshold for the inshore based on what it was in 2007 when they made that commitment and they became full stakeholders, certainly, in the resource. These are the types of things we have to look at going forward, but always, bearing fully in mind the issue of the biomass and our concerns about it. Again, very simply, it must be equitably distributed in a fair manner, not pitting one sector against another. I think we can do that. I think we have the ability to do it, but the will needs to be there to take it on. As a province, we'll certainly work with the federal government to do that.

[Lorraine Michael]

I won't repeat anything Keith said, but I think another practical way is looking at the fact that the offshore, for example, has access to all of the seven and the inshore only to two of them. Certainly, this has been presented to us in hearings that were held. Should the offshore have access carte blanche to anywhere they want to go, especially when they choose not to go to the northern areas without giving any proof of why they shouldn't go there? They call it “paper shrimp”. It's only paper shrimp in their books. Real shrimp are there, so I think that whole thing has to be assessed, Yvonne, for sure.

It's why for me, and I think for all four of us, recommendations number 1 and 2 are key, because they address the issue you're talking about, as well, regarding the aboriginal groups, the adjacency, and then the issue with regard to Nunatsiavut. Yes, we've been presented that and we are aware of the discrepancy between the 11% and what they're getting.

Recommendations number 3 and 4 are long term. They're contextual. We want to recognize them, but the key recommendations to deal with the issues that are being raised and that you've just raised are recommendations number 1 and 2.

[Dwight Ball]

Thanks, Yvonne, for the comments.

One thing I want to mention is that when you look at the size of the vessels that fish the resource, if you look at the inshore fleet, you're dealing with vessels that are primarily around 65 feet. When you look at the offshore resource it's the larger vessels that are used; they have the ability to go farther north. This is one thing we've heard from the various presenters throughout the discussions we've had.

But one thing was clear with every presenter we heard from, namely, that everyone made a point of talking about and discussing the principle of adjacency. So to Yvonne's point, that brings in the aboriginal component. If you're looking for anything, if you look for a common theme throughout all of this, no one argued the fact that we need good management processes in place, but everyone agreed that adjacency was critical to this. As I said earlier, in 2007 that was the defining moment in the shrimp fishery in the province.

So for us it's based on adjacency. No one argues that we need good science to make what can be some tough decisions.

I don't want to lose sight of the fact that many of our communities, when you look at the offshore allocation, contribute to our communities as well.This is not an easy decision for anyone at this table. But the fair way to do it is to make sure that when you face the challenges, when you meet those difficult times, that everyone shares the pain. That's the reason I think adjacency is a principle.... LIFO right now is an outdated policy. I think that given the level of investment that the inshore harvesters have made since 2007, they still want to be the group that will have an equitable share as we make adjustments on the way down. They want their fair share of the allocation. That's all they're looking for here.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you.

One of the other things I want to point out, as well, is that with regard to the offshore, of course there are a number of licence holders in Newfoundland and Labrador who use the revenue that they accumulate from the offshore industry to invest in the inshore.

In the area that I represent, we have Torngat Fisheries and the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, and if those quotas were at risk, so too would the communities be at risk.

I think that having a good balance of how the declining stocks are managed and how the reductions are applied is very critical to the protection of many Canadians who work in the industry and many communities that depend upon the fishery.

If you want to talk about fairness, I'm going to give you this particular scenario because I think it's important to point out how mismanaged this resource has actually been. When the LIFO policy came into effect, at that particular time the inshore fishery in shrimp fishing area 6, which is where a lot of people in our province are, had an allocation of 1,306 tonnes of shrimp. That was in 1998. At that time, the inshore allocation, in total, was just over 31,000 tonnes.

As a result, we have seen increases in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2008 in the inshore shrimp quota, and it peaked at over 85,000 tonnes. But the inshore quota for Labrador did not increase. However, when it came time to make the reductions in the quota, they were the first people hit. They were directly adjacent, looking out their doorstep at up to 20 shrimp trawlers offshore, as well as the inshore. They went through consecutive increases where they did not get one tonne of shrimp. Yet when it came time that they had to make the reduction, they were one of the first ones and they lost 300 tonnes of shrimp.

I don't have to tell you how that has impacted those communities and the inshore fishermen and their families who live there. It has been absolutely horrendous, from a financial perspective, and from all other perspectives.

Do you mean to tell me that this was good management on behalf of the federal government? It was not, and these people are the ones in this country who are suffering as a result of it.

There needs to be a complete overhaul, and there needs to be some very serious changes made in order for this program to work effectively and benefit people in this country. I want to put that out there so it's on the record, but I'm sure you are aware of it.

I'd like to hear any response that you may have as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Ms. Jones. Your time is up.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.