Fisheries Committee on Sept. 26th, 2016

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

There's a lot of good information.

[Steve Crocker]

The fishery that we see in our future looks nothing like the fishery we left in 1992. We left a fishery in 1992 where we were doing primarily cod blocks and second-fiddle products, and we need to become a leader in quality. Quality starts at the side of the vessel.

To go back to Mr. Efford's comments earlier, quality starts with the method of harvest, and gillnets certainly do not meet the method of harvest that we're going to need to compete with the Icelands of the world. If you look at Iceland, primarily right now, you will see that their fishery is a hook-and-line fishery. There are other methods, but it's primarily hook and line. It's interesting, when you look at the Icelandic model, to see that as the use of gillnets goes down, the price of cod goes up. It's very clear to see when you look at Iceland as a country and what they've done with their fishery. Harvesting technology is extremely important.

Then, we need to equip our vessels so they have the proper equipment to bleed and store fish to get it to market and to get it to landing. That's where the province and our role, I guess, really come in. We're responsible for the processing sector. We need to work very closely with DFO in the future when it comes to harvesting, until we get the fish to processing. We will also have to ensure our processors are doing their part to ensure that product quality is maintained.

On the overall question, we see a great promise in our province with regard to northern cod and the opportunities it will provide, but the next years are going to be quite challenging as we transition from primarily a shellfish industry to a cod industry. it's really going to take co-operation in the coming years to get us to where we need to be in the northern cod harvest.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

My next question is for all three of you.

Mr. Efford, you raised this as a point: who can catch the fish? You can start, and the other two witnesses can answer as well.

What are your thoughts on the Prime Minister's commitment to have the first 115,000 tonnes allocated to the inshore fishers once the commercial fishery starts up in a commercially viable way again?

[John Efford]

My first thought is very clear: what is the inshore fishery? After all these years, that's the question that has not yet been answered in Newfoundland and Labrador. If the inshore fishery is the 65-foot boat—right now, there's the 89-foot, and it's down to just small boat fisherman and the bays—I would agree with it.

If it's not, then I disagree, because now that all that fish is allocated to the inshore fleet, the 42-foot boat that has been fishing with the gillnets has to change. That has to stop. They're limited to where they can travel because of weather conditions. When you have a 42-foot boat, you can only go a short distance from home. You're talking about 10 to 12 miles, you know. That's usually what it is.

The other boats, the 65-footers and the 79-footers, that fleet of inshore boats, can fish on the Grand Banks, and they can give you a bit of an understanding of how much cod is really out there, because nobody is allowed to put a piece of fishing gear in the water out there now, anywhere on the Grand Banks. That's the key. That's a failure in itself because we have many spots out there, and I'm sure there are people here who know more about it than I do. They know about the Virgin Rocks, the Hamilton Bank, and the Funk Island Bank, and that's where the offshore Atlantic cod stocks are.

There's no reason in the world why we couldn't get this fishery back and going the way it should be going, and we don't need to be making a lot of investment to it. The boats have the gear. The boats have the equipment. They're not looking for money to buy things. They're looking for the right to go fishing.

[David Mark Wells]

Thank you for the question. It's a good question.

When I learned of that—and I'm not speaking as someone in the political realm now, but as someone who's had over 35 years' experience in the industry—I was quite surprised. It was a social decision, a social policy made by the Prime Minister. As Mr. Efford said, what's going to be forced now is that you're going to have smaller boats going further afield, where smaller boats shouldn't be, to catch fish.

A decision to assign a disproportionate or any proportionate amount to one sector in that way, I think is.... We'll revisit this discussion if a vessel that's not built for the high seas happens to go down because they're overloaded with fish, because they had to go further afield, and because they had the quota access to the fish.

Yes, it was a popular decision among inshore fishermen, of course, but I think there are other ramifications we may have to revisit in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. McDonald, thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Wells and others.

Mr. Arnold, please, for seven minutes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here this morning.

We heard earlier that Sweden closed their fishery for only three years. In Canada, it's now 25 years on, and we're still studying it. Can you tell me what the difference was with their stocks? Was it Sweden or Norway that did that? Were their stocks depleted as badly as the stocks off Canada's coast? What did they do differently to restore that fishery so quickly?

[John Efford]

First of all, I don't think there was much difference in the problems in Newfoundland and the problems in Norway. The biggest thing that catches my attention is that they had solid signs from day one. They were well equipped to recognize that there was a problem in the fishery, and the scientific information backed it up. What they did was shut it down totally, as we did here, and reopened it after three years.

Nobody could ever answer us or tell us whether, if Newfoundland had done the same thing, what if...? We still don't know today how many fish are out there, after 25 years, so that gives me a great deal of disappointment today. If our scientists haven't provided us that information, God help us for the future. It's all based on solid science or no science at all.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I guess there are contradictory—

[Steve Crocker]

Can I just add to that?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Okay.

[Steve Crocker]

This is one thing that I missed in my earlier remarks, but it ties into what Mr. Efford just said. One thing for certain that we need to look for in the transitioning years—and beyond—is a commitment from DFO to a full stock assessment every year. There has been some reinvestment in DFO. Fortunately enough, the federal government has seen fit to hire I think almost 20 new scientists here in this province, which is long overdue and well needed.

This province, over the last 10 to 12 years, had to do our own science work. We actually created CFER, the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research. We were forced to do that because of the lack of science being done by DFO. It's very important that DFO take this science role seriously

[John Efford]

Could I make a point very quickly? I don't want to take up other people's time.

The other big difference in Canada—and if you go back through my time in federal and provincial politics, you'll find that I talked about it every single week—was that 10 years ago we had an estimation of 10.5 million harp seals, plus the grey seals, plus the hooded seals. People still make fun and say, “Oh, Efford is talking about the seals again”. But if 10 million harp seals each ate only one codfish a year, that's 10 million fish coming out of the ocean.

I'm satisfied to put my reputation on that having an impact on the stocks returning, because we were not allowed to take the fish out of the ocean to eat. Why? It was because we wanted the stocks to return, but if you have 12 million to 14 million seals of different species, then you know where there's a major part of the problem.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you. I'm glad you brought up that point.

Our earlier testimony has contradictory evidence regarding the impact of seals on the cod stocks. I'd like the committee to somehow find out what can be done to determine the seal diet prior to the collapse and post collapse. Did it change? Did they move to a different species? Have they started to compete for other prey, the same prey the cod prey on? There's so much missing there. We need to find out.

[Steve Crocker]

I understand the question about what they are eating, but it's really a moot or irrelevant point because, at the end of the day, they are eating seafood. Whether that's cod or whether that's a forage fish, we all know what they are not eating. I think at one point someone said they don't eat turnips. We do know that if it's not cod, they are consuming food that cod would consume.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I can refer to what's happened in British Columbia, my own province, with ungulate species and wolf populations. Wolf populations have been allowed to expand out of control, basically, and because the habitat has changed, the prey species are different. We now have serious problems with ungulate species—mountain caribou is one example—where wolves have switched over from feeding on white-tailed deer and moose to feeding on caribou, because that's all that's left.

Is the same thing happening with seals and cod? You say absolutely? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

After the next question, we'll seek unanimous consent for the extra witness.

Mr. Johns, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you for your passion and your commitment to doing this right because, as the minister said, this is probably our last chance.

I come from coastal British Columbia, Minister Cocker. You talked about how a lot of the processing is going offshore and going to China. In British Columbia, we've seen canneries closing. We're shipping our fish to China to get it filleted and then it comes back to our supermarket shelves. That's what's happening at home. It's pretty scary to see that.

Mr. Efford, you talked about the principle of adjacency. I couldn't agree more. I think we need to go to that.

Would you elaborate and maybe cite some models of adjacency, how we can get there, and what's needed to get there?

[John Efford]

The principle of adjacency was adopted by the federal Liberal Party at the last convention. “Adjacency” means involving those people who are adjacent or closest—if you want to use the word “closest”—to the stocks. They've just made a decision on shrimp. The shrimp stock is in trouble in certain areas, and they had to make some major changes. The changes they made were based on the principle of adjacency.

The principle of adjacency gives the Newfoundland and Labrador people the right to have the first opportunity to harvest the fish. The factory freezer trawlers get the last. Factory freezer trawlers are one of the main reasons we are here today. If you have a small 80-foot boat coming into Port de Grave or anywhere in Newfoundland, it has nothing in the holds of the boat at all, and it is not allowed to catch the fish, but the factory freezer trawlers are steaming in with a million and a half pounds aboard.

The principle of adjacency is where the first opportunity goes to the local people, and after that, we'll decide.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Minister Crocker, you talked about the 20 new scientists that have been hired. What's needed? Obviously, 20 isn't enough, and I can't imagine it would be to get you to what you need.

You talked about an annual review and assessment of the stocks. Can you give us an idea of what kind of staff and resources are needed for us to do this right?

[Steve Crocker]

I believe the staff and resources are there now; the staffing increase at the local DFO is in the last three to four months. But we need a commitment to science, a commitment to a full stock assessment every year, at least until we get to a point that we know where we're to, because right now there are indications.... I think our growth rate has been somewhere around 30%, but we need to monitor it.

We see other science issues. There's an issue around capelin. One of the main foods for cod is capelin. It's very important that we understand that fishery, or that species, as well as we go forward.

Among the major challenges we're having in the fishery and this imbalance is one in regard to the cod returning. It's been proven many times by harvesters in this province when cod return. Right now, cod are having a detrimental effect on shrimp and crab. It's nothing unusual to see a fisherman post a picture in which a cod's belly is full of shrimp and, unfortunately, full of small female snow crabs. We have to make sure there's not an imbalance in the ecosystem. Science has to play a major role in doing that and in listening to harvesters as well: these people are on the front lines. In many cases, we're not opening up a dialogue with harvesters, with the people who are on the front lines.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Great.

Go ahead, Mr. Efford.

[John Efford]

I have to ask one question, and I think this is the key to the whole meeting this morning.

Three hundred thousand tonnes of fish is what science is saying is in the water. You people just gave us that information. I've read it many times. The one thing I've never seen, which I'll ask you to look for when you go back to Ottawa, is this: have you seen a scientific report that supports the point that there are 300,000 less or more cod? Is there a scientific report available that you've seen?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Lewis.

[David Lewis, Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador]

I have one point to add to the minister's comments on science. The minister, in his opening remarks, mentioned the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research, which was an institute that was set up at the marine institute by the provincial government to undertake science, and particularly science on northern cod, utilizing research scientists and graduate students at the university.

It has built a significant capacity at the university. It was using technologies that aren't being used on the coast here in Newfoundland—for example, acoustic surveying. The Norwegians and the Icelanders do multiple surveys in a year and also do acoustic surveys. That hadn't been done in the province here. The survey that DFO does generally is a groundfish trawl survey done each fall.

The science that the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research was able to contribute to the science being done by DFO—and it was in collaboration, to a large extent—certainly increased the knowledge base that the scientists collectively had on the northern cod stock. They did satellite tagging on cod. This was the first time in the world that cod had been tagged by satellite tags.

That gave a much better understanding of the migratory patterns of the fish. It was found that large fish, which the DFO surveys had not been finding, were actually inshore for longer and different periods of the year than had been the case prior to the moratorium. There is a lot of additional science.

Concerning the capelin, which the minister and Mr. Efford both mentioned, we do very little science on capelin. Capelin is absolutely critical to the viability of the cod stock. In Norway and Iceland, they do a tremendous amount of research on capelin, including acoustic surveys. The amount of science we do on capelin is very limited. I believe it's as important to know what the situation is in the capelin stock as to know what the situation is in the cod stock.