Evidence of meeting #23 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fishery.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Mark Wells  Senator, Newfoundland and Labrador, C
John Efford  As an Individual
Steve Crocker  Minister, Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
David Lewis  Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
Derek Butler  Executive Director, Association of Seafood Producers
Alberto Wareham  President and Chief Executive Officer, Icewater Seafoods Inc.
Keith Sullivan  President, Fish, Food and Allied Workers
Kimberly Orren  Project Manager, Fishing for Success
Tony Doyle  As an Individual
Anthony Cobb  Board Member and President of Fogo Island Fish, Shorefast Foundation
Mervin Wiseman  As an Individual
Bettina Saier  Vice-President, Oceans, World Wildlife Fund-Canada
Pierre Pepin  Senior Research Scientist, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Ryan Cleary  As an Individual
Jason Sullivan  As an Individual
Gus Etchegary  As an Individual

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Thank you.

You guys are certainly keeping us awake, no problem. Your passion is incredible and I want to thank you for sharing all of your local knowledge as well.

Mr. Etchegary, I really appreciate your sharing the history of what's happened and how Canada has failed the people of Newfoundland. I want to hear more from you, because without the history, without your sharing that knowledge, we're going to make the same mistakes again. I want to hear from you now, moving forward, about what you'd like to see and how you'd like to see us move forward.

4:50 p.m.

As an Individual

Gus Etchegary

The unfortunate thing is that the moratorium is 25 years old. There was some recovery on the St. Pierre Bank off the southern coast of Newfoundland, a very important bank, with a tremendous fishery, actually—yielded about 80,000 to 90,000 tonnes a year.

There was a slight recovery, maybe 10 years ago, and DFO made the big mistake of reopening the fishery when the base of the fishery, in terms of year class—one-, two-, three-, four-, five-, six-year-old fishery—was not there. They opened it up with a 20,000 tonne quota, and only one and a half years later had to reduce it to 8,000 tonnes because the scientists doing a little work on it saw the thing on the way down again.

Now that fishery, which had been historically 75,000 to 80,000 tonnes, today is.... Some scientists, in universities particularly, are saying it should be on the endangered list. This is one of the most important cod stocks we have. We haven't learned anything. This thing has happened over a long period of time. If you look at any of the graphs the scientists have produced, you can see the impact of overfishing and going down...for example, some people are talking about 300,000 tonnes in northern cod at the present time.

In 1962, the spawning stock in that cod was two million tonnes. The spawning stock was under seven years. In addition to the two million tonnes, there was a fishery that was over seven years old, and that was estimated to be something in the order of a million tonnes. Today it's 300,000 tonnes, allegedly. Again, some of the fishermen are questioning that, and I don't blame them.

We're not doing any science. We're not doing the work. There's no science. Therefore, in the longer term.... The economy of this province is going to be based on the success or failure of the fishery in this province in the years to come.

Oil is not renewable. Minerals.... I come from a mining town; I know. Mining is non-renewable, but the fishery is renewable. Here we have the potential for one of the largest fisheries in the world. The population of the world is going from six billion or seven billion, up to 10 billion. The demand for fish is growing. I have contacts in the U.S. and Europe in marketing. There are two million tonnes of cod fillets alone sold in the U.S. annually. This friend of mine is someone who markets the Bering Sea cod, and he's selling 35 million pounds of cod.

For anybody to be talking about looking for markets.... It's not a question of looking for markets; the markets are there. It's a question of good, solid fisheries management that produces good, solid, market-sized fish that are firm, good quality, and can be produced as fish nuggets, fish loins, fish tails, and a variety of packages that the food industry, either retail or food service, has taken from us for years and years.

Once upon a time we were a main competitor for Iceland and Norway. As a participant in marketing, I can tell you there were times we sat down and beat out the Icelanders and the Norwegians on contracts with universities. I remember one distinctly with UCLA, in California, with 80,000 students on campus. They wanted a particular product. They gave us all an option to provide it. We spent a year, had machines built, produced cod lines, and got the contract, at 20 cents over the market, as a result of it.

All that's gone, because in the process of this going downhill, from 1965 to 1971, the size of cod as documented by Department of Fisheries officials in production plants went down from an average of 4 pounds to 2.2 pounds. The catch at sea for a 100-foot trawler, a side trawler in those days, went down from 2,000 pounds a fishing hour to 880 pounds. That's the story of the Newfoundland fishery.

A change has to come, and a change has to come by rebuilding our scientific capability, beginning now. A large body of fisheries of various species and so on has to be properly assessed so people aren't guessing and arguing about whether it's 300 tonnes or 500 tonnes or whatever. That's the job of DFO, not WWF. It's the job of DFO. These are the ones that are responsible in Norway—the government—and in Iceland. They refused to join the common market. Why? To protect their fisheries.

I was invited, prior to the last vote taken in Norway, to make four or five speeches from Hammerfest in the north to Oslo in the south to give them our experience in Newfoundland. Not that my presentation had that much effect, but it was the last time that Norway voted not to join. Why? Because Spain, Portugal, Russia, and 20 other countries would converge on their fisheries and beat the hell out of them.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

I'm sure the conversation that you had with them had an effect.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

You'll have to leave it at that. Your seven minutes are up.

Mr. Finnigan.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks also to the panel and for the passion that we have here for our last panel discussion. I will start with Mr. Sullivan. I will get to Mr. Etchegary.

Mr. Sullivan, did you say you would like to have more quotas? We're talking about the stocks being down and also that, as DFO said—but Mr. Etchegary contradicted—the fish do not migrate that far. Apparently we're in a fishbowl here that we control, but according to DFO, the fish do not migrate outside it. How would you explain a higher quota when we're facing such a downturn in the catches?

4:55 p.m.

As an Individual

Jason Sullivan

How it works is that we get so much per week now. We don't know because we still haven't seen the proposal, but we'll assume it's a 20-week fishery. So, I'm allowed to have 3,000 pounds a week for 20 weeks. That's 60,000 pounds, but I have to catch so much per week. Do you understand?

Before, we used to have individual quotas, meaning I had my 60,000 pounds and I could catch that in one week if I had a sale for it with the merchant or whatever. That should be my prerogative. If I want to make a deal with you today that I can land my fish over a course of two weeks or one week, that should not be dictated to me by licence conditions or union policy. That's my freedom to try to negotiate and to try to make some money.

I'm not asking for more fish. It's just the way that it was allotted. They regulated me to say that it was no different than any other industry, like the milk industry or whatever. If there's that much money there, whether you catch it in one week or 20 weeks.... That's our problem with it, not being part of the process and not being consulted. I can't begin to tell you what a slap in the face it was.

I can tell you anything you need to know about current-day in Newfoundland. I moderate a Facebook group with over 1,300 people in it. That's where a lot of this backlash comes from, to be honest with you. If you want to know anything about the fishery in Newfoundland, I don't know anyone right now who knows more about it than me in terms of the different areas and everything else. If you want to know what happened and how we got in this mess, that man right there will tell you. He's not young. He's in his nineties and maybe God has him here for a reason, to tell you why and what's going on here. I'll guarantee you one thing: he knows what he's talking about. He knows why we're here and what needs to be changed so that it doesn't happen again.

When you were negotiating with CETA on this MPR stuff—getting rid of MPRs—that's a joke. MPRs are a joke, and they're provincial legislation and everything else. That has nothing to do with you guys. We'll battle the provincial government on that, but we should have gotten out of NAFO. That is what's taking our fish from us. We're not allowed to have it. You can read your graphs and do whatever.

You might have a question for Gus, so I'll let you have him.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB

Mr. Cleary, you said that DFO has missed...in science and management. Would that reflect the history and the past that Mr. Etchegary related, or do you have a different opinion as to how they missed the boat on that?

5 p.m.

As an Individual

Ryan Cleary

No, I don't have a different opinion. I have the same opinion. Mr. Etchegary wrote a book two or three years ago called Empty Nets: How Greed and Politics Wiped Out The World's Greatest Fishery. I lent a hand to write that book. It's his book. But, no, that's pretty much....

In terms of what happened, the history of northern cod to where we are today, I think that should be viewed as a Newfoundland and Labrador fishery bible of what happened.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Pat Finnigan Liberal Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB

Thank you.

Mr. Etchegary, I have a final question for you.

Where we're at today, short term, long term, do we flex our muscles to the international community? How much is in our hands to control? I would ask you that.

5 p.m.

As an Individual

Gus Etchegary

It's very difficult. The fact is that we still have an international fishery carried out on our doorstep, until and unless, either one or two things.... The government was reluctant, for trade reasons and other pressures I guess, to extend jurisdiction where they should have. We compromised, which probably we shouldn't have, and talked about “custodial management”, in other words making Canada manager of the fishery that's outside, allocating fish to foreigners on the basis of their historical performances of the past.

We tried everything with the last Prime Minister. Lo and behold, instead of giving us some kind of satisfaction in that respect, there's a meeting that takes place in Spain of NAFO and a delegation from the government and from industry goes and sits down at this meeting in Spain and agrees to amendments to the NAFO agreement that would provide them with the opportunity of re-entering the 200 miles. Then there was another condition in the article in the NAFO agreement that was called the “objection procedure”. In other words, any foreign country could overfish to any extent. They had something like 50 or 60 days to go back home and register an objection to being warned about it or an infraction or something like that. It went out the window because under NAFO, while the Canadian government can inspect the ships that are fishing outside, or if they do fish inside, and record infractions against the regulations for overfishing and so on, it's the flag state and the flag state only that can take any punitive measures against them. In the last 30 years, to my knowledge, there hasn't been one punitive measure taken against the violent overfishing that has taken place.

But I'm going to tell you, excuse me, just one minute, it's my last statement—

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Very briefly....

5:05 p.m.

As an Individual

Gus Etchegary

This is the last time probably I'll be before your committee, but let me say this to you. The last time I sat here it was with a bunch of people from Newfoundland who objected to the Canadian government putting in the NAFO agreement this loophole that would allow them re-entry inside 200 miles. We went to the House of Commons fisheries committee and to the Senate committee and we made our presentation to them. I have to say your predecessors were alarmed. We had experts on it. Incidentally, one of our advisers was a negotiator of Canadian fisheries at the UN. It was proven to them that this was really a serious matter. That was the House committee. We later met with the Senate committee, and both agreed that this was a serious matter.

You know what happened? They both pressured the House to have a four-hour debate, which they did, and then voted on these amendments, on whether they should be accepted or not. The House voted 147 to 142 against the amendments. Twenty-four hours later, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries contacted NAFO and ratified the amendments, so I wish you all the luck in the world.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Mr. Doherty is next for five minutes. Thank you.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

I want to say again, Mr. Sullivan, I'm going to speak from the heart. I have to tell you that oftentimes it is better than hearing from academics, or hearing from those who have other interests in this. I think it's better to hear right from those who are on the ground. I'm a boots and jeans type of guy anyway. I come from a forestry and farming family. I'm not too sure, but there may be only a handful, or I might be the only one, in caucus now who knows what it's like to get up at 2 a.m., to start a cold skidder and to run a chainsaw, as well. I'm a blue-collar guy. I understand your frustration and I do appreciate your testimony.

I'm going to go back to what we've heard time and time again over the course of the testimony of the value of the capelin in this whole fishery. Mr. Etchegary, I appreciate your honesty and your passion, but this is for the panel. If out of this study recommendations came up with respect to the capelin, would a moratorium on capelin be something that would be supported here so that we could build those stocks up again?

5:05 p.m.

As an Individual

Jason Sullivan

Anytime you hear the word “ moratorium”, you take a step back. If there were proper signs and it was shown that the fishery had to stop, there wouldn't be any opposition from fishermen. This is our livelihood. We don't want to destroy it. For the most part, you have some jaded individuals who have a couple of years left before they sell out and they don't care what happens, but most people are proud of what they have done and they want to see it continue. If that's the case...and I don't think it's in that dire condition, because a lot of times the capelin don't come ashore. They may stay offshore, and the bottom line is that no one has studied them to see that. If the recommendation came down and that was the case, then it's hard to argue with sound science.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Okay.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

Go ahead, you have two and a half minutes.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Okay, that's probably more than enough time. In the opinion of the three on the panel, would fisheries management of the capelin stocks be capable of manipulating those stocks to a stable level, or is that simply a matter of environmental conditions?

5:10 p.m.

As an Individual

Ryan Cleary

From my perspective, the most important thing that the members of this committee can walk away with—when you leave Newfoundland, when you leave St. John's, and Fogo, and Port de Grave—is the fact that DFO is not doing its job. The Government of Canada is not doing its job with management and science. The scientists are not there. The science is not being carried out. The ships aren't available to carry out the science. It's not being done.

It's been said that the most substantial change to fisheries management over the past 24 years since the northern cod moratorium came down was the elimination of the double-hook jigger.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Okay, I want to go back to my question, if we can. Are we capable of managing capelin, or is that an environmental—

5:10 p.m.

As an Individual

Ryan Cleary

I am answering your question by saying the science is not there to answer your question about capelin in the first place.

5:10 p.m.

As an Individual

Gus Etchegary

There is every evidence that the capelin stock is overfished, but that's not sufficient. The science capability should be there to determine that. Then if it's determined, as he says, then you do it. Why go out and satisfy a few Japanese people with the roe from capelin and kill thousands of male capelin that are useless to the process? That's a question that's never answered.

Mr. Chair, if I may, I gather we're at the end, are we?

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

We have one question to go with a few minutes left, so with permission, we're going to go to Mr. Johns.

Do you want to interject with something?

5:10 p.m.

As an Individual

Gus Etchegary

Yes, I just wanted just one sentence at the end, and that is this.

Unless and until fisheries management improves, until DFO carries out its mandate to rebuild a scientific capacity and manage the fisheries back to life, I think we're in real trouble, and I don't believe that under the present structure this will happen.

The Minister of Fisheries.... I'll give you an example—

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Scott Simms

You're about six sentences in now.