Fisheries Committee on Sept. 26th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is our first field trip for the committee.

We have a couple of things to clear up, committee, before we move on to our witnesses. We made an agreement before we left that we had a witness list, but it wasn't an exhaustive witness list. We decided that if somebody wanted to be a witness, we would invite them to speak to us, but we'd do it with unanimous consent, so I'll be seeking that in just a few moments.

What we're going to do is add another hour, given that we now have three people who want to appear in front of us who we didn't have before. On the original schedule, we were scheduled to finish at 4:15. We're now going to finish at five o'clock, and we will have three witnesses.

On the three witnesses in question, the three of them are appearing as individuals. I'm going to seek unanimous consent on each of them. The first one we have is former member of Parliament and former member of this committee, Mr. Ryan Cleary. Can I receive unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Jason Sullivan will be the next witness. The original one, Mr. Gillett, was unable to make it, but Mr. Sullivan has also asked to appear. It's a last-minute addition. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Finally, we have a man who is no stranger to this committee: Mr. Gus Etchegary. Do I have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Those three witnesses will appear from 4:15 to five o'clock.

Mr. Doherty.

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

Mr. Chair, for the information of the committee, I would ask if it's possible to get the bios for the three new witnesses, please, prior to their testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I know Ryan is here, and I think Mr. Etchegary is here as well.

If you want to supply us with a short bio of yourselves, that would be great, and we'll say before four o'clock or as soon as you can.

That's a good point, Mr. Doherty.

Thank you, folks.

Let's get started. We're running a bit late, but as you can see, we have four esteemed witnesses in front of us to start this off.

I want to start by saying that the study in and of itself in the motion put forward by Mr. McDonald is this:

That the Committee commence a study of the Northern Cod Stock and its relevance to associated species. This study would evaluate the replenishment of the stock and what other species are affected by it in the region. The study would also look at sustainable harvesting technologies for the future of the cod fishery; and that the Committee report its conclusions to the House.

This is why we are here today.

We have our first group of witnesses. First of all, we have the Honourable David Wells, Senator David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.

It's good to see you again, Senator Wells.

We also have with us the former provincial fisheries minister and federal natural resources minister, the Honourable John Efford, and the current fisheries and aquaculture minister, Steve Crocker, from the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods.

It seems you're pretty busy these days, Mr. Crocker.

Also from the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods, we have the deputy minister, David Lewis.

We're going to supply you with 10 minutes each. You don't have to use the whole 10 minutes, of course.

We're going to start with you, Senator Wells. You have the floor.

[David Mark Wells, Senator, Newfoundland and Labrador, C]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, members of the House of Commons, for inviting me and welcoming me here today.

I don't know what background you were given for me, but I'll give a short bio of my background in the fisheries. I started in 1979 in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. My first job was driving a forklift on a wharf. In the 36 years after that, I've done a number of things. I've managed fish plants. I've written over 100 reports, including policy and technical reports for clients. I was a member of Canada's NAFO team at the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization; I was a delegate on that team for a number of years. I was a senior policy adviser to the federal fisheries minister and chief of staff to another federal fisheries minister, and I also sat for a couple of years on the Senate fisheries committee. My background is varied and quite extensive in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery and, indeed, in the Canadian and international fishery.

I could spend all day talking about the fishery, but there are a couple of specific things that I think are important and that the committee should consider in their deliberations. The first one is the markets for groundfish. If there is indeed a return of groundfish as a primary species for Newfoundland and Labrador, I think it's important that the committee members recognize that this is not the cod fishery of old, where cod was king. Cod now competes strongly—and in fact is losing in that competition—with other whitefish species like tilapia, pollock, and haddock. For the most part, cod as the primary centre of the plaice species has lost that place. I think that's important to recognize. There's a new paradigm in the marketplace.

Second, there's the different business model that's presented. In the past, you had many hundreds of groundfish plants and many hundreds of landing stations. You no longer have that since the moratorium in the early 1990s. That whole system has collapsed and was removed and replaced by a different paradigm, that of the primary species and shellfish, primarily shrimp and crab. I think that has to be considered as well when the question arises of what happens to the emerging fishery of groundfish, of cod specifically, but other groundfish as well.

The third thing that I think you should give some consideration to is the recreation of the Newfoundland and Labrador cod fishery. As I said in my initial point, it's a different place. We have fewer harvesters. We have an older workforce in the processing sector. The number that was used a couple of years ago for the average age of a fish-processing worker was 56 years. That was a couple of years ago, and you don't have the young people coming into the processing sector like you once had. This will naturally lead to more mechanization, and that changes the paradigm of the processing sector.

There are also restrictions on entry into the fishery with fishing licences, and for those who have licences, restrictions on access to other stocks. That's something I think should be considered. I've mentioned, of course, the number and locations of landing sites and processing sites. The quality degrades significantly the more you truck fish from a landing site to a processing site. I think the most important thing to do is to get the raw material into processing, wherever that is, as quickly as possible.

The last thing I want to mention is the management of the industry. Right now, we have a situation whereby the harvesting sector is managed by the federal government, under federal jurisdiction, while the processing sector—or as soon as the product lands at the wharf—is under the management of the provincial jurisdiction. I think there's a huge wall between those two. It's hard, and in fact almost impossible, to have an integrated industry when you have two jurisdictions managing two critical aspects of the fishery. I might have some comments on that afterwards if people are interested in that.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Senator Wells.

We're now going to Mr. John Efford, please, for 10 minutes.

[John Efford, As an Individual]

I'll try to keep it to 10 minutes.

First of all, welcome to the beautiful Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'll begin in this way: you're going to hear me speak in a different language—and I mean that sincerely—with passion.

I was born in Port de Grave, one of the largest fishing communities on the island of Newfoundland and in Labrador. I grew up into fishing with my own father. Actually, my son is in fishing today, so I've been very close to it.

What I'm amazed at.... I didn't plan any written words this morning. I wanted see what the feeling was around the table and talk to some different people. Ken gave me an opening with his recommendation, his proposal, to do a study in the fishery to see what the cod stocks are like and what the harvesting should be for the future or whatever.

Can you imagine? We closed the fishery. We were part of the closure of the fishery by the federal and provincial governments in 1992. Norway had a closure at the same time for three years, and their stocks were back and they were back fishing commercially, but in 1992 we closed the fishery, and now we're going to recommend to do some studying.

I'm not condemning this, Ken, because it's a good idea, if it wasn't done, but just to think that it's not done, in this day and age, gives me one question that I want to ask you people, as the representatives from Ottawa. What is the role of DFO in the harvesting sector if 25 years later we still don't have any solid scientific information on the cod stocks? That in itself leaves a major question unanswered.

I've said many times that we were blessed with the oil industry, but the oil industry bears no comparison to the fishing industry if it's managed right. It's a renewable resource; it will be there forever and ever if—again, the word “if”—we manage it right.

I look at what's happening, and I have meetings with ministers and meetings with individuals, and I walk away shaking my head. My God, where are we headed down the road? If any other country in the world or any other province in Canada had the resources that Newfoundland and Labrador has in its ocean, we would be floating on air all the time, and here we are today, arguing with each other over what to do next. We're making recommendations and we don't know what the outcome is.

The question has to be answered: what is the role of DFO?

If you go down to the DFO building right now, you're lucky if you get to see somebody for eons. The staff is not down there anymore in any numbers. From what I understand, most of the work being asked for or being done, which is nothing compared with what needs to be done, is done through the union. The union's job is not research. The union's job is to protect the fishermen, but that's not happening.

We have two frustrations going on in the one area: we don't know the science, and we don't know what the role of DFO is.

Here's the other thing that really concerns me. I always thought that people living on an island out in the north Atlantic, as we are, who have the resources around.... How could we would be left in this position of asking this question today? First of all, who is responsible for the fishery, but then who gets the right to catch it? Keep in mind that we know very well that in 1992 prior to the moratorium the small boats did not destroy the cod fishery. They did not cause the closure of the cod fishery, because they can only fish a certain number of months each year, and the type of boats and the type of gear they have restricts them from doing any major damage to such a large resource, when there's 800 million tonnes of cod or whatever the numbers are. So there goes that question.

Now we're back wanting to get into the fishery and the people on those small boats can't get the right to go fishing. They are restricted from catching cod because they don't know whether if the cod is out there to catch or not. We're restricted from fishing in our own area because we didn't have a history in any particular fishery, but I thought that everybody understood that the principle of adjacency should be working. If the principle of adjacency is working, then the first people to get the chance to go back into the fishing industry are those people who operate the small boats.

For example, I know of a fleet. In fact, as you go to Port de Grave tomorrow, which I understand you going to be, you're going to see boats that have been tied up to the wharf since the middle of July, with no fishing rights whatsoever. They have all the gear. They have all the trawls. They are not looking for or asking for money. They just want a quota of fish. Yet the factory freezer trawlers are steaming into the community of Bay Roberts with a million and a half pounds of turbot aboard, or a million and a half pounds of some other species of fish, and the small boats in Port de Grave—the 65-foot boats and so on—are tied up to the wharf and not moving whatsoever. I wonder why, and I wonder what's going to happen.

How do we get a start on the future? After 25 years, how do we possibly start over and begin now to do a complete scientific study to just tell us what happened? If we don't already know, then I wouldn't want to be the person who goes out onto the street and tells the people that we have to start over again. With the new gear, all we have to do is to go Iceland or Norway. We know what type of gear should be used: hook-and-line gear.

We opened up the fishery this year, after all these years, and the first thing we put into the water was gillnets. That's the worst darn thing you could possibly do. We have to get markets, and the only way we're going to get markets for our products is to have quality. You will never get quality in gillnets. With hook-and-line, auto trawls, and other ways of catching fish, why would you want to put gillnets back into the water after all these years? Every week when you turn on the radio or the TV they're talking about a marketplace. There's no market for our cod and no market for our groundfish. No wonder, if we're going to handle fish like that and expect people to pay top dollar.

They say there's no price for cod. I go down to Florida in the winter months. The cheapest cod I can buy in Florida is $11 per pound. The most a fisherman can get for a pound of cod here in Newfoundland is 50¢ or 60¢. It's absolutely ludicrous to have that happen.

There's a reason I told you about the passion. This morning, I didn't expect to hear this. I expected to hear some good news that we had some signs—probably not enough—that would give us a level of comfort to start fishing. No way. I expected that we would have a quality assurance program put in place federally and provincially. Not done. If it was done, we wouldn't allow the gillnets to go into the water. If you catch fish with open line, you're catching a top-quality product. We were out yesterday with my son. He took a cod pot. In the cod pot, the fish were swimming around. That's quality. That's the type of thing that needs to be done, and we don't need to go all over the world and study it again.

It's no good asking for half a dozen things this morning. I'd rather ask for one or two things and get something done. When you people go back to Ottawa, you need to get the message through to the Minister of Fisheries that he needs to take charge of the ship. He needs to be captain of that ship. He needs to listen to people, and he needs to make decisions on exactly what needs to be done, and it's not complicated. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to find out how to get a quality product or to find out how much fish is out in the ocean. As we used to say, you can't put a rubber bag over your head and get down and count it. You have to base it on science, and if we don't have the science now, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, we need to get attention paid to those couple of things. Also, we don't need to have the boats tied up. We need the boats out there doing the actual harvesting in a small way to give us an idea of how much is out there. We know. We know the quantity of stock—the quantity, but not the quality—that's out there in groundfish. We're not talking just about cod.

Please take the message back to Ottawa. We should be ashamed of ourselves if we don't have enough science done. We should be ashamed of ourselves if now, today, after all this time, we still have to use gillnets for the fishery of the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Efford.

Minister Crocker, please. You have 10 minutes.

[Steve Crocker, Minister, Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, to you and to the committee for the opportunity to be here this morning.

Thank you to MP McDonald for suggesting this as a topic for your committee. It's a very important topic for our province as we move forward. I'll do my best not to go over the points that Senator Wells and Mr. Efford raised earlier so that we have more time for questions.

As we're all aware, the northern cod stock stretches across the northern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador from the Grand Banks to the south of Labrador. The collapse of northern cod was the biggest layoff in Canadian history. It is generally acknowledged that there were several reasons for that collapse. Overfishing, environmental changes, and poor management all played a role. While it is important to learn this in history, we're not here to dwell on the past this morning.

Today, as stocks are built, we have an opportunity for a renewed groundfish fishery with northern cod once again in the forefront. It is extremely important that we rebuild this fishery in a sustainable manner for our fish harvesters, processors, workers, and coastal communities. As we work to achieve economic and environmental sustainability, we must also seek to achieve social sustainability.

As the lucrative snow crab and shrimp stocks decline, we must ensure that our cod fishery emerges as an economic and viable fishery, and we must optimize the value of the resource to all stakeholders.

As we move forward, we must do so with a northern cod rebuilding plan that allows for continued growth of the stock and the rebuilding of the cod industry. Today, management plans require these elements in order for fisheries to achieve market certification, including marine stewardship certification, and I'll speak to that more a little later.

I believe it's also important that we take an enhanced ecosystem approach to the management of northern cod.

While management of the entire marine ecosystem is virtually impossible, we can better integrate the management of improved forage species such as capelin with our management objective for cod. We can also consider the impact of competitors and predators such as seals in the management of cod as we go forward.

In order to do this, we must have guidance from the science community. With the federal government's renewed commitment to and investment in science, it is important that this new investment find its way to Newfoundland and Labrador through DFO. To go back to Mr. Efford's point, science is an integral part of where we have to go with the fishery in the future.

Our government is committed to working with the industry and developing markets for a revitalized cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. One key approach is to promote and support opportunities to enhance market access and to continue to focus on maintaining top quality, from initial harvest through to final market preparation.

Cod is still one of the most important species in the global seafood market. However, market dynamics have changed considerably since Newfoundland and Labrador was a major player in the cod industry in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, the largest players in Atlantic cod fishery are Norway, Russia, and Iceland, which account for more than 80%—more than one million tonnes—of global supply.

There are also millions of tonnes of other substituted whitefish species, both wild and farmed. It is important to recognize that Newfoundland and Labrador has an extremely small share of today's global market. In 2015 our province exported just over 1,100 tonnes of cod fillets, or .0036% of the world total. The large volumes of H and G cod on the world market in recent years has resulted in huge growth in twice-frozen fillets and blocks, primarily processed in China, which are dominating global cod markets.

The largest markets for cod are fresh and frozen fillets in the United States, frozen fillets in the United Kingdom, and salted cod in Portugal. Currently, the Newfoundland and Labrador cod fishery primarily produces single frozen fillets that are portions in the form of tails and loins.

If our industry does not produce and sell high-value cod product, it will be difficult for us to compete with high-quality producing countries such as Iceland and Norway. More importantly, we have to avoid the volume-driven commodity market dominated by China and other countries that are able to produce low-cost product.

The marketing challenges our industry faces with respect to transitioning back to cod include logistics of transportation of fish off island, i.e., fresh cod fillets. Today in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a problem getting product, whether it's fresh salmon, milk, or livestock, on and off our island, due to simple logistical issues with Marine Atlantic. If we're going to have a successful cod fishery in the future, one of the things that has to be considered when we talk about accessing fresh markets in the U.S. with cod is Marine Atlantic. That is a problem that we will need to address. Our challenges also are to position ourselves to compete globally, to market and produce a consistent supply, and to produce and maintain a consistent quality throughout the supply chain.

Sustainability is key when it comes to market access. Today, all major cod, pollock, haddock, and most flatfish fisheries are MSC-certified, and that again will be a very important factor as we move forward in the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We must also recognize that our industry needs time to transition from shellfish back to groundfish. This will not happen overnight, and it will require governments on both levels—federal and provincial—to work with harvesters, processors, and all industry stakeholders to ensure that the necessary attention and financing are there so that harvesters have an opportunity to transition back into the fishery that Mr. Efford spoke about a few moments ago when you look at technologies.

For example, for a harvester today to move into a hook-and-line system for a 65-foot vessel requires an investment of about $150,000. This investment is not easy to come by as you transition into a fishery, so it's important that all levels of government look at ways in which we may be able to help harvesters in the future when it comes to that transition and the significant financial value that it will bring.

This fall, our government will establish a fisheries advisory council that will be immediately tasked with developing an action plan on cod revitalization. We are pleased that the federal government will participate in the fisheries advisory council once it is established.

The importance of coordination between the federal and provincial policies to support the cod sector, particularly during the industry transition, can't be overstated. It is imperative that we work together to optimize the value from the limited resources that are harvested and processed. We believe strongly that fisheries management decisions, such as the setting of TACs, should be based on scientific evidence in order to protect against the over-exploitation of resources and allow long-term sustainability in the fishery.

In closing, I believe the only way to truly achieve our collective objective regarding the northern cod fishery is by all parties working together. Again, both levels of government have an important role to play in management and regulation to ensure that we have a well-managed fishery providing a high-quality product to the world. Governments can only be successful in implementing these necessary measures through discussion and dialogue with the industry.

Also, going back to what was said by Senator Wells and Mr. Efford this morning, I think another thing is to dialogue. We need to continue the dialogue. It's really good to see that this is a part of that process today, but it needs to continue, and not just in meetings like this. When meetings like this or meetings with ministers and other officials end, we need to carry the message forward and continue to work on it.

Our department of fisheries in this province is certainly prepared to engage in that discussion with all parties. We're quite ready to do so. Quite honestly, in this province, we cannot afford to have a fishery of the future that's not well planned and well managed. I feel that this is really our last chance at a good northern cod fishery in this province, and we have to make sure we do it right.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Minister Crocker.

Mr. Lewis, would you like to weigh in at this point or during questions?

Okay. One of the things Minister Crocker mentioned was MSC certification. Just to clarify, “MSC” is the Marine Stewardship Council, and you can find out about them at msc.org.

Thank you very much, folks. Now we get into the question rounds. We're going to go to the government side first and have seven minutes of questions. I'm going to be strict on the questions. I will be flexible on the answers. If you exceed seven minutes, there is flexibility built in. We're not here to be that strict.

Now we'll have seven minutes from the Conservative side.

Mr. Doherty, do you have a comment?

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

Mr. Chair, prior to getting into the questions, I wonder if it's possible to have a copy of Mr. Crocker's speaking points? He had some great information but was speaking a little too fast for me to actually write down some of the things. I understand that we have an English copy. I wonder if we can get a copy of it so we can ask questions pertaining to his testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Yes, as per the Standing Orders of the committee and the rules, of course, if we distribute any publication whatsoever—anything—we need to have it in both languages. We don't have a third translation service and—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

—I apologize. We'll see how this goes along. In order to distribute his comments—they're only in English—we need to have unanimous consent, so I will seek it. I actually have two items, so I'm glad you brought it up. We have Mr. Crocker's comments, plus we have a potential witness who has just requested to speak, and I'd like to distribute a short bio on her before we vote on allowing her to speak as a witness today.

That being said, do I have unanimous consent? All in favour of this distribution?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

We're good to go. We'll distribute that, plus the bio I mentioned. We'll take that after the questions.

Mr. McDonald, I understand you're going to start. You have seven minutes.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to be here this morning.

Before I start with the first question, I will provide a bit of information.

Mr. Efford asked a couple of questions with regard to the science and where the biomass is right now, and why we don't know. Actually, Mr. Efford, for your information, DFO officials and scientists appeared before the committee last week in Ottawa, and the biomass right now is estimated at approximately 300,000, which is still well below where they would like to see it. It's still rated as being in the critical zone, and I think it's probably in the next year that they will do a full stock assessment again, which will give new numbers for that. I think they were probably providing us with 2015 numbers at that time.

I'll start off with a question for you, Minister Crocker. Basically, how does the province see the northern cod fishery of the future?

[Steve Crocker]

Thank you, Mr. McDonald.

First of all, I apologize for speaking fast, but John tells me he understood it.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Steve Crocker]

It's hard when you have 10 minutes and you really have a lot to say. You cram it all in there.