Fisheries Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2016

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

In Dr. Brattey's testimony at the last meeting here, he talked about the fishery developing over a hundred years or so, and he said it went up to 800,000 tonnes. I seem to recall 600,000 tonnes. Nevertheless, the maximum catch was quite significant.

Dr. Hutchings, earlier you talked about the 200,000 tonne figure as the early yield from that fishery from decades and decades ago, and in looking at Dr. Brattey's data, I thought it looked as if around 200,000 tonnes would be the maximum sustained yield once a full recovery is in place.

I'm not going to hold you to a number because I know how difficult that is, but is that in the ballpark of where you think we'll end up at some point?

[Dr. Jeffrey A. Hutchings]

Scientists don't like to be pinned down on these types of matters.

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

I know they don't. Politicians like it even less.

[Dr. Jeffrey A. Hutchings]

That said, you asked a question and you should get an answer.

If the conditions that exist today and the productivity of northern cod today persist into the foreseeable future, given that a catch of 200,000 tonnes was clearly sustainable from roughly the 1830s to the 1960s, I would say it is not out of the question to identify 200,000 tonnes as a target quota, as something we would like to achieve.

Again, we come back to this issue of a target, but I think there's a lot of historical and contemporary data that would say it's not out of the question.

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

That was as many equivocations as Sir Humphrey made on Yes Minister, but as a fisheries biologist myself, I am deeply sympathetic to your dilemma, given the uncertainty of the data.

I think my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Donnelly, you have seven minutes, please.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our guests, our witnesses, for being here and presenting excellent information.

Mr. Laughren, you emphasized a quality versus quantity fishery, and you feel the department doesn't have a real rebuilding plan for northern cod. You talked about the rebuilding targets and the upper reference point, etc. Then you gave us four main points and five very specific recommendations, which I think are excellent. They've been submitted here, so I hope this committee considers these five recommendations and includes those in our report, when we produce a report here and discuss recommendations and decide on them. I think these are very clear, and as I say, I hope they will be included. I certainly will be encouraging the committee to adopt these.

You're calling, obviously, for the department to engage in a rebuilding plan and have that included in the Fisheries Act. I'm wondering if there are other nations around the world that have experience with rebuilding plans. Can you talk to us a little bit about that and where Canada sits with such plans?

[Joshua Laughren]

Sure. First, I'll point to the FAO report, which we can send over to you. When they analyzed stocks that had been rebuilt, there were a few commonalities. In the majority of cases, the difference between stocks that were rebuilt and those that weren't was where there was a legal requirement mandating some rebuilding. That was a general overview.

Number two, certainly we know—as I'm sure most of the committee members do—that the Magnuson-Stevens act in the U.S. is very prescriptive in that regard, requiring that action be taken within a certain amount of time when overfishing is deemed to be occurring, and also requiring that rebuilding plans be put in place when stocks are deemed to be overfished and depleted.

The EU, through its common fisheries policy, also has commitments to rebuild. Right now, we are conducting a comparative analysis of countries around the world and what their legal requirements are for rebuilding, which will be completed shortly, and I hope to bring it to the committee when it reviews the Fisheries Act.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Sinclair, thank you for your overview. You said the next assessment is coming in 2020, but do you have an opinion? Do you think the northern cod population should be removed from the last endangered status designation?

[Alan Sinclair]

I think the recent indications of improvement are encouraging, but there is still a long way to go before this population is secure. The recent increases have been in less than one cod generation, which is roughly 10 to 12 years, so the increase has been over a short period of time. We really don't know how long it's going to persist and what's coming. I think it's a little early to redo it, but the option is always available. These assessments can be done on a quicker time scale, if people would like to see that. If there is significant new information that would require our committee to consider them again, that can be brought to our attention, and the process can be hastened. Normally, it takes about two years to get one of these reports done. This is a very large report, as you can imagine. We are in 2016. If there was a request today to have the cod redone, it might be ready in 2018, and it's going to happen in 2020 anyway.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

Dr. Hutchings, you gave us a historical overview that was quite helpful. One of the things you emphasized, which I think is really important, is that we should have the best available science, and that science should determine management decisions. I wonder if you could talk briefly about how you think we, or the department, could best ensure that science plays a key role in northern cod management.

[Dr. Jeffrey A. Hutchings]

I suppose the first thing to do would be to look at what has been done elsewhere—in other words, as I indicated in my opening remarks, what I would call best practices internationally. We have scientists in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States who have processes to establish these limit and target reference points based on science alone. I noted that—if I interpreted the remarks correctly—the department indicated that a harvest control rule would be established by an interaction between DFO and industry. That's perhaps reasonable, but of course industry is only one of the stakeholders in determining what a harvest control rule might look like.

I'm veering away slightly.

I guess my point is, to follow up on what Josh said, that other countries have been using science to a greater and greater extent, and I think this should give a lot of encouragement to government, to the department, to be consistent with what other countries are doing.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much.

Have you had a chance to look at Oceana's five recommendations?

[Dr. Jeffrey A. Hutchings]

I've just heard them, but they sound familiar.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay.

With the remaining few seconds I have, I'm going to go to Dr. Favaro for one last question about the scalability of the pots.

You've emphasized a value-added commercial fishery, with emphasis on quality over quantity. If we were to move up in terms of the amount of northern cod being fished, what would be the scalability of those pots, of that mechanism or fisheries technique you are proposing here?

[Dr. Brett Favaro]

When I say “scalable”, I mean that you can fish with one pot, you can fish with 25 pots, which is what we used for our study, and you can fish with more than that. For example, when they're fishing spot prawns in British Columbia, there are 500 pots on a boat. The action of fishing occurs while the gear is in the water, and what the fishermen are doing is they're putting it in the water, and they're coming back the next day and taking it out, but the fishing action is happening in the water. When I say “scalable”, I mean this isn't something that is only suitable for an artisanal small-scale fishery. It can work for that, but you can also imagine putting loads and loads of pots on a boat. I'm not advocating for wide-scale increases on fishing for cod, but this is one of the challenges of a conservation biologist. Everyone always says to me, “So, you're studying how to catch cod...”. This is the challenge, right? We're trying to find ways to do it with a lower impact. When I say “scalable”, again, I mean you can do it on a small scale or you can do it on a big scale.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay, thank you very much.

Before I go to Mr. Morrissey, I need a quick clarification. How long are those pots in the water?

[Dr. Brett Favaro]

We were using 24-hour soaks. I mentioned the storm problem with gillnets if you can't get out and haul the gillnets. With pots what we find is if there's a storm, then you can leave them out for two or three days. The fish are still fine when you bring them up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. Thank you.

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

My question is to Dr. Favaro.

Given the studies that you were doing on catch equipment, and given that the collapse of this fishery occurred so dramatically—when you look at the evidence that was given by DFO officials—literally within two to three years it dropped to a significant low. Nobody has pointed to any one area, I don't recall, in the evidence... Would you say that the catch methodology that was being utilized up until the moratorium was put in place had a significant impact?

[Dr. Brett Favaro]

There are two aspects to that. One is the direct impact of the fishing gear—for example, trawl nets on the sea floor—but there's also just the fact that when you lock yourself into a quantity-based fishery where you're getting low amounts for every kilo or pound of cod that you land, it necessitates huge landings. What it means is that you have a situation where, because you've built your fishery in this way, there has to be pressure to keep catches high or else nobody's going to make any money and you're going to lose your job.

I think there's the direct impact of the gear and there's also this issue of what it means economically to have gear that's not fetching the best quality you can get. I think those two worked in concert to cause problems.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

My question is to whoever would answer it, probably Dr. Hutchings.

In listening to commentary given by various witnesses before this committee, there's been a lot of focus put toward the scientifically credible process that must be undertaken and followed as you look at reopening this fishery. How much, in your opinion, should the process incorporate evidence or interaction from the primary producers, who are the people most affected by the collapse of the fishery and who will benefit most from the opening of the fishery? Could you comment on that?

[Dr. Jeffrey A. Hutchings]

I can.

I would suggest that what science can do in addressing any question is to provide advice to and provide analysis. As long as the results of that analysis are open and transparently communicated, and the science advice is made plain to decision-makers, to society, to fish processors, and to fishermen and so on, then you can evaluate what is then done with that science advice. In a broad sense, I think the credibility of incorporating science advice depends a great deal on the transparency of that advice.

I would argue that science should determine the limit and the target reference points for a fishery. The harvest control rule, which I haven't defined properly, is a control rule that governs the level of fishing pressure, or the level of fishing mortality, depending on whether the stock is close to the limit or close to the target. That rule can take on various forms, and ideally it is quantitative. That is where I think the fishing industry can come into play, and society can have a role in saying, “Okay, here's the limit and there's the target. How long do we want to reach that target? How long do we want to play things out?” In other words, there are decisions that can be made for which society has a role to impart information as to the speed with which a recovery plan or rebuilding is likely to take place. That is as long as everyone is cognisant of the pros and cons of having a big fishery now or maybe waiting a number of years for another fishery. I think that would be a valuable place where the industry could have a voice.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Have we been effective in establishing credibility with the fisher?

[Dr. Jeffrey A. Hutchings]

That's a tough question. It somewhat depends on who you speak to.