Fisheries Committee on Oct. 5th, 2016

[Andrew Bouzan]

For size at least, as well as numbers.

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

Great, thanks.

Can I have a very quick answer from you, Ms. Fuller, if possible?

Do you support this food fishery?

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes, we do.

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

Okay, great. I really appreciate that.

My time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Arnold.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for being available today for the video conference.

I have a quick question for Mr. Bouzan, and then I'll pass it on to Mr. Doherty for any questions.

Could you give us any idea of the economic value of the food fishery? We heard earlier testimony from the commercial sector that the only portion they knew of was from the value of the food on the plate. What is spent on gear, on boats, on vehicles? Is there a significant impact or economic benefit from that, and where is that benefit seen? Is it in the small communities or in the bigger centres?

[Andrew Bouzan]

The economic input into the food fisheries is tremendous.

The amount of money goes into fishing gears.... I think it's mainly for boats—of course, fibreglass boats—rods and reels from local shops, near and far across the province. Then you have all of the different types of smaller communities, and ports and docks, that people are involved in. Restaurants get involved with that as well.

To put a price on the food itself.... It's a necessity, Mr. Arnold. In this province, to have money generated back into the local economy, into these activities, is paramount. I mean, I'm sure it stretches near and far all across the entire country. The benefits that come with activities such as this are in the billions all across the country.

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

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Fuller, you mentioned recovery rates and so on.

I believe you said you felt we're not at the stage yet where the fishery could be fully re-established. What science would you recommend using? What level would you say we need to get to before we can reinstate this fishery?

[Susanna Fuller]

I think first we have to establish an upper stock reference point. That would be very helpful.

I think right now that the target has been to get to the limit reference point, which is usually the lowest reference point for the stock. We're about 35% of that now. I would say we should be at least two times the limit reference point, or 50% of the way towards the upper stock reference point, with an idea of what the stock recovery trajectory is, before we consider any full-blown commercial fishery.

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

You're recommending a target range.

I'm familiar with some of the wildlife management in British Columbia, and it's possibly been overcautious, to the detriment of opportunity and species imbalance.

Would you recommend a target range that we could aim at, and not a minimum or maximum strict level?

[Susanna Fuller]

Yes.

I mean, that's what the precautionary approach framework does. It provides a target range. That's exactly how it rises: critical zone, cautious zone, and healthy zone. Again, I think we need to get to the cautious zone, which is a range. That's the risk-based approach of precautionary framework. This is different than just wildlife management. This is fisheries.

Again, I think we have the opportunity to get it right. I think how we open up that commercial fishery is very important. Who does it? What gear type? What size of boats? How we're monitoring it is important as well. It's thinking about, then, what the predator-prey reactions are, and what the forage fisheries management is. I'm sure you have probably heard a fair amount about the concerns with the capelin stocks and the link to cod recovery.

Fisheries is a wicked problem. We already have a target range, and that's the basis of the precautionary framework.

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

Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead.

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

I have a question for Ms. Fuller.

We talked a lot, and heard passionate testimony in all of our meetings, about folks who make their life in fishing. They depend on fishing to feed their families and feed their communities. We heard testimony yesterday that science, and science alone, should make the determination of whether or not we open up the fishery.

Do you think there should be a hybrid where we're actually talking with our fishers and harvesters, having them at the table, and working with the scientists in making these decisions?

[Susanna Fuller]

I do. I think our failure to include fishermen was part of the failure of northern cod in the first place. I think we need to look at adaptive management. I do think science is absolutely a big input. We have to consider socio-economics. Typically we've considered socio-economics in a way that doesn't necessarily benefit the communities. We haven't included the benefit of the food fishery. We haven't looked at livelihood. We've looked at net revenue. We've made this mistake by allowing, by paying for, giant trawlers, called “banker boats”, off Newfoundland that have destroyed this fishery.

You know, we don't have to do that again. I think that's a huge consideration. Who fishes matters, how we fish matters, and how much we fish matters. I think you should take those into consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Ms. Fuller. I appreciate that. I have to move on from there. My apologies.

Mr. Donnelly, you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for talking to the committee about this important subject.

Mr. Bouzan, perhaps I could start with you. Does your organization support a legislated rebuilding plan for northern cod?

[Andrew Bouzan]

We'd have to see the fine print for that, of course, from a legal point of view and a definition point of view with regard to the fine wording of it. I'm pretty sure a lot of people in the legal world know that what's on paper can be interpreted in many different ways by many different people. It would have to be very concise and it would have to be exactly as is, with no misinterpretation of what the reading of it would be. We'd certainly be open to looking into it, but....

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

In terms of the level of cod right now, do you feel it's at a point where a commercial fishery makes sense?

[Andrew Bouzan]

With regard to a commercial fishery, that's a hard question to answer. No one truly governs the ocean, Mr. Donnelly. I'm sure we all know that. The state of the oceans today, near and far across the world, is that 95% of our big fish of the sea are gone. Stocks of all sorts, near and far in the world, are declining.

In terms of the scale of a commercial fishery in this day and age, I don't foresee it opening any time soon on any big scale. We do have a small-scale commercial fishery, of course, in this province, but I don't foresee the board members of my federation voting to open that up for a wide range of extra fishing any time soon. We represent the people of the province, and especially the food fishers of the province. We're not looking to make money off this. We're looking to put food on the table.

That's pretty much the bottom line of who we represent and who we are with regard to the cod food fishery.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Fuller, you gave us four recommendations, I think.

[Susanna Fuller]

There are five, but the Fisheries Act one has three parts to it.

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

Okay.

Have you submitted those in writing to the committee?

[Susanna Fuller]

I will do that as soon as I'm finished.

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

If you could do that, I think it would be very helpful.

[Susanna Fuller]

I will email them as soon as I'm finished.