Fisheries Committee on Oct. 17th, 2016

[Vidar Landmark]

Yes, that's correct. For instance, mesh sizes in nets is an important issue here. It's not only about the technical regulation like mesh sizes and so on, but it is also about, as we touched upon a little bit earlier, protecting areas where the amount of real juveniles, to call them that, is too big and should be left alone. The theory is rather simple. It's better to fish one cod of eight kilograms than four cod of two kilograms. The four cod of two kilograms should be allowed to grow up and spawn a couple of seasons before you fish too many of them. Both the question of the quality of the fish and the question of stock management leads in the same direction: you should direct the fishery to the right year classes and the right sizes each and every year.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

Can we get some reflections from Iceland, please?

[Gudmundur Thordarson]

A juvenile in Iceland is caught younger than the age of four. There is no minimum landing size of cod, but if 25% of the catch is smaller than 55 centimetres, that's considered juvenile overfishing, or something like that. That's the definition of juvenile. A cod that is smaller than 55 centimetres is hardly considered worth taking.

I'd like to raise a point about what my Norwegian colleague was saying about having large cod, and that it's more valuable than a small cod. Our problem now is that we have so much large cod that it actually has a lower value than a medium-sized cod. They are actually starting to say that we have too many of the old ones; we need medium-sized because we get higher premiums for them.

It's not that simple. It's the same as with flatfish species. They're supposed to fit on a plate. If they are larger than that, they are not as valuable.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

[Vidar Landmark]

Let's agree on six to seven kilos then.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

That is a wonderful problem to have, when your fish are too large.

I'm going to break a bit with convention here. Given how stimulating and interesting the testimony is and given the rare opportunity we have to ask questions of witnesses from overseas, I'll throw the floor open to any member, if they have an extra question or a point of clarification, but keep it very short.

We have Mr. Arnold, and then Mr. Finnigan.

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

Can you manage the fisheries to protect the juveniles in season, or is that only able to be done on an annual basis?

Also, has there been any indication of disease or pathogens being the cause of the collapse in the past?

[Vidar Landmark]

From Norway, I think I would answer the first question with, yes, and the second question with, no, not as far as we know.

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

Okay.

[Gudmundur Thordarson]

It would be very similar in Iceland as well.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Water temperature in our part of the world has been identified by scientists as one of the main causes of a lot of species, including cod, salmon, and other species moving from our waters.

I think I've heard one of you, or maybe both of you say that was not measured. Does it mean that you don't believe that theory?

I'll leave that question at that.

[Gudmundur Thordarson]

I think, for Iceland, we have seen changes in temperature, but it has not really affected the area, open or closed for cod, like it has in the Barents Sea. I don't know the Canada case, but you have much colder water than we have. Cod grows slower in Canada than it does in Iceland. It probably is in a more difficult climate than it is in Iceland, or than probably in the south of the Barents Sea. That may very well be the case in Canada.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

One of my colleagues made a good point and I'd like to expand on it a little.

We've heard Iceland talk about the collapse and Norway talk about the collapse, and then of course, there's our collapse here.

How do you define “collapse”? We seem to have really had a much bigger decline than what you seemed to face. I'd like to know what you considered a collapse of the industry was.

[Gudmundur Thordarson]

For Iceland, I tried to backpedal out of that because it's not really a collapse. It was considered a collapse when we had been fishing 300,000 to 400,000 tonnes every year, when the advice was for 120,000 tonnes. That was considered a huge collapse and a huge blow to the industry. From that, it grew pretty quickly.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Norway?

[Vidar Landmark]

I also apologize for using the world “collapse”. Our cod stock in 1989-90 was declining but we were lucky enough to see it in time to do something about it. As I said, we had the same history with herring back in the 1970s. Then it took some 15 to 20 years before it recovered, so I understand for that it was a collapse.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

We'll go to Mr. Finnigan for a very short question.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I think I've read or seen somewhere that there is an aquaculture industry for cod, that you are starting to farm cod. I don't know whether that's right or not, but is that something you see in the future? What kind of success did you have with that, if it is an industry?

[Vidar Landmark]

In Norway, we spent quite a lot of money up until 2008 trying to develop aquaculture for cod, but we really didn't succeed, and then there came a financial crisis upon us, which led to a collapse in the prices for cod, which led to an eradication of the cod farming. After that, it hasn't recovered, and I would say there have been no serious attempts to take it up again.

In the future, there are certainly possibilities for cod farming, especially for a country like Norway, with a very big cod fishery and a very season-based activity. We take approximately two-thirds or three-quarters of our cod during the four or five months from January to April, and there should be room for cod farming delivery to the markets in the second half of the year. We are positive that sooner or later it will come back.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Thank you.

Given that we have come to the end of our questions, I was wondering whether our guests would like to give us a summary statement of some extra thoughts that we would benefit from, based on their experiences.

We'll start with Iceland.

[Gudmundur Thordarson]

It has been an honour to spend this time with you, and it has been informative.

As I said earlier, if you are starting to have cod back in Canada, go slowly, tread slowly, and base all decisions on scientific advice. It is not perfect, but this is the best you have.

Also, try to make an environment for the industry so that people can kind of see what the future holds for them, and that it's not going to be changed from year to year. Try to avoid too much political inference in the system.

It's also a real political question whether you have fisheries mainly for creating jobs, or whether you are making profit. In Iceland, it was decided to make profit. It had a lot of political ramifications, but today we have a really powerful fishing industry. It has resulted in quite dramatic social changes, but the end product is a vibrant fishery that is making profit, which is why we are actually fishing. On the Canadian cod, just go slowly.

I think that's what I have to say from my side.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Thank you.

Norway, go ahead.

[Vidar Landmark]

Thank you.

I would follow up what was just said from Iceland by saying that in the Norwegian fishery policy, we have tried to combine the two—an industry making money and an industry supplying jobs. We have a stronger rural policy element in our fisheries policy.

I think I would also take this opportunity to mention one more thing that we haven't touched upon, and that is the co-operation among management authorities, scientific bodies, and the fishing industry. In the development of our management policy, it has been very important to work together with the fishermen's organizations and with the scientists to be sure that we are working for what is best for the fishermen and not against the fishermen. Our experience has been that when the fishermen are allowed into the discussions with the scientists and with the management authorities, we are able to sort out the problems we have, setting the right quotas and fixing the right regulations for a good fishery.

The three party co-operation among authorities, scientists, and fishermen's organizations has been very important in developing a modern fishing policy in Norway.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I want to thank you very much for doing us the honour of spending some time with us. Your testimony was extraordinarily interesting and will be very useful as we write our report. I know I am speaking on behalf of all my colleagues when I say thank you so very much for a most informative testimony, and I am sure that much of your testimony will form a very big part of our final report.

Thank you so very much.

[Gudmundur Thordarson]

Thank you.