Good morning, committee. I would like to thank everyone for their time this morning.
My name is Jordan Nickerson. I was asked here today to discuss my stance on both marine protected areas and sensitive benthic areas in Canada's marine conservation strategy.
I would first like to take a minute to give everyone some background information about me and the company of my family, which I represent.
Our family business started in 1988; however, our family roots as fishmongers started well before then in a small community called Woods Harbour, tucked away in southwest Nova Scotia. Three brothers came together and built a business buying lobsters and groundfish from independent inshore fishermen, creating a quality product to ship worldwide and developing quality business relationships with customers who are still with us today.
Over the years we have seen groundfish come and go, lobster catches rise and fall, prices at their highest, and prices so low the industry ground to a halt. Throughout this time our family business has managed to stay alive, battle the good fight, and earn a meagre living. We employ 50 employees year-round and try to give them a decent living in an area always held ransom by the rewards and debts of the ocean.
I graduated from Dalhousie University in 2010 with honours in earth sciences. Oddly enough, I spent several years studying the very corals and sponges that we endeavour to protect today. Upon graduation, my father urged me to go west for work, as the lobster and groundfish fishery was in a state of rebuilding and the future of our business model was uncertain. I worked in western Canada as a geologist for four years, coming home only in the spring and fall to try to effectively manage my father's recent purchase of deep-sea red crab licences.
For those of you who may not be aware, the deep-sea red crab lives in a very narrow band of waters on the Scotian Slope over 500 metres deep. They can only be caught by baited traps at very specific times of the year in a very unique area of the ocean.
My father first purchased the only deep-sea red crab licences in Atlantic Canada, as it was apparent that the future of any seafood business grossly relied on being able to source seafood for the increasing Chinese demand. He also realized that with such a niche fishery, and it was his opportunity to manage it for the future of his business, his community, and his family.
My father, with a lifetime in the fishery, was very hesitant to allow me to join the family business, as I had a very lucrative job oil-prospecting in a booming part of Canada. However, eventually I decided it was in my best interest to follow my dream and my passion, working in the seafood industry with my family. Some might even say it was in my blood.
After spending four years and countless hours experimenting, studying, and working with our developing fishery on the deep-sea red crab, we decided to literally put it all on the line, build a special-purpose, innovative vessel specifically designed to harvest this delicate crab species, and service the premium live market in China.
With a price tag of $1.5 million, 12 months of labour, and a novel approach to a fishery susceptible to boom and bust, our venture was hailed as one of the biggest risks anyone has ever taken in my area.
We launched our vessel Ina K, appropriately named after my grandmother, Ina Kathline Nickerson, in October 2015 and made two trips to the Corsair Canyon in which enough product was landed to deem the investment a possible success.
Of course you may remember the Corsair Canyon. It was announced as a sensitive benthic area in September 2016.
Our crab was landed in pristine quality and our customers were satisfied with our product. As a company, we were slightly relieved, as it looked as though we might actually achieve our dream and see a possible return on investment, while the idea of providing more long-term jobs was perhaps actually possible.
With our sample harvest landed, the vessel was taken out of active fishing duty for the winter as we developed our markets to prepare for the start of the next year's full crab season. As it was, during this winter we were all too quickly familiarized with the concept of MPAs, SBAs, and marine conservation targets, by DFO and the Government of Canada. Abruptly, our access to our fishing grounds was being called into question, thereby adding more complexity to an already strenuous situation.
This current directive to protect the ocean leaves me with more questions than answers. As harvester and processor, I would like to know how I, my business, my employees, and our shared future will be affected. What are our goals for MPAs and SBAs? I've often heard about collective goals of SBAs and MPAs; however, I feel I must describe our approach to our fishery and how the new mandate of SBAs and MPAs will directly affect us and our business.
Having sole ownership of the deep-sea red crab quota and unique fishing grounds that the crab inhabits moulded our concept of harvesting this species and ultimately forced us to become self-governing.
Our fishing grounds are found in the most remote, deepest section of the ocean, where science is lacking and information is virtually non-existent. Taking the time to survey the ocean bottom, sample fishing grounds, develop catch models, and map out our effective catch areas allowed us to justify building and investing in our fishery.
Since this deep-sea red crab is a very sensitive creature that has a very unique and slow-growing life cycle, we came out with the following catch model. First, fish where the crab are. Deep-sea red crab fishery will start in late April and May to coincide with their migration up slope to more fertile grounds as the lobsters migrate inshore to vacate the upper slope.
To be effective harvesters and limit lobster as a bycatch, we must use fishing history and models to determine what sections of the slope to target during various times of the year. With the implementation of SBAs in the Corsair Canyon, a sizeable section of my fishing area is now in jeopardy. Now I must increase my effort in neighbouring areas, which will increase my total exploitation rate to an unknown extent.
Second, avoid sensitive times and areas. Red crab mate, shed, and release eggs in a very small, definable area during specific times of the year. We avoid these areas for harvest to minimize disruption to this activity. As I lose ground to fish in, I and others may be forced to target these sensitive areas, causing more problems than solutions.
Keep enough crab in the water. Each year we tweak our catch according to productivity and profitability. This renewable resource approach is based upon the finite area that we are allowed to harvest. What do we do, without being able to fish the entire ground?
If our goals as harvesters and conservationists are not aligned, we will never find a common ground for a solution. Science and direct facts will lead us to a better understanding and ultimately may lead us to a shared interest. At this juncture, proposed closures seem to add havoc and limit the underlying science, save for the drive of achieving the same target under a percentage that would detract from the values we proposed to protect.
A second question is, who set the criteria for the goals and how will we achieve them in this timeline? Nova Scotia is now dependent on the fishery more than ever. Our offshore oil and gas sector has dried up, and the future of new offshore oil and gas royalties is bleak at best. Manufacturing in Nova Scotia will only provide a handful of jobs, and the combined effort of all other sectors makes Nova Scotia a have-not province without our fisheries.
I agree that conserving the fishery is in the best interests of our future generations, but only based upon science, true facts, and goals that can be attainable working with fishery stakeholders. The international arena has always levied huge pressure on any resource-rich country, especially if their goals are indifferent.
Canada should be a leader in listening to its people and taking the time to listen and spend the money and do the proper science before coming to a huge decision such as establishing SBAs and MPAs supposedly based on science. These decisions will take time, but they should be Canadian decisions based on Canadian timelines, not offhand commitments made to international arenas void of any voices of those who will be impacted most and who are most informed on the decision.
We should all understand the importance of saving and protecting the environment; however, environmental groups don't depend on the fishery to put food on the table and tax dollars to work. They are using their campaigns to maintain their future funding strings and their own future, without considering the impacts on those closest to the resource.
I think Canadians as a whole would love to protect some of their beautiful waters and the creatures that make up our ecosystem; however, once again we must take the time to do proper science and establish realistic timelines to ensure that the values we are protecting are the right values.
Who will be affected, and for how long? Ultimately, we agree that there will be sound reason to close sections of the seabed in hopes of protecting groundfish and sensitive benthic organisms. The amazing thing about our oceans, however, is that most species have legs and fins and are highly mobile. Even the most sedentary species spend their time floating around in the currents before settling on the ocean floor.
Our oceans are warming, and organisms relocate to areas that are more conducive to living with their highly specific needs. If a location that was deemed an MPA or SBA were highly recommended based upon science and we were locked into a lifetime ban on fishing, what value would this MPA or SBA have in 10 or 20 years? Will we need to add future MPAs and SBAs to compensate for the mass migration of species?
If this is the case, we as stakeholders question whether there will be any fishing grounds left for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to come into the industry. Will they instead look west, as I did?
Will ill-informed decisions today ultimately force Atlantic Canadians to give up their true identity and heritage as fish harvesters and processors working and adapting to a changing ocean, or will future generations be forced to live their lives in mundane jobs in which their true spirit as pioneers and their ancestry are crushed by ill planning and lack of true science?
I thank you all for allowing me to speak. As you can no doubt understand, this is an issue that's very close to my heart, as I have been forced to watch wave after wave of regulation and rules alter the very foundation that my family has based their livelihood on for generations.
