Fisheries Committee on March 12th, 2020

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

There is not a simple answer to that; a number of factors can come into play. From a science perspective, we're confident in the design of the data sampling and the surveys.

Speaking generally, not specific to the 4T case, having intermittent breaks in our sampling may lead to an increase in uncertainty in the provision of our advice, but it is unlikely to have an effect in terms of bias, in that it's unlikely to have a directional change in the advice that we would give, but it does tend to decrease the robustness of that advice. That's generally speaking, and not specific to the 4T case. As I said, I can take that question back for further advice.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

It's still 15%.

I have one last question to use up my time from earlier.

I believe that, in 2009, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was advised to record all catches, regardless of whether the catches are incidental. This is done for fisheries, but not for bait catches. We're missing some indicators, some numbers.

We've been receiving recommendations for about 10 years, but we haven't been taking them into account and implementing them. If we've been seeing the stocks of a species reach a critical level in some places over the past 10 or 11 years, why aren't we taking into account all this data? Why isn't it mandatory to record the data in logbooks or in some other way?

[Adam Burns]

I think you are referring to the capture of data that goes beyond just the commercial fishery, and so depending on how the various other fisheries are managed—bait, recreational, etc., depending on the species—we have varying degrees of ability to make those requirements mandatory. Specifically related to herring, I don't know.

Marc, would you like to speak specifically to the requirements there?

[Marc LeCouffe]

Thank you for the question.

Logbooks for bait fisheries are indeed mandatory, and data is being reported. However, the data isn't considered very reliable, which could affect the confidence interval that you mentioned earlier.

We don't think that we're getting many logbooks. We do follow up, but it's almost impossible to check when a fisherman picks up their bait nets, since they often do so on a lobster fishing trip. It's impossible to ensure that all landings are reported. It depends on how the fishery is managed.

[Adam Burns]

I apologize for responding in English.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

There's no need to apologize. We have simultaneous interpretation.

I'm told that the submission of logbooks is voluntary. I wonder why it isn't a standard practice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll now go to Mr. Johns for six minutes or less, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm deferring my time to Ms. Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Johns. I'll continue in this vein.

We need a great deal of information. However, scientific activities seem to lack funding, even when the required data, which may be difficult to obtain, is available. Why can't we standardize our ways of obtaining the data so that we can have as much as possible?

[Adam Burns]

Unfortunately, we can't answer this question at the moment.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you for having the humility to say so.

In terms of standardization, is there a difference between catch reporting systems from one area to the next, for example, between Gaspésie and New Brunswick in Chaleur Bay?

[Marc LeCouffe]

Thank you again for your question.

Landings are recorded, and there is indeed a difference between the approach in Gaspésie and in New Brunswick.

In New Brunswick, 100% of the monitoring is carried out at the dock. In Quebec, only 25% of the monitoring is carried out at the dock, but hails at sea are mandatory in 100% of cases. When a fisherman is at sea, they must call to say how many herring they caught, and they have a 25% chance of undergoing dockside monitoring.

This is for logistical reasons, since there are more monitors in New Brunswick than in Gaspésie.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

We took the example of these two places in the same fishing area. Given the differences, why are we unable to standardize all the practices? Is it a matter of grants? Does one place receive more money than another?

I'm still talking about the need to collect the most accurate data possible for the benefit of science and to improve stocks of herring or any other species. Have there been requests for additional grants to address the situation and obtain more information?

[Marc LeCouffe]

The department doesn't award grants.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I didn't mean grants. I meant requests.

[Marc LeCouffe]

Dockside monitoring is carried out at the fishermen's expense.

For the herring fishery in Chaleur Bay, more fishermen land in New Brunswick than in Gaspésie. As a result, it's easier for dockside monitoring companies to monitor 100% of catches in New Brunswick than in Quebec.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I understand that it's difficult, but the committee can recommend the standardization of some practices.

I'll move on to a completely different topic, which is the issue of alternative bait. We're told that this bait is very expensive and that there's a shortage of bait. Currently, fishermen manage to fish with mackerel, plaice, herring or other types of bait.

Has the amount of alternative bait needed for the fishery been calculated? If so, could fishermen benefit from lower prices if the alternative bait were cheaper, for example, because of our exports to Spain and Japan?

[Adam Burns]

I don't think that the department does this job.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I know.

[Adam Burns]

So the answer is no.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

I have some issues with Asian carp. We don't have Asian carp in Canada and we need to import it from the United States. However, we have other species here, such as redfish. We learned yesterday that redfish are flourishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence at the expense of the northern shrimp stocks.

Could this issue be assessed? Some exploratory licences are already being issued in connection with alternative bait. Would it be simpler and safer to consider these possibilities rather than importing Asian carp?

[Adam Burns]

No regulations limit what fishermen can use as bait. I know that a number of fishermen used redfish as bait last year in their lobster fishery.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Would that be safer? This concern may be more science-based.