Evidence of meeting #28 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prawns.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Bragdon. You've gone over your time, actually. We'll have to continue on.
I want to say before I go to the next questioners, it was great with Mr. Bragdon recognizing each individual who he wanted to answer the question. It makes it a lot easier on the witnesses if you do that. Just keep that in mind.
We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for six minutes or less.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's good to see some old friends here.
We'll start with you, Mr. McIsaac. You mentioned the Portland Canal. I remember being up there. It was the first time I ever saw phosphorescence in the water. It was a night with a full moon and all the rest of it in the Portland Canal. It's something special that I don't think a lot of people have had a chance to do.
The discussion here and the way it's come down so far takes me back a few years to that other study we did back in the last Parliament about sharing the wealth. I'm starting to suspect that the business of tubbing and the process by which the prawn fishers are supplying directly to the consumer must be a problem for the processors. They must be losing out.
4:05 p.m.
Managing Director, BC COVID-19 Active Fishermen’s Committee
Do you want me to answer that?
4:05 p.m.
Managing Director, BC COVID-19 Active Fishermen’s Committee
From what I laid out there, it's pretty obvious that harvesters make more money when they can sell direct and shorten the supply chain. It's significant, there's no doubt about that. In this case here, it's at least 50% less by selling through a processor. That's obvious.
That being said, I've spoken with a number of the processors over the last three months. I would say that this is not being driven by processors. That's kind of the view that I would say, from speaking directly with processors and folks on that side.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I appreciate that. Thank you, Jim.
Ms. Orr, in all of the discussions after the initial surprise and shock of the DFO restructuring its policy, I had heard that regulations had been in place since at least 1979. Everybody was quite content with allowing the tubbing process to go through because no immediate issue evidently came up during that time. I'd heard that, in fact, tubbing has been a fact of life in the industry for 50 years at least.
What explanation did they give you for this sudden mistrust of the ability to measure the size of prawns?
4:05 p.m.
Lead Representative, Prawn Industry Caucus
Thank you.
I'm not sure we've been given an explanation for why now. You're quite right; the practice of tubbing has gone on for 50 years.
I speak quite frequently with the retired DFO prawn manager, Mr. Jim Morrison. He relayed to me that when the minimum size regulation was brought in, C and P was well aware of the practice of tubbing and that it posed no issue whatsoever. In fact, DFO co-operatively introduced a telson length measurement that would support the ability of C and P to measure frozen prawn tails when they're missing the head portion of the body.
These conversations, which reach back more than a couple of decades, offer us a bit of a glimpse into the context of how this initially came to be. As for why DFO is now looking to take a new view on the tubbed prawns...we're all scratching our heads, so I appreciate the question.
I just wanted to quickly answer the previous question as well. It should be important to note that most communities are not capable of absorbing the full daily catch of the prawn vessels that come into port. I don't believe that the buyers have much at risk in terms of the volume that may be diverted to the tub market. In consideration of what is landed, it's a smaller amount for sure.
The value is where the fishermen can achieve a higher profit in those smaller boutique-style sales and the difference that makes to their personal income.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
James, I have a question for you. Historically, have there been many infractions for undersized prawns registered in the course of a season?
4:05 p.m.
President, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union – Unifor
No, not that I'm aware of. There's only one reason I can think of for this coming up. If a tub is illegal, whether it's rec, FSC or commercial, it's really easy to regulate. However, if that's the concern and it's happening now, it's pretty easy to figure out who's going to fill that market if you take away the legal tub sales.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
President, United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union – Unifor
It will be the illegal sales.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Fair enough.
Mr. Atkins, there still seems to be a lack of confidence among the participants in the fishery this year that if they go out some officer isn't going to exercise certain discretion. They could still end up being charged. Does that situation exist?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Pacific Prawn Fishermen’s Association
Absolutely, and very much so. Without a clear answer from DFO, it's really hard for the fishermen. Being told that officers will simply be doing education and that, at their whim, they can choose to charge or not is very unnerving for fishermen.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
May 3rd, 2021 / 4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses who are with us today.
I have several questions. I see that no one has been consulted. There has been very little exchange of information or discussion.
Do you have any idea why you may be asked, under the new interpretation of the regulations, to discontinue this activity? Do you have a hypothesis about that? We can ask questions of the people involved.
My question is addressed to all of the witnesses.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Pacific Prawn Fishermen’s Association
We have had an opportunity to speak with DFO, but there are really no answers at all. What's even more disappointing are responses like, “You guys should investigate freeze-drying prawns or another method of preserving them.” There's no appetite from the industry. The value would be so much lower. These are some of the world's most sought-after species of prawns and that would really damage our image, our brand and the industry.
4:10 p.m.
Managing Director, BC COVID-19 Active Fishermen’s Committee
I think exactly the same. We have had an opportunity to question the department on this and their answers have been lacking. They have not clarified what made them reinterpret this regulation in such a way that 50 years of practice has gone out the window. We do not understand that. We do not understand the legal interpretation they have on this. We do know that there has been concern about the illegal, unregulated, unreported fishery and poaching getting into the market, but we think this is a bizarre way of trying to address that.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
You're probably thinking that this will solve absolutely nothing, given that you don't even know the reasons why this decision was made. What always surprises me—and I've seen this in other situations—is that the response from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or rather their instruction, is so late. You're notified a couple of weeks before the fishery starts that it's not going to be done the same way.
How will this affect you?
I'm talking about the delay, but you are given a reprieve until 2022. I guess this is a concern for the industry. Is the industry weakened by the fact that you don't have an answer or certainty about the future of the spot prawn fishery?
4:10 p.m.
Managing Director, BC COVID-19 Active Fishermen’s Committee
Yes. If you're a small operator, you make investments, you build a business plan around your fishery. Part of that business plan might be putting a freezer onto your boat; that's $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000. The intention is to go to the central coast and tub prawns and market that directly.
It takes a couple of years to pay off something like that. It's not a small investment for a small operator. Independent harvesters are small operators. This is a big deal, and it's not something.... DFO is telling us now to forget about it next year. People have invested in this kind of approach and the fishery as a whole to have this as their major structure in their business plan.
It's definitely difficult to change your business plan once you've invested in that and the entire plank of your business plan is gone.
4:15 p.m.
Lead Representative, Prawn Industry Caucus
Harvesters are very upset at the idea that this may impose on their ability to sell prawns this year. Without much clarity from DFO, you can imagine the frustration level.
Some harvesters have community-supported fisheries where they pre-sell portions of their catch, and were wondering if they were going to have to pay back those customers in advance without the ability to provide the product they had agreed to.
Many harvesters purchased the supplies to tub the prawns and have specially developed labels referring to their vessel number and date of catch, that sort of thing.
I supported the work of many harvesters to expand their business model to sell frozen prawn tails last year as a reaction to the COVID disruption of markets. Websites were put up and marketers hired and people were becoming much more responsive to the community's demand, which we were working very hard with the province to increase, by being able to help stabilize some of these prawn harvesters' bottom lines as against the difficulties COVID brought on them.
With all the work and the effort gone into trying to support harvesters in being able to expand their domestic sales and sell to their local communities, harvesters were furious and so confused and very stressed to think that this entire part of their business model might be out the window.