Fisheries Committee on May 3rd, 2021

[Michael Atkins]

There is so much uncertainty over this. The fact is that we were at the table working on a traceability label for these tubs, and now we don't even know if we can use these tubs. We've essentially lost another year of implementing a traceability program to limit the illegal sales of prawns. We're all up in the air right now and just waiting to see what happens.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I may have phrased my question wrong. I actually want to know what you would like to see done, both in the short and longer term, to make things right.

[Michael Atkins]

Really, the PPFA, the industry, is willing to work with DFO on a solution. We recognize that we expect some restrictions and regulations, but as James said, there's really no other way to protect these prawns, to save these prawns. In water, frozen at sea within minutes of their capture, is the best way to capture these. To be suggesting to do things like freeze-drying them or to vacuum-seal them, it just doesn't work. This is the only method.

[Emily Orr]

I think what we would ultimately like is a reinterpretation so that we can go back to business as usual and focus on things that are more justified to earn our attention and our efforts.... This, to everybody, seems actually quite irrational—that DFO would make prawn tubbing illegal.

Their first choice would be the rethinking of this issue back to the status quo that we were all working very well under. If that's not possible, we have suggested that a condition of licence be added that spells out the requirement of harvesters, who need to be able to render prawns available to be determined for size and species with a time limit, whether that's five minutes or four minutes, whatever it is. We've asked DFO to consider that. They have not responded to that proposal.

However, we would like to see something very quickly because, as you pointed out, there's the disruption to the markets and the instability it's creating. Prawn customers already are reaching out to many harvesters and asking, “Am I going to be able to buy prawns?” There's a tremendous loss now in terms of folks who are looking to buy prawns and who, in the uncertainty, may begin to look elsewhere and buy prawns from overseas instead. People do need answers quickly. A working group to carry this out over many months to us makes no sense. This should be a very simple solution, and one that happens swiftly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Gill.

We'll now go to Mr. Johns for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Orr, can you talk about the consultation piece? What was done by DFO before they decided to reinterpret this regulatory process with your industry? What actually would normal consultation look like in terms of what you'd expect with the industry and the sector?

[Emily Orr]

Thank you.

As the group of witnesses has said, there was no consultation prior to this reinterpretation. Typically what we would see is a report or proposal to the prawn advisory board. The prawn advisory board met on December 3. There was no report of this impending reinterpretation.

The draft IFMP, the integrated fisheries management plan, would typically offer some insights as to changes as they might be planned for the coming season. There was no mention of it there either.

The consultation that we would expect on any type of reinterpretation such as this, typically, if it were to reflect what has happened in the past, would carry on over a couple of years of time before something was implemented. This was quite unstructured in terms of what we were used to expecting.

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

I was talking to that former fisheries officer and he asked me if DFO has identified that undersized prawns in the catch are a big problem. He said he hasn't seen anything of that nature, so he's wondering why the department's literal interpretation of a regulation requires some creative solution.

If they had come to you and consulted properly, what kind of creative solutions could you have presented back to them?

[Emily Orr]

I think we've done that quite quickly in response to this reinterpretation. As Mike Atkins said, the PPFA developed protocols to offer a solution by supporting C and P and upholding the regulations. The PIC offered a proposal of a new condition of licence. We worked very quickly with the people we represent to ensure that we were suggesting proactive solutions that would support all parties moving forward.

Apart from that, we'd say that just a reversal back to the prior thinking that prawn tubbing is acceptable. Those three options sound very good to us.

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

Have you heard from the minister at all? Has there been anything at all from her office?

[Emily Orr]

Yes. There was an acknowledgement of our letter and that this was being worked on.

The statement from the minister's office about it being a conservation issue and that the practice of tubbing was quite new was relayed to the House, I believe, when MP Rachel Blaney spoke to it.

These were very troubling replies to us. It is misinformation, unfortunately. Non-retention of undersized prawns is not a conservation issue. Of course, as we've been hearing, prawn tubbing has been taking place for over 50 years.

We're very much hoping to correct some of the misinformation around this issue and find a resolution.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

We will now go to Mr. Calkins for five minutes or less, please.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's go back to the fall of 2020, when some of the discussions were going on around changing the marketing from more international to more domestic, if I'm following correctly everything that's been said. There were discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and various stakeholders, which included the PPFA, on creating a traceability-like program and using the tubs to market domestically. Do I have that right?

It doesn't really matter who answers. Mr. Atkins, Ms. Orr or whoever wants to can answer that.

[Michael Atkins]

Yes, that's correct.

This all came out at the table while we were dealing with the traceability piece. It really wasn't thought out clearly. If an individual makes a comment in a meeting and two days later we get notified that the regulations have been changed, I don't think there was a lot of thought that went into it.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Who were the other stakeholders at the table, other than the PPFA?

[Michael Atkins]

For the traceability work, it was PPFA, DFO fish management and DFO C and P.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

There really was nobody from the industry outside of your industry association. It was all department officials. Is that correct?

[Michael Atkins]

That's correct. We represent the entire prawn fishery.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

That's fine. You represent everybody on the commercial side.

[Michael Atkins]

That's correct.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Nothing is getting displaced economically from a regulatory change. Is that correct?

[Michael Atkins]

Yes. I mean, there are economic impacts for sure.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Who would the economic impacts be on, outside of members of your organization?

[Michael Atkins]

Having prawns not domestically available in Canada would hurt consumers.