Fisheries Committee on Oct. 7th, 2024

[Adam Burns]

My colleague Bernard Vigneault will speak to that.

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

Just for the record, it's a 2% difference, but it's the same point; it's not very significant. Yes, the issue for the probability of growth is that, even with no fishing, including the stewardship fishery, there is a fairly high probability of decline. That's why the additional probability difference with the increased fisheries is not very significant. Again, we're talking about a 2% difference between the probability with the stewardship fishery and with the TAC that was announced.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you so much to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll now go to Mr. Small for five minutes, please.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know we're in the middle of a very important emergency study on northern cod, and Mr. Kelloway continues to say that, on this side of the table, we're trying to dodge the Fisheries Act, but just for the record, Mr. Chair, Mr. Morrissey's motion was made in February 2024. It was to conduct the study of the Fisheries Act following the abandoned and wrecked vessels study. Therefore, Mr. Kelloway needs to take that up with Mr. Morrissey because Mr. Morrissey's motion indicated that that side wanted to have that study after the wrecked and abandoned vessels study. It will happen.

To Mr. Burns, getting back to where we were a little earlier in the meeting about a stewardship fishery and at what point a stewardship fishery is actually a commercial fishery or how much longer we could have pushed our stewardship fishery and to what level before we had serious push-back from NAFO, is there anything that states that offshore vessels wouldn't be able to take part in a scientific research fishery inside the parameters of a stewardship fishery?

[Adam Burns]

There is no specific policy that defines what a stewardship fishery is. It was a unique approach that was applied specifically to the 2J3KL northern cod fishery. That said, it would be very atypical to not have a commercial fishery on a stock in a cautious zone, and indeed, at the NAFO annual meeting this fall, those comments were made around the table by some contracting parties related to the management of other stocks where there was debate about a moratorium, but the stock was in the cautious zone, so a similar debate was had on a stock that was entirely NAFO managed.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

You stated earlier that a typical fishery for northern cod, back in the day, was around 500,000 tonnes. Is that correct?

[Adam Burns]

I think that it was one of the higher levels. I don't know that it would be necessarily typical, but it was as much as 500,000 tonnes. That's correct.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

That was basically what you said in your opening statement. The difference between 18,000 tonnes and 500,000 tonnes is quite a difference.

How far into the cautious zone are we? Are we still close to the critical zone, or are we closer to the healthy zone?

[Adam Burns]

My colleague Bernard Vigneault can speak to that as well—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

You can speak to that, Mr. Burns.

[Adam Burns]

—but I can tell you that we don't have an upper stock reference point for this stock. There is no healthy zone defined at this time for the stock, so it's not really possible to say where in the cautious zone the stock is.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Would you say we've come a long way from the critical zone, at this point?

[Adam Burns]

Certainly, the framework assessment that was done in the fall adjusted the limit reference point. It essentially lowered the limit reference point based, as my colleague noted, on further evidence about the level from which the stocks continue to have productivity to rebuild, and the stock has been stable since 2016. Certainly, we continue to have concern about the stock, which is why we have put in place strong measures to protect the stock within the Canadian fishery, and that's also why we have negotiated those strong measures at NAFO to continue protecting the stock, to ensure that it will continue to grow in the coming years and to further increase the economic benefits that would flow to the harvesting sector.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

We talked earlier about the pressure from NAFO, which was basically non-existent, to flip this fishery from a stewardship fishery to a commercial fishery. It seems a bit hypothetical—the response that you gave to Mr. Morrissey—that we'd be faced with having to cough up the 5% to NAFO. Why would you think that NAFO would automatically jump in and say, “We're going to have that 5% whether you give it to us or not”? That's basically how you put it.

[Adam Burns]

NAFO decisions are taken by the 13 contracting parties. What I can tell you is that it would be very atypical to not have a commercial fishery on a stock in the cautious zone, like northern cod. NAFO would have the jurisdiction to establish whatever harvesting levels it wanted to, were Canada not co-operating at the table and negotiating strong measures.

That was our objective: ensuring the NAFO measures in place are robust, in terms of limiting the harvesting potential of other contracting parties, and ensuring that the conservation measures in place are consistent with Canadian measures, as the manager of this stock.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small. You're a little more than a minute over, but I'll get that back at the next meeting.

Mr. Morrissey, you have five minutes.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

After listening to all of the testimony given today, I have a question.

Would we have been able to achieve, with NAFO, a reduced size of commercial cod without disagreement?

[Adam Burns]

No. Without Canada negotiating with contracting parties, the measures that were achieved would not have been—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You reduced the size.

[Adam Burns]

We increased the minimum size.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You increased the minimize size.

[Adam Burns]

That's correct.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Tell us about the impact of putting a seasonal closure on it. What do those two measures do for the overall resource?

[Adam Burns]

Canada succeeded in having Canadian conservation measures implemented within the NAFO regulatory area, and that—