Fisheries Committee on June 21st, 2022

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

You mean that 300 million pounds of this bait comes from our area waters. Is that right?

[Mark Prevost]

Yes. Even if you look at the past and you look at that usage, what's coming in from other countries and what the quota was, we're using more for bait than what was on the quota. You know the recordings are not accurate.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

You said the recordings are not accurate. Can you elaborate on that, please?

[Mark Prevost]

If DFO says, “This is the quota for mackerel and herring”, and they can assume that we're using 700 million pounds for bait and the quotas are less than that, then there are definitely some gaps in the recording of data.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

They're recording when the fishermen arrive at the wharf and what is reported.

[Mark Prevost]

Yes.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Your company is called Bait Masters and you're telling us something about the bait we import. This is a little troubling for me to hear. You said there's no risk assessment or management whatsoever for validating imported bait—let's say from Japan or Norway.

Doesn't the CFIA take care of this and make sure that, if we import bait—let's say herring or mackerel from Japan—it knows whether its a good fit for our water, with no disease?

[Mark Prevost]

No, there are no regulations for bait. We're an alternative bait manufacturer, but we deal in straight bait. We're buying lobster tonight and selling bait. We have to do our own risk assessments. I know if bait passes Maine's Department of Marine Resources' qualifications in the U.S., I'm safe to sell it in Canada. We're the only company doing that. We're a little ahead of regulations in the alternative bait game, so we're following their direction.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Were you aware of some fishermen...? We heard a couple of times, on this committee, about Asian carp and the possibility of using it for bait. Are you aware of that?

[Mark Prevost]

Yes, and I know it wouldn't pass a risk assessment. Most of the species of Asian carp wouldn't. If I were to grind it up, put it in an alternative bait and try to pass it through a risk assessment to meet the Department of Marine Resources' qualifications and sell it in the U.S.—I export a lot of bait—it wouldn't meet it.

We don't want to be the company that introduces Asian carp to these waters. Unless somebody says it's safe and okay.... Of course, a study would have to be done to see if it actually works to catch lobster.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Is your company trained to develop some other kind of bait? I know the MFU, for example, is trying to develop synthetic bait—if I can say that—within its organization. Are you also trying to develop that?

[Mark Prevost]

I would say that 20% of our revenue is now dedicated to research and development, but it's very costly. Studies need to be done, along with proof of concept. We have a lot of fishermen as investors or involved in some of the testing. I think we're at 480 different trials.

There are other baits: acoustic bait technology and light technology. We're into all of it and it's going to take some time. We're definitely not in an overfunded industry. The alternative bait business is not attractive to any funders—government or non-government. It's a little different.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I think we should.

I'm glad you said, at the beginning, that fishermen don't want to try something else, because they have more confidence in.... If you'd given my father something other than herring or mackerel, he would not have put it in his trap.

Do you think we will get there? Will we find a solution for synthetic bait that will work for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm sorry, Mr. Cormier, but your time has gone over.

We'll finish up now with Mr. Small for five minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have one more quick question for Mr. Bonnell.

In terms of stakeholder input in fishery science, do you have any examples of suggestions industry has put forward to DFO but were shrugged off?

[Carey Bonnell]

Yes, I could certainly cite an example or two. There are many times that we align very well with DFO, but there are times when those things happen. The 3Ps cod would be a classic example, I suppose. This is where, for a number of years, we were following a biomass of our year class of cod coming through. It was the basis upon which we established the Marine Stewardship Council certification probably well over a decade ago now.

DFO developed a new assessment model, I think it was late 2019 into 2020. The advisory process new assessment model completely recast the history of that stock. Basically we went from a stock that was at 150% of Blim to 0.24%, I think, that year, if I remember correctly. Basically, all the advice we had received for years leading up to that, certainly with the new assessment model, was all false. That year class didn't exist, or generally didn't exist, but we knew it did exist.

We pushed back hard on the new assessment model. We flagged a lot of issues that I wouldn't have time to get into here today. To the credit of the prior minister, she did do an independent review of the new assessment model. We thought the parameters were far too narrowly defined, and no changes, still today, have been made.

It's an example of an area where we felt that industry views, our perceptions, our on-the-water experience, what we were seeing in terms of catches and the reputation, obviously, of our.... We had a fishery that was MSC-certified, and the retrospective on that model basically would have indicated that the stock was in the critical zone, according to the new assessment model at the time, which was a reputational hit for everybody, really, associated with that.

That's an area that I would cite as one example we remain concerned about. We'll continue to flag this at the advisory table and look for improvements and changes as time goes on.

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

Thank you, Mr. Bonnell.

Staying on the topic of stock assessments, my question is for Mr. Vascotto.

Mr. Vascotto, do you see a trend developing in stock assessments in terms of input of ENGOs such as Oceans North, for example? Is there a trend in the change in who's having input on stock assessment versus the input of industry stakeholders?

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

Yes, it is quite clear over the recent history of the last, I would say, five years or so, that we've seen an increasing shift away from those industry stakeholders who were directly linked to the resource and their being replaced by ENGOs who might come from well-educated backgrounds but don't necessarily have that tangible link to the boat, to the wharf or to the fishery itself. The level of input provided is coming in at a different level, but there's definitely been a move away from the inclusion of the harvesting sector directly in these tables and a move towards the inclusion of the ENGO representatives.

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

Again, Dr. Vascotto, are you concerned with the changes in assessment models that are putting fish stocks further into the critical zone than they previously were?

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

I have to harken back to Mr. LeBlanc's input here, which is that we can't only be happy when science says something is going up. Really, this is about getting the right answer and getting a consistent answer. Whether a stock is appearing better or a stock is appearing worse, that is not the concern as much as it is making sure that we have predictability moving into the future about what that stock is going to do during this period of profound change.

There are some trends in some areas where we're seeing fairly negative perspectives being provided on stock status, and that is partly linked to how these assessment models are being produced, the knowledge base that's being used to inform them and whether we get a chance to pull them apart to make sure they're giving us a real signal as opposed to noise.

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

Thank you.

My last, quick question here is going to be to Mr. Prevost. It's on Asian carp. I heard you reference that, I think, last year Maine used seven million pounds of Asian carp, a dead, frozen product. Do you have concerns about introducing Asian carp into the Atlantic Ocean, just given the fact that it's dead?

[Mark Prevost]

I do. I think some studies would have to be done, risk assessments and whatnot. We don't want to be the company that introduces something that has a negative impact on the environment right now. From what I understand from talking to fishers in Maine, it's really not very good bait. Not everything works to catch lobsters. Believe me, fishermen would welcome Asian carp if it caught lobsters or crab; however, it appears that it doesn't. It might be a good filler, but that's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

That brings an end to our meeting today.

I want to say a big thank you to our witnesses who took the time out to share their knowledge with the committee today. It's greatly appreciated.

A big thank you to everybody involved making today's meeting a success: interpreters, clerks, analysts and everybody behind the scenes.

I want to let everyone know that there will be no meeting on Thursday as we didn't line anything up. If you recall, we mentioned last meeting, the meeting before and probably the meeting before that, that we wouldn't book anything for Thursday as it is the last day the House is supposed to sit.

Of course, we could be swamped with votes or we might have no votes. We don't know. It's too late to line up witnesses. Of course, everything else being what it is, there will be no meeting on Thursday, so I hope everybody has an opportunity to have a restful, enjoyable, productive summer. I hope to see everyone back in good form in September.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I was hoping to have lunch on your account.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

If you can make that work, buddy, you're welcome to it. Actually, you can have lunch on us today.

Go ahead, Ms. Desbiens.