Fisheries Committee on Sept. 27th, 2022

[Adam Burns]

Canada maintains its sovereignty over the management of its fisheries. We do not seek permission or approval from the U.S. for the measures we put in place.

That being said, if we were to relieve or reduce measures and an entanglement were to occur or we were to have a year like 2017, when a number of animals were killed, some of them as a result of fishing gear entanglements, that would certainly be detrimental to Canada's engagement with the U.S. on the MMPA front. We believe we've worked very carefully with industry as we've worked to administer these measures.

I will note that we're not just guided by this U.S. legislation. The North Atlantic right whale is an animal that is endangered and listed under the Species at Risk Act as well. We are not just implementing these measures because the U.S. has told us to do so; we are implementing these measures because our own domestic legislation requires us to do so under the Species at Risk Act requirements. Even if it weren't for the U.S. MMPA, we would certainly still be required by Canadian legislation to implement these protections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes, please.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too forgot to say hello to all our friends in the Magdalen Islands, in particular, who were affected by Hurricane Fiona. Our hearts go out to them, of course, and to all those in the other regions.

In the St. Lawrence River, we follow, among other things, the beluga whales, because they are also in danger of extinction. Several whales come to feed here, including rorquals and those beautiful giants, the blue whales. Most of them are now identified and tracked. We know their behaviour and most of them even have a name. We're trying to track their behaviour.

Is this an approach you use?

We met with fishermen from the Magdalen Islands. They talked to us about traceability, which would provide more predictability for fishermen.

Has this been considered?

[Adam Burns]

The measure we have in place to observe North Atlantic right whales also identifies other species of whales. Certainly that information is feeding into our scientific understanding of their behaviour and their distribution as well, and even, I would add, the seasonal closures that we implement as a result of—

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

In fact, I wanted to draw a parallel with the right whale.

If we are able to track beluga whales in the St. Lawrence and predict, roughly, when they will arrive, when we will be able to observe this or that whale, are we able to better understand the behaviour of right whales and determine whether it is sometimes the same whales that pass through the same places?

[Adam Burns]

I think that question needs to be put to my colleagues in the scientific field.

The information we have is from 2017. Every year we have a better understanding of right whale behaviour. The level of understanding is going to increase every year.

Also, their distribution is a little bit different every year. So it's still necessary to have adaptation measures that respond to this year's distribution.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

To the witnesses, I was just googling to try to make sure my information was up to date. What I'm trying to understand is the Seafood Watch statement that both Canada and the U.S. management measures do not go far enough in protecting North Atlantic right whales. Can you elaborate on that statement and perhaps clarify, because it doesn't coincide with the information that I'm hearing from you today.

[Adam Burns]

I won't sit here and explain their finding. We disagree with it. We believe that the protections that we have in place in the snow crab and lobster fisheries in Canada are world class and do indeed achieve an absolutely high-quality level of protection of North Atlantic right whales.

It's not just me who's saying that. Our statistics, which show that we have dramatically reduced the rate of entanglement and mortality in Canadian waters, speak for themselves.

Equally, it's easy for me to sit here and say that the work that we have done is excellent, but so have other groups, like The Pew Charitable Trust that I mentioned before. Many Canadian ENGOs have also independently said that Canada's measures are indeed exceptional.

We disagree with their findings and we think that in part they have painted us with a single brush. For example, the Canadian and U.S. lobster fisheries are very different in terms of the season length. Ours is a few weeks long. The U.S. has a much longer season. The amount of gear is different by orders of magnitude. The location where the fishing occurs is largely in waters where we almost never see North Atlantic right whales. We do occasionally, so we need measures to protect them should they show up in those shallow waters.

All of those attributes are extremely different from the U.S., and we believe that had those differences been fully understood, a different outcome would have been achieved. Let me assure you that we did everything we could to ensure that they understood that. Unfortunately, I think their focus was on the attributes of the U.S. fisheries, and those appear to have been applied more broadly to us as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

We'll now to go Mr. Zimmer. You have five minutes or less, please.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Some of your comments about the ENGOs and the Pew foundation, which you've mentioned several times now, really raise more questions about how DFO works with ENGOs. Meanwhile, we've wanted the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to be working with our anglers to have a seat at the table, but they're being ignored.

I'll get into this study here. The part that we're referencing is a Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch report, of all things. What are our American colleagues are saying about it? One news site said of an American ENGO, Seafood Watch, “The California-based Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch gave a red rating to the U.S. and Canadian lobster industry, saying they aren't doing enough to protect the North Atlantic right whale”, as we've been talking about.

What concerns me always, especially about marine protected areas, is when it's politicized. We've seen it politicized on the west coast. We've seen it politicized on the east coast. What are the Americans saying about this particular report? I'm citing an article from the Spectrum News from just a few weeks ago. It says:

Maine Democrats and Republicans blasted Seafood Watch for its rating.

“Seafood Watch is misleading consumers and businesses with this designation,” Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, said in a statement. “Generations of Maine lobstermen have worked hard to protect the sustainability of the lobster fishery and they have taken unprecedented steps to protect right whales—efforts that the Federal government and now Seafood Watch have failed to recognize.”

It goes on to reflect on a Republican's opinion. Governor Paul LePage also said this in a statement: “As Governor again, I will push back at organizations falsely attacking our lobster industry as well as the Biden Administration's destructive regulatory policy aimed at destroying the livelihoods of our fishermen over the false notion they are harming whales.”

It sounds eerily similar to what's happening to our anglers on the west coast around salmon. We know they are plentiful in the water, but there are still closures that have been mandated by this Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

What do our Canadians have to say about this? I'm quoting an article called “Blaming Canada's lobster industry for North Atlantic right whales' plight unfair”, which says, “It is a plain fact that there has never been a single, documented right whale death linked to Canadian lobster gear in recent history.” This was reflected by my colleagues before.

It goes on to say, “There are several reasons why lobster fishing presents a lower risk in Canada. It's an inshore fishery conducted mostly in shallow waters of less than 20 fathoms”—a fathom is six feet, so do that math—“where the right whales are rarely observed.”

We're talking about 120 feet. You referred to that. We already know that. The whales just aren't there.

The article continues:

For more than 150 years, North America's lobster fishery has proven itself to be one of the most sustainable wild fisheries on the planet. For all of us on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border who care deeply about its future, the path forward is clear.

I'll remind the people listening today that there are people connected with these jobs that are lost a result of a poor scientific report put out by this organization. It's tens of thousands of fishing families. I'll repeat that. As the article says, “Tens of thousands of fishing families, plant workers and hundreds of coastal communities depend on setting the record straight and winning this fight.”

Lastly, it states, “Second, we need to stand up and push back on what Seafood Watch represents: activism masquerading as science.”

We just had a whole study talking about that exact thing.

The article goes on to say:

They lumped all fixed-gear fisheries into one basket, with blatant disregard of the facts and lacking peer-review validation.... Cooler heads must prevail. We need more science, and less politics; more bi-national collaboration, less finger-pointing. Ensuring a sustainable future for the right whale—and addressing the threats facing them—knows no borders and needs to be addressed bi-nationally.

I guess my question to you is this: Why would the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be working with ENGOs like the ones mentioned, and that you even referred to, rather than the anglers themselves?

[Adam Burns]

Thanks for the question.

We absolutely do work very closely with the fishing industry on these issues. We have regular consultation with them. We're engaged with them in various whalesafe gear trials. We work with them on our ghost gear initiative. Indeed, they participate in some instances in marine mammal response activities—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I can speak as a person from the west coast. When we talk to the angling community, we ask what the relationship is like with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and they say it's non-existent.

They used to have a seat at the table and be consulted regularly. Now they're completely disregarded, and it appears that the place at the table at DFO is now taken up by the ENGOs, as you've mentioned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You've gone over your time. I'm sorry.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll now go to Mr. Cormier again. You have five minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There was talk earlier about all the things we needed to do to have strong enough measures to curb the whale deaths and not hurt our markets and our relationship with the Americans.

In 2018, the first year, from April 28, an entire static area was going to be closed to fishing. In 2019, the measures were relaxed and the static zone was reduced by 63%. In 2020, there was no longer a static zone, and there were dynamic zones thereafter. In 2021, there were again a few changes here and there.

What makes you say that we can't still relax the measures in a very responsible way? If my colleagues around the table would look at the briefing paper that we received yesterday from the Library of Parliament and look at the map from this year, they would see that the Gulf of St. Lawrence was virtually closed to fishing.

I know that the crab quotas have been met for the most part, but what makes it very difficult is all of this uncertainty that it creates, early on and during the season, both for the fishermen and the plant employees and the communities.

What makes you think that we couldn't relax the measures even more to give these people a bit of a break and have a somewhat more normal season, while protecting the right whales?

[Adam Burns]

We are prepared to make changes to our measures, working with people in the industry and everyone affected by right whale protection measures. We will, of course. This fall we will be holding meetings with industry to see where we can make improvements without reducing the level of protection for right whales.

If there are steps we can take to help them supplement their fisheries in an efficient and economical manner, we are prepared to do so.

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

Mr. Burns, just for my colleagues around the table, can you explain briefly how do we do dynamic closures when one or two whales come in? I know about them, but can you explain to our committee members how we do them when the whales enter a particular area?

[Adam Burns]

I absolutely can, and I will note that the change from the earlier years when we had the static closure to what we have now, which I will explain, is—

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

Maybe explain what we have now, Mr. Burns.

[Adam Burns]

Yes, and it is an example of how we have changed our measures to respond to the industry. Now, if we see a North Atlantic right whale or have a confirmed acoustic detection of a North Atlantic right whale, we close an area of about 2,000 square kilometres around that whale for 15 days. During the second week of that closure, if we spot another whale in the same area, then the implicated zone becomes a seasonal closure and is closed until November 15. Otherwise, those areas reopen and the harvesters can return to those areas.

When we cite that closure and initiate it, we obviously can't have harvesters snap their fingers and have their gear out of the water, so they're given a minimum of 48 hours, but it's often longer if weather conditions require it, because obviously human safety is the paramount consideration.

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

Perfect.

We use acoustic buoys to detect whales. We also use planes to detect whales when they enter the area, and you mentioned DFO Coast Guard boats and other types of vessels we use.

Why can't we also use those devices, those tools, to reopen a zone? For example, a whale came in, and I think the acoustic buoy can detects a whale 40 or 60 kilometres away from it. From my knowledge, I think a whale swims and doesn't stay in the same place. I think for a couple of years we've had a good sense, though it's not precise, of where they all gather together. Why don't we use those same devices to reopen some zones? We close some of the zones all season long, and whales are not even coming back to that zone, so why don't we use those same tools to reopen the zone? This would be a solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

I will ask the officials to supply that answer in writing, as your time is up.

We'll now go to Mr. Perkins for five minutes or less, please.