Fisheries Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

[Martin Noël]

I completely agree with that.

We are well aware that sonobuoys and visual surveillance using aircraft aren't perfect tools. The reopening of an area requires two surveillance flights during the period. Sometimes the weather prevents aircraft from taking off, but the buoy is still there. If it doesn't detect right whales, that should mean there aren't any in the area. A buoy provides information that can be used to close an area, but not to reopen it. I think that should change.

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

Would you be in favour of relying on that technology more to support closures and reopenings?

The technology could also show that the number of whales in the area had gone up, detecting two or three, instead of one. That would provide a bit more flexibility without impeding whale protection.

What do you think?

[Martin Noël]

As I said, a transiting whale should not automatically trigger a season-long closure of certain grids. It should depend on the presence of an aggregation of whales, in other words, a number of whales socializing or feeding in a specific area.

I think that would result in seasonal closures that were more reasonable and more relevant to whale protection.

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

Mr. Lanteigne, I'm going to come back to the icebreaker issue, if I have time.

Do you think fishing area 12 should open to all harvesters at the same time, whether in Quebec, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia?

If not, what would that do to the opening of the fishery?

[Jean Lanteigne]

It is very clear to us that the season should open at the same time for everyone. Otherwise, some harvesters have an advantage over others. Fishing area 12 is a large area, and it may seem huge to someone who isn't familiar with the area. Where are the crab concentrated? Where is the resource concentrated? That's something completely different. Every harvester knows those areas and those fishing grounds.

A decision to open the season at different times could start a war between harvesters, and that wouldn't be good. Furthermore, opening the fishery on a set date could put lives at risk. Harvesters will want to start the season and go out fishing even if it's not safe.

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

I have one more quick question, if there's time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Cormier. Unfortunately, your time is up

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for six minutes or less, please.

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

Mr. Cormier, you can have half my time.

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

Would you like to go first, or shall I?

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

You can carry on, if it's all right with the chair.

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

Thank you, Mrs. Desbiens.

It's very kind of you. I wasn't expecting that.

I'll continue where I left off, Mr. Lanteigne.

Harvesters want the season to open sooner. Mr. Perkins mentioned this. The Canadian Coast Guard has had a presence since 2017. Huge efforts were made on the icebreaking front, and that makes me proud. Some problems still arose, though. At the last minute, the requests for proposals weren't put out. Some Coast Guard vessels are too big to fit into our channels. Quebec's Ocean Group also did a lot to help. Unfortunately, either because of the season or because of the cold, the ice is thicker in certain spots, and you never know when the air cushion vehicle will be available.

Everyone is doing everything they can, but don't you think it's time for the region to have its own equipment, its own small icebreaker—something I've been advocating for years? We could use it to free up channels, particularly in New Brunswick. The ice tends to melt faster in Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and even Newfoundland and Labrador.

Do you think having that additional tool could make it possible to open the season sooner? Everyone could start harvesting, while protecting right whales. We would have the tools we needed.

[Jean Lanteigne]

Yes, I completely agree with you on that.

That's an idea we would happily support anytime. We are at the Canadian Coast Guard's mercy, because we're the lowest priority. Clearly, the Coast Guard's purpose is first and foremost to protect people, so the fishery comes second. In many cases, that's really the problem and the season gets delayed. The ice could be broken up sooner, but it's not because work is being done elsewhere. The Canadian government should explore that approach and consider equipping our fishing harbours with that capability.

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

This is not meant as an attack on the other provinces. I'm just trying to find ways to open the season as early as possible in all provinces. Otherwise, my fear is that fishers will move to areas where the season starts sooner, and that could seriously hurt the economies of all coastal communities. As you pointed out, it would create chaos in the industry, because of the landings for one. I don't like to think about it.

Thank you, Mrs. Desbiens. You can have the floor back.

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

Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

Mr. Noël, I was fascinated by what you said about sonobuoys and the fact that, on the basis of that information, an area could be closed, but not reopened.

Do you know whether any scientific research is being done in terms of modernizing the technology, so that the information can be used to support an area's reopening?

[Martin Noël]

Thank you for your question.

Yes, research is under way, but the findings haven't been released yet. The idea is to deploy a number of sonobuoys to determine the location of the whales through triangulation. That information will tell us where the closure should be put in place. If the whales are in another area, the area where they are no longer present could be reopened.

Advancements are being made and research is under way, but it's a lengthy process. Acoustic technology has been around for a while, but no significant progress has been made. The needs are what is driving that work, and the potential is certainly there.

I think the Government of Canada should encourage that work, which could help fishers choose appropriate fishing grounds.

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

Are things advancing slowly because of a lack of funding, or does it take time to develop the technology?

I've heard fishers comment that we put the first man on the moon 60 years ago, but we aren't even able to track a right whale.

[Martin Noël]

That's something we hear a lot.

All research comes down to funding. In my opening remarks, I thanked the Government of Canada and the Government of New Brunswick for supporting our work. Without their financial help, we wouldn't be able to make advancements in any area of research.

Allocating more money to research is paramount. That would certainly provide some momentum and help speed up development.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses who are here today. My first questions are for Mr. Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan, in your testimony today you spoke about the lack of meaningful consultation that occurred between DFO and harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador, and a refusal to acknowledge input from experienced knowledgeable harvesters.

Could you expand and share a bit more around proper consultation? What are you hearing from other fishers and harvesters, and, of course, what would that proper consultation look like?

[Keith Sullivan]

Thank you very much for the question.

As I said before, I think the evolution of this problem is different in Newfoundland and Labrador. It wouldn't be something that anyone had a high level of awareness about. When this was first pitched, I guess, it seemed like a cookie-cutter solution for fish harvesters here, but we said that option was just not realistic. It couldn't work. It's not necessarily about testing weak rope or weak links. It's physics, and harvesters knew very clearly that 1,700 pounds was way too little for the gear we were using. The gear that we're using is very good at avoiding marine mammals.

There was absolutely no engagement or interest from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to find other ways and to work with harvesters in local areas to solve these problems. It was a solution that would perhaps work somewhere else, or it came from Ottawa. They said, “Here you go. Please adapt, no matter what and no matter if it's realistic or not.” I once described it as them saying, “Well, you should just test it out first”, and me thinking, “Yes, give me a cardboard box and say 'Go to the moon'”. You say it's not possible, but then you hear, “Try it first, anyway. Try it first.” It wasn't a reasonable approach.

I think the way we fish, with very few vertical lines already in the water for these, like I said, fleets of crab gear, which seem to be the primary concern.... We can look at ways to make that the norm. Doing some of the other things that DFO was suggesting will compound the problems, with more entanglement of marine mammals.

I referenced a whale man who dedicated his life to the rescue and conservation of whales, perhaps more than anyone else in Newfoundland and Labrador. When someone in that position highlights the problems with DFO's approach and says—I'm going to paraphrase—this is absurd, I think we have a problem with the approach. It's time to start listening to experts like Mr. Ledwell and, I would say, the harvesters.

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

Building on some of the comments you just made, you mentioned how the proposed solutions that are being put forward are significantly more likely to lead to increased entanglements. I'm not a fisher, so perhaps you can explain a bit more about how the proposed solutions are resulting in the example you used of 20 vertical lines for the same gear, rather than two.

Could you explain a bit more what that looks like and how it would increase the number of lines?

[Keith Sullivan]

The way we fish now, to give an example, is that a harvester would fish 70 different traps in a line, with two vertical ropes on the end. If you're forced to put on these weak ropes and ropes with breaking strength, you would have to say that you'll have seven traps in a line, which won't actually fish very well because the gear is too light. You'd have to add safety risks. What that would mean is that you'd have 20 vertical lines in the water. If you don't do that, you'll bust off this gear. You'll have all kinds of ghost gear, tangles of rope and gear on the bottom, ghost fishing. It's also more likely to entangle marine mammals.

In our waters, there's not likely going to be right whales, but probably other marine mammals or other species that we want to protect as well. This ecosystem approach and dealing with people with practical solutions is what we need. It's not implementing solutions that are going to cause us way more problems, including hurting other species—including whales—and, certainly, causing safety issues for harvesters.

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

You also spoke about the 16 tonnes of ghost gear that have been retrieved by FFAW from the waters in the past two years. That's an incredible amount of ghost gear that's been retrieved.

I wanted to offer you an opportunity to speak to that a bit further. What does that look like, and how do you continue the retrieval of that ghost gear with the systems and processes that are being used by fishers and harvesters?

[Keith Sullivan]

Harvesters definitely gave the program a lot of credit when the federal government came out with it. People wanted to see some of this ghost gear retrieved. As I said, it is very difficult to retrieve this gear. It takes time and it's tough work. You have messes of gear on the bottom.

We hope to continue that work, but, at the same time, the best thing we can do about ghost gear is not retrieving it but preventing it from going in the water and laying on the bottom. That's why it's so frustrating. It seems so senseless that we can't have engagement on how to avoid that. It seems like that's been the threat. The fish harvesters really want to avoid that, for obvious reasons, but we're going to implement something that is going to guarantee our having more ghost gear on the bottom.

There isn't a budget big enough to collect all that gear in some of these harsh environments. I will say that a lot of this gear is collected closer to shore and in shallower water depths as well. It's tough to retrieve this gear. Prevention has to be the number one priority when it comes to ghost gear in our waters.