Fisheries Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

[Melanie Giffin]

Yes, it is. I will point out that the 99% number is for Prince Edward Island fishers only. As was pointed out, something different will work for other people in other areas.

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

I would like to get comments from each of the witnesses on the following question.

Can we agree that we are moving too fast in terms of getting the provisions in place for January 2023?

Do we also agree that there should be a better balance in terms of the impact on individuals? In the first part of our study today, we heard that this creates a form of anxiety. Sometimes fishers will rush to meet the quota while the fishery is open, just in case it closes. That creates a lot of tension in fishing communities.

Do you agree that a certain period of time should be set aside to implement the provisions so that they are adaptable based on the specific fishery situation in each region?

Are these two things that you pretty much agree on?

Each witness can answer with a yes or a no, or make a short comment.

[Melanie Giffin]

I don't mind jumping in first to say that more time would be excellent.

I mean, we found out that there was going to be a mandatory implementation in 2023. We have only a two-month season to trial anything. When we attempted to get gear for the spring season, procurement of that gear became an issue. It's mandatory in all of eastern Canada, so everyone was trying to get their hands on it. That left a small period to trial some gear in LFA 25, yet it's meant to be mandatory in January 2023, when three-quarters of Prince Edward Island hasn't had an opportunity to even trial to see what could work for them in their area.

From a P.E.I. perspective, more time would be appreciated, absolutely.

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

Is there any time left for other speakers, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

There is a minute left.

[Michael Barron]

Okay. I'll go next.

I definitely agree that we need more time to see what will and won't work. We need more time to provide consistent, reliable input. We just can't be thrown into these measures to satisfy our counterparts across the border.

Again, it's not that as an industry we don't want to protect the right whales. It's just that we have to protect our crew as well. If we're using gear that's deemed unsafe, then what? Then who's responsible?

We definitely need more time.

[Paul Lansbergen]

Very quickly, I have no problem with aiming high to achieve high. Ambitious targets are always a good thing, but I think we also have to be realistic. I think you've heard overwhelming testimony so far that the current targets or deadlines are not realistic or feasible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

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 for being here today.

I'm going to ask a quicker question, and then my colleague Mr. Morrissey has some more questions that he's very keen to ask. I'll pass the remainder of my time today, after that question, over to Mr. Morrissey.

Ms. Aylward, you spoke about the impacts of the gear-marking requirements that were put into place about one month prior to the season commencing. I'm wondering if you could share a little bit more around the economic impacts and the challenges that were experienced as a result of that.

[Molly Aylward]

I am going to defer to my colleague, Melanie Giffin.

[Melanie Giffin]

Basically what happened was, about a month before the season started, DFO announced the mandatory requirement for gear marking and it became a scramble on the east coast for people to find the proper coloured twine. There were issues that came up and trying to get answers out of conservation protection officers here on P.E.I. became a challenge because they didn't even have all of the answers to the questions we had.

Economically, I don't have valid numbers to give you on the economics of it. I just know that it was a struggle and a challenge that this office had to face constantly each day to try to find twine, to try to make sure we had all the proper information about where the markings went. Some of that wasn't even decided when the mandatory measure came out, so it just created chaos. If the management measure isn't run by industry first, then those questions are going to continue to come up. That's why industry conversations are such a key point when introducing anything like this.

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

Thank you.

With permission, I'll pass the remainder of my time to Mr. Morrissey.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Bobbie, you have about three and a half minutes, almost four.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to my colleague, Ms. Barron.

I want to go back to Ms. Giffin.

Ms. Giffin, there have been a number of opinions expressed to the committee recognizing that the acoustic sounding devices are key in establishing when right whales enter particular areas, but they haven't been used in practice to determine when you could reopen.

Could you opine on this to the committee? From your knowledge as a biologist, a scientist, is that sound technology that we could be using more to target openings and closings, particularly closings? We do it very well on closing zones, but we're not using it on reopening.

Could you give the committee your opinion on the validity of this technology to reopen zones?

[Melanie Giffin]

Absolutely, the technology appears sound. The majority of the buoys that are out there are real-time buoys so they are picking up the whale calls, which are identified quickly and determined to be right whales, and then closures take place.

I know we just had a technical working group meeting and they told us there were 84 days when there were acoustic soundings heard. Therefore, any of those days around that there were no acoustic soundings could possibly eliminate and be used to understand better when there are no whales in the area. It is absolutely sound technology from that perspective, in my opinion.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

As a biologist are you comfortable in recommending to this committee that the technology should be considered seriously by DFO in establishing a methodology to reopen zones?

[Melanie Giffin]

Yes. I think the key there is that each buoy only controls nine grids.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

My question is for Mr. Lansbergen. The concern I have as a parliamentarian who represents a large fishing area that's so dependent on lobster and crab is the access to the American market. If your organization were advising DFO, where should the department caution on—ensuring we meet the protocols the Americans are insisting we meet to maintain access to that market, or continuing to maybe go it on our own to the annoyance of the Americans?

Could you give an opinion on that?

[Paul Lansbergen]

Certainly. As I said in my opening remarks, Canada is taking a dynamic approach to the closures in order to protect right whales. I think you have heard overwhelming evidence that it is more effective than static closures, and it's not as disruptive to the fishing industry even though it's not perfect.

I would hate to see us take a less effective approach because the U.S. government would think that's a better approach. The challenge is how we take the most effective approach and convince the U.S. government that we're achieving the objectives of their legislation as it pertains to us and not following necessarily the same methods. It's the outcomes that are the most important. I think DFO has been very strong at NOAA to convince them of that, but we will only find that out over the next month or so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

Now, it's time to say goodbye to our witnesses, because we have committee business to do and we have a dead stop at 6:15 p.m. We do not have any services beyond that point, unfortunately, and we have to do drafting instructions and talk about travel. We have committee business, and it takes a few minutes to change over to in camera.

I want to say a big thank you to Mr. Lansbergen, Mr. Barron, Ms. Giffin and Ms. Aylward for spending their time with us this afternoon and sharing their knowledge with committee members. I'm sure it will be valuable information for the writing of the report. The analysts have taken great notes throughout your testimony.

I think some of you were asked to send information to us in writing. If you think there's anything else you want to add as a witness, by all means, please send it to the committee and we'll incorporate it into the final study with recommendations.

Again, thank you. We'll take a quick recess, now, while we switch over to in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]