Fisheries Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

That concludes your six minutes.

I know we have almost four minutes left before the vote starts the 10-minute countdown. With the permission of the committee, we can go for another five-minute question, then take a break and recess a bit, and then do the actual voting. If everyone can let me know when everybody has it done, we'll come back right away.

Mr. Arnold, you have five minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

I'll start by thanking everyone for doing what they can to protect the right whales. I want to start off with questions for Ms. Morse and Mr. Noël regarding overflights and acoustic listening devices.

Has anybody provided you with information as to the cost differences, or the costs of these flights? It seems to me that the cost of flights, and of manning those flights, would be far greater than more acoustic listening devices. Can you provide any information on that, Ms. Morse?

[Bonnie Morse]

Thank you for the question.

I don't have any information on what the costs of flights are. I will say that, in the Bay of Fundy, because we have such active tidal waters, acoustic devices aren't functional here. The only way to do monitoring in the Bay of Fundy is through flights.

[Martin Noël]

Thank you for your question.

When it comes to the many flights conducted by DFO and the conservation and environmental protection people, I don't have the cost information at hand either. No doubt, there's a significant difference in cost between the use of sonobuoys and the use of aircraft surveillance. Each has its pros and cons.

Aircraft surveillance can identify the exact location of a whale, so it's possible to better define the area that should be closed off to fishers. Sonobuoys can detect a whale at a farther distance, but they don't tell us where the whale is in relation to the buoy, so that's a drawback.

In short, flights do cost considerably more, but they can detect right whales and identify their location with much greater precision.

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

That's a good segue to my next question.

On the west coast, individual killer whales can be identified by individual markings, making it a little easier, perhaps, to track their movements and direction of movement. Is that a possible way to identify right whales, or are they more difficult to identify individually?

[Martin Noël]

Thank you for your question.

Right whales have distinct markings on their heads called callosities, so they can be identified individually once they have reached adulthood. Calves don't yet have those markings. Entanglement markings and scarring also help to identify right whales quite easily and quickly.

It's not always easy to recognize those signs from the air, but right whales definitely have distinct markings that help to identify them.

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

It sounds as though it's difficult to track each individual whale.

I want to switch over to Mr. Sullivan now, if I can.

Mr. Sullivan, what gear or management options would be suggested by your organization or proposed in Newfoundland and Labrador? You're saying the DFO proposals aren't workable. Do you have any ideas or proposals that your organization or harvesters would put forward?

[Keith Sullivan]

First of all, absolutely we'll encourage the continued monitoring of the right whales there, and we would be subject to closures, for example, when you see a number of whales. Those would be some things that would be considered, but in the meantime, I think you can do it with management so there are fewer opportunities for entanglements there.

As well, I think gear configurations in crab are something that can be looked at—fishing and reducing the number of these vertical lines in the water. That is a very workable, sensible solution as opposed to increasing the numbers there. That's exactly what those who have dealt with marine mammal entanglements in the areas before would suggest would make sense as well.

Right now you see that weak rope, for example, might be something that could help disentangle a whale. Again, it's like the ghost gear. It's better to prevent a whale from getting entangled as opposed to putting more rope in the water and having more entanglements and hoping to get them out of the rope and the fishing gear. I think there are certainly a couple of things we can do, and we can learn more from our counterparts in the other parts of the gulf and the Bay of Fundy and other areas that have dealt with them for longer.

Mr. Noël spoke about some of this “on demand” gear. I think it will take time when you talk about $5,000 per piece of equipment. Obviously that's a difficult transition for people, but I believe that once we get more trials, testing and confidence in it, it may be a part of the solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

I think we'll take a quick recess now to allow members to vote. We'll ask for the witnesses to be patient for a few minutes until we get this process done. We'll be right back very shortly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We will now go to Mr. Cormier for five minutes or less.

Go ahead, please.

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

I want to follow up on the icebreaking issue. I have to say how proud I am of our government's efforts on that front over the past few years. As I mentioned earlier, unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape sometimes get in the way. We know we need ships, but the requests for proposals still haven't been put out. We need to get past those hurdles and acquire the tools we need.

My question is for Mr. Lanteigne and Mr. Noël.

Mr. Sullivan said that discussions on the weak rope requirement would be taking place in 2023. Where do you stand on the issue? Where are you in your talks with DFO?

People have serious concerns about the weak rope. They think it will be harmful and won't help protect right whales.

[Martin Noël]

Thank you for your question.

I said earlier that we had concerns about weak rope and links. Those discussions with the department will continue in November and December.

The gear requirement will come into force in January. That's pretty soon considering we still don't have a solution. My fear is that it will result in a whole lot more ghost gear in the sea, and that will put right whales at greater risk even when fishers aren't fishing. Ghost gear is there forever, so it means more gear to recover.

I would say we still have work to do. We've done trials, but we are still in the initial phase. We still have a phase or two to go before we can say that the new technology can be used successfully.

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

Do you think it would be better to wait a bit, since you don't know whether the rope will be strong enough?

[Martin Noël]

I think the responsible and reasonable thing to do is to give fishers a bit more flexibility and carry out sea trials on a broader scale. That way, we could really measure the effects of the rope.

As you are well aware, Mr. Cormier, our crabbers are large vessels with heavy equipment.

A rope with 1,700 pounds of breaking strength isn't a strong rope, and we're pretty close to that number.

It's clear, in my view, that if the measure is introduced this year, given existing equipment, it won't be good.

I can't get that gear at my local store. It makes no sense to apply the requirement in January, as far as I'm concerned.

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

Mr. Lanteigne, dynamic closure measures were discussed earlier, among other things. Do you think there is still flexibility to improve those measures without impacting American markets or the international market?

Do you think there is still room for more flexible measures? This would keep fishers safe and reduce the chaos from the beginning to the end of the fishing season. It would slow down the plants processing crab, but it would give all the plants and our communities some breathing room.

Can we do better for people in the industry? We need to maintain our markets and make sure that the U.S. recognizes that our measures are perfectly adequate. What they are doing in the U.S. is adequate, but what we are doing could be more adequate.

What do you think?

[Jean Lanteigne]

I think there is definitely room for improvement.

The nine quadrants that are being closed are huge areas; they are large spaces. We have already proposed to the department measures to shrink these areas, as well as to expand the fishing grounds in a way that is safe for the whale. That was rejected. We are confident that this is the preferred approach.

The more fishing is concentrated outside of closed areas, the greater the risk of a whale becoming entangled in the gear, given the high concentration of gear. Also, it is more dangerous for fishermen because they have to move traps quickly before going into areas where they are not sure fishing is possible.

It is imperative that we continue to refine the closure measures for these areas. They need to be closed for shorter periods of time and they need to be smaller. This is for the benefit of the whales that are on the move.

As stated earlier, the acoustic buoy makes it possible to close a zone, but only visual observation makes it possible to reopen a zone. This mode of operation needs to be reviewed.

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

That's great.

Mr. Sullivan—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm sorry, Mr. Cormier. Your time is up.

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 won't take two and a half minutes, as I have less time now, but I'm still going to continue by addressing Mr. Lanteigne.

Mr. Lanteigne, you talked earlier about an opening committee, saying that would be a very good way to proceed. Mr. Noël was saying that implementing the various solutions proposed by DFO by January 2023 was not feasible. Could this opening committee then be an alternative, short-term solution to ask for a longer deadline, and could it be implemented quickly?

Also, would it be feasible to add to the committee someone who represents the U.S. market?

[Jean Lanteigne]

Ms. Desbiens, the committee is in place.

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

It's in place, okay.

[Jean Lanteigne]

It has been operating for a number of years. Let me explain what it does. First, it finds the ideal date when the fishing area is ice-free, and second, it looks at whether it's possible to open the fishery safely. Everyone is at the table right now: fishers' associations, processors, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as I said earlier, the Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, since we know you can't open the fishery in a stormy period, as well as first nations.

The date fluctuates from year to year, depending on weather conditions, primarily, and ice conditions. However, some associations or provinces want a date set for the opening of the crab fishery without considering the other conditions I just listed. For us, this does not make sense. It's too dangerous.

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

It reminds me a lot of the capelin fishery debate that came up not too long ago.

[Jean Lanteigne]

I think you are very familiar with this issue. I've seen you debate it.

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

I will ask you a second question.

In order to improve our credibility in the U.S. market when it comes to the environment, are there any plans to include an American on the committee?

If not, can someone who represents the U.S. market have access to or work with the committee?