Fisheries Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

[Jean Lanteigne]

The Americans are not on the committee. We have to remember that we are still talking about a resource that belongs to Canadians. I think we have to exercise our power and we do it well in this regard.

However, I can tell you that the Americans are watching our work very closely. They watch a lot of everything we do, including on this front. I think they are enormously appreciative of our efforts to open the fishery as early as possible to avoid fishing while right whales are present. They are very closely following our efforts to do that for two reasons.

First, Americans want to know exactly when they can expect to receive fresh product that they can place on their fish shelves.

Second, they want to make sure we minimize the impact on the right whale as much as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron to end off this portion, for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My question is for Ms. Morse.

Ms. Morse, you spoke about the socio-economic impacts on communities as a result of the closures. This is something that I wanted to hear from you a bit more. What were you hearing from community members regarding the impacts? What are your thoughts around how we move forward in conservation efforts and protecting the North Atlantic right whale, while also ensuring we are considering the socio-economic impacts on communities?

[Bonnie Morse]

Obviously, living on an island, we're very isolated, and our economy is completely dependent on the sea, whether it is for the fishing or the aquaculture industry. Lobster is a primary fishery that we have, so anything that happens to that has a huge impact on the island as a whole.

For us, one of the big things is coming into the beginning of the season, because our season starts in November. It is when right whales are leaving Canadian waters, so you wouldn't tend to see them coming into the Bay of Fundy and lingering in the area and looking for food. If they do, it's very much a transitory trip through the Bay of Fundy, so some of the things that my colleagues have talked about concerning a single whale's transiting shutting down large pieces of the fishery for an extended period of time when, really, the whales aren't there anymore.... We need to look at the duration of the closures and maybe multiple sightings of whales if we are going to have a longer-term closure such as that.

We also have to look at some of the risk factors when we are looking at some of the measures, like Mr. Sullivan has talked about. If you have an area where the fishery takes place where there's very little or no overlap with right whale presence, maybe we don't need to focus as much on the measures in those places but work more collaboratively with fish harvesters, whom I think do have different solutions. However, what works in the Bay of Fundy with our tides probably isn't going to work in the Gulf of St. Lawrence any more than what works in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is going to work in Newfoundland.

We have to move away from having a unilateral approach that will work Atlantic Canada-wide and really look at specific areas to see how the fishery operates there, what can be done in those areas and, really, what needs to be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

I'm going to break the rules a little bit because Mr. Small is such a nice guy. I'm going to allow him one question.

Be quick.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Monsieur Noël.

I know that, in Newfoundland and Labrador, crab fishing is carried out, as Mr. Sullivan stated earlier, with 70 pots in a string with two haul-ups. In your area in the gulf there, are you fishing with pots on strings, or are you using a single pot with each pot on a vertical rope?

If so, do you think that switching to Japanese-style crab pots, such as we use in Newfoundland and Labrador, would reduce the chances of right whales' being entangled in vertical lines or haul-ups? Don't you think that would very positively impact what we're trying to do here?

[Martin Noël]

Thank you for the question.

In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we fish with trapnets, a buoy, a rope and a trap. These are singles, to use the term used in Newfoundland.

Given the density of traps in the same zones, using Japanese traps in line or a trawl would cause a lot of overlap between fishing gear. This would make fishing more difficult and less safe for our fishers.

Some people have already done this in our region, but it is a little difficult. I've talked to fishers in Newfoundland who are doing what you say. They fish with trawls of 70 traps in a row. It's a little bit of a different world because trap density in the same zone is lower in Newfoundland, I've been told.

However, when you use buoys on demand, ropeless fishing, you use 10‑trap trawls, because it reduces costs and there are fewer fishermen in the same fishing zones.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

I'd like to say a big thank you, of course, to Mr. Noël, Mr. Lanteigne, Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Morse for their time here this evening with the committee.

We're going to take a very short recess to get the other witnesses set up. I understand all of them have done a sound check except for one, so we won't be in break mode for very long.

Again, thank you for your time. It is greatly appreciated. Enjoy the rest of your day.

We will recess for a moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We are back.

I'd like to welcome our second panel of witnesses.

Representing the Fisheries Council of Canada, we have with us Mr. Paul Lansbergen, president. Representing the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, we are joined by Molly Aylward, executive director, and Melanie Giffin, marine biologist and industry program planner. Representing the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, we have Mr. Michael Barron, president.

Thank you for taking the time to be with us today. You will each have up to five minutes for an opening statement.

I will invite Mr. Lansbergen to begin for five minutes or less, please.

[Paul Lansbergen, President, Fisheries Council of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

As many of you know, the Fisheries Council of Canada is the national trade association representing wild-capture processors across the country, all of whom also harvest. We promote a healthy resource and a prosperous industry that plays a vital role in the Canadian economy.

I would like to start by sharing some important facts of the sector that are often overlooked or underappreciated.

Canada has a strong sustainability record. DFO reports that 98% of our commercial fish stocks are harvested at sustainable levels. In addition, Canada is second in the world in the adoption of the Marine Stewardship Council, or MSC, which is an independent, third party, sustainable fisheries management certification. On the economic side, it is the leading sector of Canada’s blue economy, with 90,000 jobs and $9 billion in annual GDP. It is the lifeblood of coastal communities

For the discussion today, I have a number of key messages for you.

First is that no one wants to endanger whales. This should be obvious, but I feel like it needs to be said. They are majestic creatures and none of us wants to harm them.

Also, no one wants to lose gear. This should be obvious, but we know that lost gear can contribute to the entanglement risk and more. Gear is marked, it's reported when lost and there are incentives, as you heard from previous witnesses, for harvesters to retrieve lost gear.

Indeed, the whales are endangered and Canada does have a legal obligation to act. You heard from DFO officials that they have to act under the Species At Risk Act. We also need to be concerned about market implications under the U.S. MMPA, which you are also familiar with. I’ll get back to that in a moment.

Dynamic closures are an effective approach. As you heard, they might not be perfect, but DFO continues to learn from one year to the next. We have certainly learned a lot from the first year of static closures. You have heard from other witnesses, including those today who are more intimately engaged in discussions with DFO, on those closures and approaches. I will just add my voice to the chorus that the dynamic approach is much better than more static approaches taken elsewhere. I encourage DFO to continue to discuss with industry the learnings from one year to the next.

In terms of market access and market acceptance, we have to be cognizant of expectations of foreign governments and customers. The U.S. market is our top export market. Last year, it was to the tune of $6.2 billion or 70% of our seafood exports. Of this, lobster was $2.2 billion and crab—mostly snow crab—was $1.9 billion, for a total of $4.1 billion. We’ll learn as early as next month how the U.S. government evaluated our fisheries under the MMPA. I am confident that we will have good comparability findings.

Reactions can also impact our overall market reputation beyond those fisheries directly affected. Unfortunately, the reality is that we do have to respond to organizations that criticize us. It is even more frustrating when they are not transparent or robust in their determinations, but it is critical that industry speaks up for itself, and we have. As the national voice, FCC has been increasingly proactive in building public trust for the sector. It is also here to respond to criticisms after that fact.

We also expect that when questions are posed on how DFO is managing our resources, it defends itself and the industry. I think DFO could do better in this respect. We can’t forget that DFO makes the rules and when we are criticized, it impacts them too.

Lastly, we expect MSC to defend itself and the industry. I am pleased that they have done and continue to do this.

In closing, I want to note that the lobster and snow crab sectors are innovating at an unprecedented pace. The supports from government are also helping in this respect. I hope that, in only a few short years, the entanglement risk will be virtually eliminated by the widespread adoption of innovative gear.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Lansbergen.

We'll now go to either Ms. Aylward or Ms. Giffin.

I don't know if you're sharing your time or if only one of you is giving a statement. You have five minutes between you. Begin whenever you're ready.

[Molly Aylward, Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be making the statement today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to speak here today.

The P.E.I. Fishermen's Association was created in the 1950s and has evolved alongside the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to create the well-established working relationship we currently maintain. Our goal in being here today is to focus on North Atlantic right whale management measures as they relate to Prince Edward Island, and how they can be adapted to ensure a successful fishery while also not impeding the growth of the North Atlantic right whale population.

Before focusing on measures that affect P.E.I. specifically, we feel it's important to point out an overall challenge with the process to date. Since 2017, when the mass mortality triggered meetings to discuss management changes, we feel there has been a lack of meaningful consultation with harvesters. There have been advisory committee meetings and gear summits, but there have been very few harvesters invited to take part.

The gatherings have felt like an opportunity for DFO to check a box while concerns and recommendations voiced during those meetings appear to have fallen on deaf ears. It is the harvesters who are key to a successful solution, so considerable time should be invested by DFO to talk to fishers in every LFA to determine what will and won't work in that area. The first time DFO met with P.E.I. harvesters was in August 2022, five years after discussions started. There's still an opportunity for DFO to be more focused on meaningful consultation with harvesters.

Moving on to current measures related to Prince Edward Island.

First is the mandatory requirement for weak whalesafe gear. The PEIFA understands the goal of this management measure. Unfortunately, there's a lack of information being shared by DFO with harvesters regarding the details. Harvesters need time to modify their gear and January 1, 2023, is fast approaching. P.E.I. harvesters normally prep rope a year in advance of the season. Harvesters would like to avoid a situation like gear marking, which was announced only one month prior to the season and left everyone to scramble to find twine and modify their gear. Major changes like this result in procurement issues slowing the process even more.

The PEIFA still has the following unanswered questions. When will DFO present a list of approved gear? Where does the weak link need to be installed on the vertical line?

Second is with regard to seasonal closures. Currently, Transport Canada is discussing changing the restricted zone near Shediac Valley, based on 2022 whale sightings. There are also discussions of making the restricted zone adaptable, so it can be changed throughout the season, if necessary. The PEIFA feels DFO could consider the same adaptability in relation to the seasonal closures. The first seasonal closure in 2022 was announced around May 19, leaving the grid closed until November 15, almost six months. Adaptability could be built into this management measure to review the area monthly and determine if reopening the grid would be high or low risk. If the risk is low and reopening the grid gives fishers more ground, that should be a discussion on the table. Currently, there is no discussion about reopening once a grid is closed for the season.

Third deals with 20 and 10 fathom exclusion lines. This management measure points to the lower risk of interaction in shallow depths and is also an example of a measure that balances protecting the whales while allowing fishers to access rich fishing grounds.

There is a recommendation from the PEIFA for management measures regarding fishing depths versus whale sightings. In P.E.I. lobster harvesters fish in depths that range from four to 130 feet. It is obvious North Atlantic right whales are not sighted in four feet of water. Therefore, management measures being forced on fishers in these areas are not effective in protecting whales. However, they do create additional work and the risk of lost gear to fishers. This could be solved with an exclusion zone, based on the science of the minimum depth North Atlantic right whales are sighted.

As an example, if the 10th fathom line was the exclusion line, it would save about 99% of island fishers some time and money in the preparation of their gear without increasing the risk to North Atlantic right whales. These numbers are extrapolated from 503 surveys completed by island fishers on gear configuration through the whalesafe gear adoption fund.

The PEIFA has been working diligently on this file over the years. We take part in the following committees and advisories: DFO's technical working group, DFO's advisory committee, the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, the Ropeless Consortium, Transport Canada's small vessel technical working group and the Canadian Wildlife Federation. The PEIFA also attends the North Atlantic right whale stakeholder meeting.

We then disseminate the information gathered to P.E.I. fishers through advisory and board meetings on P.E.I. The PEIFA is also working with harvesters to determine whalesafe gear that would work for P.E.I. This work started prior to the whalesafe gear fund, but trials expanded through the whalesafe gear fund while additionally collecting data on gear configuration. We hope to use gear configuration information to ensure management measures are efficient for P.E.I.

Harvesters also do their part to find efficient methods to remove ghost gear and to remove lost gear before it becomes ghost gear. Again, some of this work has been ongoing on P.E.I. prior to the ghost gear fund, but the work has been expanded with the help of this fund.

The PEIFA is aware that this is a complex issue. We want to work with DFO to find solutions, but we are also feeling that there are missed opportunities for DFO to listen to the concerns raised by fishers and to discuss possible solutions.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

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

[Michael Barron, President, Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, honourable members of Parliament. It is an honour to be here today to present to you on the North Atlantic right whale. My name is Michael Barron. I'm the president of the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association and also an independent owner-operator of a fishing, lobster and snow crab enterprise in a small coastal community in northern Cape Breton.

As an industry, we're in a difficult place, being at the forefront of the economic and social change that accompanies reconciliation, and now having to deal with the right whale crisis. I would like to stress that as an industry we take great pride in being stewards of the ocean. Our industry would simply not exist if conservation and sustainability was not central to everything we do. We take great pride in the sustainability of our industry, but we often feel our expertise is overlooked or dismissed when it comes to the decisions that are being made around potential new policies and timelines for implementation.

I really want to stress that we need to be more mindful that science, evidence and clear transparent risk assessments need to be in the forefront of DFO policy and regulatory decisions, and not sensationalism and misinformation.

We don't have to look very far, to the recent Monterey Bay Aquarium report, which erroneously listed lobster and snow crab in the red zone, to see the effect a non-evidence-based report can have on an entire industry. Although this is just an NGO report with no real factual or transparent scientific data, it garnered significant media attention and caused great concern amongst the industry. It is also concerning that the government took so long to make a public address in support of the industry to acknowledge what we have done to try to prevent the right whale entanglement. I understand the report was released around the same time as the mourning period of Her Majesty's death, and the mourning was for seven days.

Let me be clear. There have been no reported North Atlantic right whale entanglements linked to Canadian lobster fishing gear in recent years, including since 2017 when Canada enhanced protection measures for right whales. We were glad to see the minister communicate these facts, and I hope that her department leans on our expertise instead of overlooking or dismissing our opinions as they often do when making decisions on the future of our industry. However, I am not overly hopeful, given the fact we are currently being rushed into costly and potentially unsafe gear modifications that lack a proven track record of success.

Similar to other associations, ours is testing whalesafe gear. We actually have one member that is testing ropeless gear, which is a term that is fairly unsettling to me, as we do need rope to retrieve our gear. I prefer the term “end lines on demand”. Nonetheless we are not having much success at this point, which is scary given that we may be forced into an April 1, 2023, gear change implementation timeline. This causes us great concern, because this is only a few months away, giving fishers little time to make the appropriate changes, not to mention that the potential new products could be in short supply as suppliers will not have enough stock on hand.

This rushed timeline concerns industry from a practical perspective but also from a safety perspective as well. We are deeply concerned about using weaker rope or breakaway links when hauling our gear in an environment that is far from forgiving at times. This gear can part or break, and depending on when and where this happens, it becomes a huge safety issue. The parting of this gear would also create more ghost gear. Also, if this end line on demand does in fact become implemented, it could lead to potential gear conflicts. If there is no identifiable marking at water's surface, one fisher will be able to set over another fisher's gear, which may cause both end line on demand units to fail and create even more ghost gear.

I guess I must give DFO credit. They have created this ghost gear fund in lieu of the whalesafe gear modifications that will potentially create a lot of ghost gear. Also, if this technology is implemented to fish within a closed area due to the North Atlantic right whale sighting, it will come at a great cost that only a few within the industry will be able to afford. This in turn could be a huge economic loss to not only the harvester but the coastal community in which they live, which would also mean less taxable income for the government.

On top of this, global issues are impacting the price of our product at a time when the cost of everything is going up. We are not immune to these cost pressures, and I hope you can appreciate this is a vicious circle with no clear exit. Well, maybe there is one—bankruptcy.

The seafood industry directly employs more than 10% of the people in my home county, Victoria County, Nova Scotia, and our industry is often praised that we generate approximately $2 billion of landed value to harvesters within Atlantic Canada and $3.2 billion in export value.

However, we always seem to be on the defensive when it comes to policy changes driven by persuasive public relations campaigns rather than science, evidence and risk. As an industry, we pride ourselves on our sustainability, yet we are forced to endlessly pivot while other entities that use our beautiful pristine ocean do not seem to have to be consistently under the public eye.

In closing, please understand that industry does not want to upset the balance of the ecosystems we fish in. We want the North Atlantic right whale to continue to live amongst us in its environment. We want to continue to provide pristine sustainable protein to help with food security for our great country and around the world, and to provide economic revenue to our coastal communities. We just want to make sure that evidence, science and industry expertise drive policy and that we are given the appropriate time to adust to practical and logical change.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll now proceed with the first round of questions.

We'll go first to Mr. Perkins.

Go ahead for six minutes or less, please.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

My first question is for Ms. Aylward. I was very much interested in your discussion about the issue of changing the permanent closure that P.E.I. fishers are dealing with, in particular in the shallow depths. I think it makes a lot of sense. In fact, as you may be aware, there was a closure in southwest Nova Scotia in June because of the sighting of a right whale, but FSC fisheries were allowed to continue in that area.

I wrote to the minister on that. The minister wrote me back on October 5, and I'll quote from her letter. She said:

As you note, NARW closure protocols do not currently apply to FSC harvesting activities, which are rights-based, small-scale, and often occur in shallow waters, to which these whales are less likely to migrate.

I wouldn't mind tabling that letter with the committee, just as part of the study.

The minister and the department are acknowledging, in their response to my letter, that shallow water gear is not a threat to right whales. I wonder if you could briefly comment on that.

[Molly Aylward]

Thank you for your question. I'm going to defer to Melanie Giffin. She is the P.E.I. marine biologist and also the lead on the file for us. Thank you.

[Melanie Giffin, Marine Biologist and Industry Program Planner, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association]

Thank you for your question.

Basically here in P.E.I., we know that we fish in shallow waters compared with the situation in other areas. One of the facts we have, based on surveys we've done, is that, we know fish are in waters that are as shallow as four feet deep. Yes, you're absolutely right that you're not going to see a North Atlantic right whale in four feet of water. There are absolutely management measures that are out there currently that show this.

Exclusions zones already exist for closures with the 10- and 20-fathom line, so our request is for an exclusion zone based on whale sightings, which would actually exclude island fishers from requiring the weak links. That's based purely on science and on low-risk areas, but it would save money and time for P.E.I. harvesters who fish in those small areas.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Ms. Giffin.

Along with same lines, my next question is for Mr. Barron. It's a follow-up question, and I'm sure Ms. Giffin could probably comment too.

Mr. Barron, with the closures you've experienced—and I understand that in the Cape Breton region, you get a lot of single whale sightings as they transit the gulf—can you tell me what the economic impact of those 15-day closures is when a whale is transiting by and there is that one sighting?

[Michael Barron]

Actually, we haven't had a closure here within our LFA 27. They've happened only on the other side of our LFA 27 line, which runs out of Bay St. Lawrence and borders the gulf. We're actually in a unique position because our lobster harvesters are with LFA 27, but their snow crab licences are in area 19 in the gulf, so we have not experienced the closure here on our side of Cape Breton.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you. To follow up on that, Mr. Barron, can you explain a little more about what your experience has been or your members' experience has been with the two types of experimental gear? It is good that they're experimenting, but my understanding is that it has a high failure rate on all accounts.

[Michael Barron]

Yes.

As an association, we were able to get most of the weak gear out to our members this year, minus the breakaway links. We had sleeves, weak rope and a different type of sleeve. With the unique way that our single trap fishery.... It's the same as the PEIFA and other areas in the gulf. We fish fairly shallow jagged shorelines, which caused some of the gear to be not easy to haul. We ended up losing some due to chafing and stuff, depending on where we were instructed to see if this weak rope would work.

As for the end line on demand gear, the harvester we have testing it has actually tested three different versions. One requires two sets of rope. One you bundle up in a bag and it's released automatically when you get close to it. He hasn't had much success with that. He's had another one that requires an automatic coiling machine aboard, which is approximately $12,000 to the harvester to purchase the coiling machine and $4,000 for each buoy. For example, in his snow crab fishery he would have to have 24 buoys and a coiler. If we ever had it seated in our lobster fishery we'd have 275 buoys and a $12,000 coiler. Economically, it does not make sense.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you.

I have a quick last question to Mr. Lansbergen.

The U.S. senators, politicians and government have been quite vocal about protecting the main industry against that report. Are you aware of anything that DFO has been doing in the U.S. to counter the myths that were perpetrated in that report?

[Paul Lansbergen]

No, I'm not directly aware of any discussions between DFO and the U.S. senators or NOAA, although I do believe DFO and NOAA are talking about the comparability findings for Canada, which is a bit of a separate issue.

One thing that we've done is that we've been sharing information with our counterpart, the National Fisheries Institute, to help deal with this issue on both sides of the border.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

We'll now go to—