Evidence of meeting #36 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was whale.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.
Thank you, Chair.
Hello to the witnesses.
First let me say that what we're hearing today, from both these witnesses and the previous witnesses, is that it's clear that Canada has some of the strongest protections in the world. I thank fishers for that. I thank folks like the witnesses here and other oceans stakeholders.
I will say—and Mr. Morrissey brought this up in a previous question—that I have my issues with the Seafood Watch assessment that puts lobster on the red list. I think it's unfounded and it's just plain wrong, in my opinion.
My question is for both of you. Given your experience in this field over the years, can you explain why such measures are being pursued as they relate to two things? The first is trade, and specifically the MMPA in the United States. I think it's important to revisit that.
I have another question after that, if time allows.
Dr. Fuller, we can start with you and then go on to the next witness.
Vice-President, Operations and Projects, Oceans North
Thank you for that question, Mr. Kelloway.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act is being used as a trade barrier to some extent, but it is also an important act in the United States. It has led to important protections for marine mammals. Unfortunately, they're probably not strong enough; otherwise, we would see much better measures within the U.S. for right whales.
With regard to trade, one of the things that hasn't been mentioned is that the snow crab fishery has lost its marine stewardship certification in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I think that there is a path to get that back. I don't think losing that certification has led to a huge loss of price or markets, but I support sustainable seafood certifications. They're useful for some markets, and they're useful for the industry to understand where improvements can be made and where they are already doing good work.
Seafood Watch is not going to have a huge impact on trade. I don't think we need to worry too much about it. I reviewed an early version of the report. I made many comments. It is unfortunate that they lumped Canada and the U.S. together. The thing about the criteria is if you interfere with a species at risk, you automatically get into the red list, which is hard to come back from.
I will say that I think the scoring could have been much better on forage fish. Canada has done a significant amount of difficult work over the past year in closing fisheries like mackerel and herring. It has not been easy, but it makes a big difference in the scoring, and it should make a bigger difference in the scoring on these things, because bait is implicated in some of those fisheries.
I would take it with a grain of salt. My advice to industry.... When they called to say, “Have you seen this report?”, I said, “Yes, I've seen it. You all knew it was coming out.” My advice to industry was that in advance of those reports coming out, every week or two weeks, there should have been a press release on the good work that Canadian fishers are doing on whale mitigation measures. I mentioned that in my comments.
I think we can be much more proactive in our communication about what we are doing, and that needs to come not just from the government in terms of management measures, and not just from NGOs, but from fishing associations. It was a missed communication opportunity, and I have been pushing them to start speaking more, particularly when next summer comes, about the work that is being done. Sean Brillant mentioned a lot of his work on ropeless gear and the uptake by fishermen. Ropeless gear is a solution to closed areas.
I think that probably over-answers your question.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Not at all, Dr. Fuller.
There are many common themes here, but one is the ability for NGOs, industry and government when we can.... There are many times when we can find common ground and we can find common messaging to tell people throughout the globe—in the United States, Canada, within our own region and in my own region of Atlantic Canada—about the work we're doing and the efforts that are being made.
That's not to say that more shouldn't or can't be done, but I appreciate that full answer.
Ms. Elmslie, do you have any comments on that?
Then if I have time, I have one quick question.
Campaign Director, Oceana Canada
I would just add, on the good work that's being done that hasn't come up yet, that Dr. Brown does whale disentanglement. Almost almost all of the other people on her team are fishermen. I believe Martin Noël was here earlier. He goes out, and Robert Haché goes out, and they disentangle whales. These are fishermen in real life saving whales in really dangerous conditions. I think this is a story that's unique to Canada. We need to tell it.
Liberal
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Okay. I'll go right to it, then. This is for both of you.
In our conversations with witnesses, we've heard a lot about flexibility when it comes to our measures and the need for more flexibility. In your opinion, is that possible? What would it look like, and what would you recommend?
Vice-President, Operations and Projects, Oceans North
I'll be quick, because Kim probably has things to say about this as well.
As Dr. Brown said, there's not one silver bullet, so flexibility is of course important. I think it's where we are flexible that is critical. We more or less know when the whales migrate. We generally know where they are congregating. I think we need to be flexible in terms of our solutions and also be opportunistic and quite rapid. I think fishermen can be very helpful on the ground on that.
You know, the dynamic closures versus static closures were tricky. I know they were tricky for fishermen, not just for the fishing but also for getting access to the plants that they would usually sell to if they were fishing in a slightly different area.
I think there is already in fact some flexibility built into the way that every year there is a convening of all the stakeholders and rights holders to talk about what needs to be done, so it's flexibility to achieve what? I think flexibility to achieve and ensure the conservation of right whales is really important. That would help ensure that our fisheries are sustainable and have access to markets.
On the other side, of course one size doesn't fit all. We heard from Mr. Small about some things with gillnets. One size doesn't fit all with fishing gear as well, or in the Bay of Fundy, or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I think that in the discussions, there has been a fair bit of flexibility. I would just make sure that we err on the side of ensuring that this flexibility is for the outcome of right whales. Otherwise, we will tend to slip, and slipping could result in more entanglement and deaths.
For every year that there are no fatalities, I think everybody breathes a grand sigh of relief. We want to make sure that whatever we do maintains that sigh of relief at the end of the migration period.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Kelloway. You've gone way over. I'll get that back off of you the next time you have questions.
We'll now go to Madam Desbiens for six minutes or less, please.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also thank our witnesses. It is always very instructive to hear them.
Ms. Elmslie, fishermen are very much consulted when setting up mechanisms to protect whales, but are they consulted on their own knowledge of the field and their observations? After all, they are on the water and they know the environment in which they operate every day. Are their observations sufficiently taken into account?
Campaign Director, Oceana Canada
I'll be interested to hear Dr. Fuller's response to this, because I think she works with harvesters a little bit more.
I'm on some of the technical advisory groups and working groups. I do see a lot of fishing associations, fishermen and others there. There does seem to be input, and more so now than before. I wouldn't say that this was necessarily always the case. There does seem to be quite a bit of input that goes into this. There seems to be broader outreach at the consortium on ropeless gear meetings that are held in Canada.
Certainly when I go to the science advisory meetings in Atlantic Canada, working with fishermen is primary. Again, they're the ones out there. They understand the gear and they're seeing things on the water. I'm not sure if I can make a value judgment about whether it's enough, but I certainly see it being integrated and being listened to.
Vice-President, Operations and Projects, Oceans North
I would agree with that. It's probably never enough.
I think we have to consider that fishers' knowledge is not one thing; it is different in each area and fishery. It's not just one thing that can be integrated; it's quite broad and diverse, and it comes at different scales and times.
The more we can continue to work in this collaborative format.... The associations and their members are very involved, and there's communication back and forth. One thing I have heard from friends of mine who are fishermen is.... Sometimes they'll send me a picture of a whale, but they're afraid to report it, because they're afraid of restrictions. I think that piece is something we have to figure out. The reality is that in fact there may be some restrictions coming from that data point.
The more we can encourage fishermen to report that information and be a real part of that dynamic data, the better. Making sure they are part of the solution will, I think, decrease their fear of something coming down on them. Their being able to create the solution from the bottom up is vital. I think we're still in the middle of that. This has all been very rapid and quick since 2017, although there were absolutely measures before that. Moira Brown's team are all fishermen, for the most part.
We need to keep doing the work we're doing, probably on smaller scales and by fishery. I hope that the fishermen's information not only becomes incorporated but also that we continue to get more of it.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you both for sharing your thoughts on this matter.
For the benefit of the people who follow our work, what would be the most promising solutions to avoid overly harming our fishermen while protecting right whales? Which of the current interventions and those anticipated by scientists for the future do you think have the greatest potential for success?
Campaign Director, Oceana Canada
In response to that, I think I'll echo what you've heard today: The system we have is working.
The way I see it is that if you have a whale, you want to have a bubble of protection around it as it's moving. Obviously, you need to know where it is. Then you need to remove those threats, be they shipping or rope in the water. I think the closures are good, and they are working, although there are refinements. As we learn more and know more, there will be continual understanding and refinement of the measures we have.
We have seen some changes happening in the closures. For instance, we no longer have closures in under 20 fathoms. That's where we took the science of the whale and how the whales are using the environment. We don't need to do closures in certain areas.
I think that is what's important. That is what's going to help everyone. We need to continue to have measures. Unfortunately, this is not a problem that's going to go away. We're going to have to do this over the long term. We would like to see a permanent system in place so that there is more certainty and fishermen know each year that this is coming and is going to happen. We continue to do those refinements with all the information we're learning so that we can zero in on what the true solution is.
Again, this is why the science needs to be funded, why necropsies need to be funded and why we need to fund our disentanglement folks. They're the ones who are going out and getting the gear so that we can figure out where it came from or what kind of gear it is. All of that information helps us refine the solution that benefits everyone in the end.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Madame Desbiens. Your time has gone a bit over.
We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
My first question is for Dr. Fuller.
Dr. Fuller, based on some of the work you've done in the past and on your introduction, I'm wondering if you have any perspective or thoughts you can provide on the role of indigenous knowledge-keepers through this process of transferring information about conservation methods, gear being used and best practices. How does this play into the discussion? I haven't heard anything mentioned about that yet.
Vice-President, Operations and Projects, Oceans North
I think that with regard to the fisheries that have the potential to interact with right whales, many of those are commercial fisheries, whether or not they are fished by non-indigenous or indigenous fishers. I think that when you hear about fishers' knowledge, we are absolutely including those who are commercially and communally fishing crab and lobster and other species , and other fisheries that are undertaken and owned by first nations, but you can't pull that knowledge on the water apart, necessarily, from the knowledge of non-indigenous fishers.
I would say that one of the things we've actually supported recently.... I'm not sure if you've seen the film Last of the Right Whales. We supported that being translated into Mi'kmaq, because often these things get told but not in the communities where they need to be told, and those stories don't get shared.
We did a series of workshops—that were supposed to be in person, but ended up being online because of COVID—to talk to indigenous communities about species at risk and get their perspectives. The ones that came out as most important and the ones they had the most knowledge about were eels, elvers and salmon, but I think it is the knowledge system and the values that are really important, and also the idea that these species have been here forever and we have to think in seven generations.... I do not claim at all to speak for indigenous knowledge, and that indigenous knowledge is not mine, but I think it has to be, as you say, a part of the solution. I do think that at the round tables, indigenous organizations and fishers absolutely participate increasingly. I think that will increase as well.
As Kim said, where everything is iterative, whether it is fishers' knowledge, indigenous knowledge, management measures or science, we're constantly increasing the inputs and hopefully improving the outputs.
Hopefully I've answered your question, but I do think that it's sometimes hard to separate. If you're a crab fisher, you're still out there fishing crab regardless of who you are, so your experiences on the water are reasonably similar.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Dr. Fuller. Yes, that answers my question.
My next question is for Ms. Elmslie. Thank you for being here as well, Ms. Elmslie.
You spoke about the benefits of a permanent system in your opening remarks. I really liked the image you provided for us of having the whale being encircled with protection. I really liked that imagery.
When you talk about a permanent system, you're also talking about being adaptable and you're also talking about different regions needing to be specific. I'm wondering if you can share a little more about how we can have the permanency required while also adapting to the ongoing changes in the regions specifically within them.
Campaign Director, Oceana Canada
Yes. I appreciate the question, because it does sound like the two pieces are contradicting each other: How can it be permanent yet flexible?
On the permanency piece of it that we see, currently the system that is in place is done through either interim orders, which are generally on the fishing side, or the use of ministerial discretion. On the shipping side, it's interim orders.
Again, we need to have some sort of a regulatory mechanism for both shipping and fishing that compels the ministers to continue to put measures in place. When you rely on discretion, it's working when it's working, but this is going to be an issue for successive governments over time. We need to keep this priority and pass on that torch, because this is a problem that's going to need many years to find a solution.
The permanency is what compels. Then everybody knows that this is coming every year, and then within that you have all of the inputs required. What is the refinement of the measure going to look like for next year with all of the new information that we have? Have the whales shifted? Is there a new scientific paper that has come out? Have we learned something new so that we can continue to do this until such time that the whale population has recovered sufficiently?
