Fisheries Committee on Oct. 25th, 2022

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses, whose remarks have been very useful.

Earlier, Mr. Côté, who was unfortunately having connection problems, did not have time to finish his recommendations. If the situation has not improved for him, if I may, I am going to list the following recommendations on his behalf: the creation of an income protection program for fishers and helpers in the event of a fishery closure; a socioeconomic impact study of the implementation of right whale protection measures and measures to mitigate the repercussions on the fishery sector; putting protection measures in place that take into account the unique geographic and technical features of each fishery; and postponing the mandatory application of additional measures, such as weak links and specialized ropes, as long as feasibility research on the ground has not been completed and as long as sufficient quantities of gear are not available on the markets for fishers.

I have taken the liberty of completing the reading of those recommendations.

I am going to address Mr. Mallet or Mr. Noël, who are not having connection problems, and so who will be able to answer my questions.

It is the question I asked earlier, Mr. Cormier, about communications.

Could we make a recommendation that would look like this?

DFO makes use of many measures, resources and protection methods. It takes a very technical approach. Are there enough expert opinions of a socioeconomic nature regarding the indirect benefits in the communities and the economic impact, on the ground, for fishers, and so on?

Could we ask DFO to put more emphasis on the socioeconomic repercussions of its measures?

Might that be a useful recommendation?

[Martin Mallet]

Yes, absolutely.

Really emphasizing the social and economic consequences of all these measures will perhaps be part of the next steps, in my opinion. Our various fisheries have been affected for several years, since 2016, 2017 and 2018.

One effect it would have is to emphasize the importance of the sacrifices the fishing industry in general has had to make to try to coexist with the whales. At DFO, there is a science and ecosystems branch, but it has very few resources, from what I understand. It might be wise for the committee to ask DFO to provide us with relevant information so as to promote what we are doing here in Canada even more on the international scene.

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

A concrete communication plan should therefore be established in order to improve the perception on the part of certain American observer groups that have a tendency to throw shade on fishers in Quebec and Canada.

Do you think this communication campaign should recognize the fragility, the lack of foreseeability, that fishers have to deal with, and so should support them, a bit like in agriculture?

When I sat on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, there were programs like AgriInvest and AgriInsurance. But there was no financial support to help fishers reduce their stress a bit.

Do you think that if we guaranteed them an income in the case of situational distress and created a communication campaign to set the record straight and promote the exceptional actions that have been taken, these would be two measures that could significantly improve the situation?

[Martin Mallet]

Absolutely. I think Mr. Côté's idea is excellent.

In some cases, we have gone beyond the way things were in 2018 in terms of the inshore lobster fishery. There are still risks that a similar situation will recur, even with the inshore closure protocol.

This summer, on one or two occasions, the fishers from Îles-de-la-Madeleine had to go and fish closer to shore, where the water is less than 10 fathoms deep. If a whale had been in that area because it was sick or dying, for example, fishing would have been shut down completely for at least two weeks. Various factors can lead to that kind of situation, and a support program would be very useful if it happened.

With respect to communications, we are not doing a good job at all. We wait too long before reacting to attacks from the international NGOs. We have all the information needed for developing a communication plan that would allow for speedy reaction, based on the various scenarios that are likely to occur.

Take the example of Seafood Watch. Unfortunately, we waited too long, several weeks, to get an answer from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and its minister. In contrast, the Lobster Council of Canada made the facts public in the press within just a few days. The goal was not necessarily to attack the United States, but to defend ourselves using facts. We do have them.

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

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[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, and thank you to the witnesses.

My first question is for Mr. Mallet. This might be a bit of a bigger question, but I'm trying to understand clearly, based on the testimony we're receiving, how best to put together recommendations for the government once this study is concluded. I've been hearing quite a bit about the measures being taken to protect the North Atlantic right whale and about having processes in place that are both responsive and versatile while also being specific and clear, but there seem to be some contrasting descriptors about how we would like to see these measures carried out.

I was just wondering if you could clarify your thoughts on how best to move forward. What do fishers on the water need so they can be successful in the important work they're doing while we also ensure that we are protecting the North Atlantic right whale and our marine ecosystems?

[Martin Mallet]

That's a great question.

I think when we started putting measures in place in 2018, we basically started by using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Now year after year we've been trying to optimize our measures and refine them so that as we move forward, we continue protecting the right whales as best we can. As I mentioned before, we've done a great job on that in the last few years.

By refining through knowledge and science and through collaborative science with industry, fishermen and DFO, we are finding tailored approaches and sometimes area-specific approaches to mitigating risk for right whales. A bunch of solutions are proposed year after year, as has been mentioned to this committee in presentations over the last few days. Every few months an advisory group sits down and talks about potential ideas and things that don't work and things that work better.

As we move forward, I think new technologies may appear that may be interesting to work on as we study these new approaches, but, again, we need to take our time with every new protection measure. This is currently the case with the weak rope. We lack too much information at this point, so to have it forced on industry could potentially have a catastrophic effect on the ecosystem.

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

Thank you very much.

How do you provide feedback, outside of talking to us today and sharing with us what you're seeing? Are there any mechanisms for you to provide feedback around what you've been experiencing?

[Martin Mallet]

Mathieu, do you want to answer that one?

[Mathieu Noël]

Yes. There is a technical working group, which regroups the different people working in the industry. The mechanisms are there for people in the industry to share the work they're doing on different measures and share ideas on where we could go. The challenge is always that if we want to improve everything, the different zones and the different areas have different challenges, and we certainly need to be flexible on the measures. Basically what needs to be done is to make sure that we protect the whales where they actually are.

Just as an example, on the weak links measure that is proposed by DFO, we tried to implement that in the lobster fishery in New Brunswick, where there hasn't been a whale seen. There have been no whales seen inside the 20-fathom line in New Brunswick, but we are still trying to put in measures for that fishery. Basically, we're not resolving anything. The whales are not there. We're trying to put on extra layers there to protect an animal that is not there. I think that's the focus we should put on it: to make sure we protect the whales where they actually are.

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

Just building off what you're saying, have you been seeing any increase of plastic in the waters or experiencing any safety issues with fishers on the water as a result of the gear being used in an attempt to minimize impacts on the North Atlantic right whale?

[Mathieu Noël]

Well, not yet, as they are only in the testing phase right now.

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

I think I'm going to quickly try Mr. Côté. I don't believe he has the Internet capacity to answer this question, but I was wondering if he might be able to share a bit more with us, perhaps in writing—because I think I'm going to run out of time—around the socio-economic impacts he was speaking to.

[Mathieu Noël]

Yes, I'll do that.

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

That's great. Perhaps you can build off what you were talking about before around the socio-economic impacts, and then perhaps the top thing that you think we could do better to ensure we are considering the economic impacts of our decisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

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

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

It's good to see some of you again. It's been a little while. It's good to see you back on the fisheries committee.

Perhaps I'll start with Mr. Côté. The other witnesses can confirm this too.

You mentioned, Mr. Côté, in response to my colleague's question—and I thought it was quite telling—the USMCA being one of the key factors in why we're where we are right now regarding the failure of negotiations as they related to the interests of the harvesters and making sure that the concerns of the harvesters were heard, just as it is the responsibility of the organizations you folks represent to ensure their voices are heard in these things.

I just want to ask you if you were ever consulted, or if the harvesters you know of were consulted, during the new NAFTA or USMCA negotiations, and how this may potentially affect your industries.

Go ahead, Mr. Côté.

[Jean Côté]

I'm so sorry. I missed half of the question.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

That's no problem.

It was just in regard to the USMCA portion, Mr. Côté. You said that obviously we're dealing with the consequences of the failed negotiation as it relates to the harvesters and the impact the negotiation is now having, which pertains to the issue we're dealing with here at this committee today.

Can you speak to whether or not your organization or other organizations you're aware of were brought into the consultation process? Were your voices heard at the table during that negotiation?

[Jean Côté]

I'm not sure if I understand well. If you want to know if we were involved in those initial negotiations, my answer would be no. The decisions were just put in front of us and were negotiated much higher than us, and we have to live with the consequences right now.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Those consequences are having a pretty major impact from what we're seeing.

Mr. Mallet, do you want to comment on that as it relates to the USMCA?

[Martin Mallet]

No. I think the U.S. MMPA is a U.S. initiative only and it is being imposed on all countries except the U.S.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

This is having devastating consequences here.

We know the financial implications of this and of some of the regulatory changes being put onto the industry and harvesters here, and as we just heard in testimony, some of these zones have not had a sighting of a right whale ever—that we're aware of or that's on record—but the cost and the potential cost of this to our harvesters is significant.

Would you like to comment on that as well?

[Martin Mallet]

Just to go a bit further, I think what the U.S. MMPA protocol brings us into now—and this is going to be online, I think, in 2023—is that there's going to be a constant threat. It's kind of like a sword of Damocles hanging over our head with regard to all the fisheries across Canada and any potential issues we may have in terms of interactions with all kinds of marine mammals.

It could be an issue on the west coast as much as on the east coast. It just so happens that the new U.S. MMPA threat started appearing for us here in Canada back in 2017 or 2018 when we had this serious interaction event in 2017 with right whales in the gulf in Canada.