Fisheries Committee on Oct. 25th, 2022

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

It seems there are two sets of regulations, one for the U.S. and one for Canada, as far as enforcement goes.

[Martin Mallet]

Yes, for sure. If you look at data comparing the way we are handling the right whale issue in Canada with how things are going right now in the U.S. with respect to the situation in the lobster fishery, the industry in the U.S. and NOAA are looking at us, even as we speak, for examples of how they could go about maybe decreasing potential dangers for their whales down there.

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

In your estimation, were the harvesters in your area adequately consulted before the government decided to move to weak ropes and other measures they are suggesting here? Do you feel as though there has been adequate consultation with the harvesters?

[Martin Mallet]

I think the weak rope discussion is a discussion that started a few years ago. We feel as though we are part of a conversation and part of a consultation process, but we will see, when things come down to the actual decision at some point, whether or not these measures are imposed.

Again, we should not have measures imposed on us at this point in time. If you look at all the good work we've done in the last few years and the recent impacts that this has had on the survivability of right whales here in Canada, before anything else is imposed, we should seriously consider what we have done already and maybe just focus on optimizing what we're doing now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

You have gone way over your time, and I let you get away with it because you're new.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the accommodation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Morrissey, go ahead for five minutes or less, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A number of trade agreements and treaties have been thrown around in the conversation. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, negotiated by Minister Freeland, had no negative impact on the Canadian seafood industry. If anybody appearing as a witness has verification that it has, I would like you to submit it to the committee.

We're referring to, then—and at the same time interchanging—the U.S. government's Marine Mammal Protection Act, which they brought in at the same time and will use against any country. The trade agreement that this government signed with the European Union reduced duties significantly on Canadian seafood exported there, increasing the price to fishers.

A number of agreements have been interchanged in the testimony, and it appears we're confusing two different things. One is a trade agreement and one is an act by the U.S. government totally covering their own area. If any witness has documentation contrary to that, I would like them to submit it to the committee.

The testimony given has been consistent among all the witnesses who have appeared. One said that any trade retaliation by the Americans or any closing of the border would be devastating to the east coast crab fishery and lobster fishery. We're all in agreement that fishers must take all measures to protect the North Atlantic right whale.

There has been criticism of some of the measures being put forward by DFO, but I have heard very little on the solutions being offered concretely. I would like the witnesses to comment on that.

One comment was made that we should optimize the measures we now have, and I believe Martin may have made reference to that. How can we optimize measures that would enhance the ability of the fishing industry to pursue lobster and crab but still protect the whale?

Another comment was made—and I'm not sure by whom—that we have to provide more solutions. What more solutions could the industry provide to this committee that could work their way into recommendations?

I will start with you, Mr. Mallet.

[Martin Mallet]

I'll give part of the answer and then I'll pass it to my colleague Mathieu.

I'll give you an example. There is no better risk mitigation measure than not having any lobster traps or snow crab traps in the water when whales are around. We know that our fishing seasons for lobster, for instance, and the closeness to shore, help us 99.99% of the time to not be in the way of any whales.

Now, for snow crab, the idea is to try to increase the intensity of our fishery before whales appear. Any whale mitigation measures that are in the way of our finishing up in that fishery as early as possible are right now actually increasing—to my knowledge anyway—the risk to right whales.

Mathieu, do you want to add to what I just said?

[Mathieu Noël]

Maybe I'll fine-tune that point of view.

We have seasonal closures. When two whales are observed in the same area within a certain amount of time, they will close until November. They'll go through the season and close the area for the full year.

A lot of times no whales are seen. For instance, a week after the last sighting there were no whales, but we will still keep those areas closed for the full season. We're slowing down the fishery and are not actually protecting the whales.

For those kinds of things, optimization can be done to help.

[Martin Mallet]

I'll just add to that. We have the capacity within our snow crab industry to finish most of our quota in about six weeks. By imposing these closures, we're extending the season by one or two weeks in general. This is from the experience of the last few years.

There is a way to tweak it a bit. I think that in the next few weeks and months, we're going to have these conversations with DFO. However, there needs to be an openness to modifying these protocols and optimizing them with what fishers are seeing as a potential solution.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

That's going to clew up our witness presentations for today.

I want to say a big thank you to Mr. Mallet, Mr. Noël and Mr. Côté for sharing their knowledge with us here today at committee. I'm sure it will help when the report finally gets written.

We have a small bit of committee business to do, but we won't even go out of public to do it because it will take too long to come back in camera. We'll allow the witnesses to sign off and then we'll deal with committee business. It's a very small issue.

Yes, Mr. Cormier.

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

Do we stay on this Zoom link?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, stay on this Zoom link. This is only going to take a couple of minutes. I wanted to make sure we had five minutes to get it done and over with.

I believe, Mr. Perkins, that you have something to say.

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

I always have something to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, it's just a matter of whether somebody listens.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Chair, as I've taken on another shadow minister job and I'm now doing double duty on two committees, I would like to vacate the vice-chair position of FOPO and propose and nominate MP Mel Arnold for the role.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that. I don't know how we'll ever get by without you as vice-chair, but I'm sure we'll struggle through it as best we can.

There's a nomination on the floor for Mr. Arnold to be vice-chair, seconded by Mr. Bragdon.

Is there any dissent? Hold back your thoughts.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Does he have to make a speech convincing us to support him? We want to hear it.

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

I'll accept the nomination and pledge to live up to the performance of Mr. Perkins and beyond.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You've set the bar very low, Mel. You can do much better than that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I agree with Mr. Morrissey.