International Trade Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Irvine, from the Lobster Council of Canada, in order to increase broodstock, there are plans to increase the size of live lobster allowed into the United States. U.S. authorities anticipate that the minimum legal carapace size, i.e., the outer shell of lobsters, will increase from 82 mm to 84 mm in 2025, then to 86 mm in 2027. Currently, the legal size of lobster caught in Quebec is 83 mm. However, the legal size is smaller in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

What consequences will this decision have?

[Geoff Irvine]

Much of the lobster from the eastern side of New Brunswick and P.E.I. is much smaller and most of it goes into processing. The processed lobster is not impacted by these minimum size changes. There won't be a huge impact there, but you're right, in parts of Quebec, the size is larger already, so it won't have a lot of impact on Quebec lobster.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

According to the director of the Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels du sud de la Gaspésie, this American measure will, sooner rather than later, become a protectionist measure, because the Americans will set the limit at 86 mm to prevent exports from Canada.

Do you see this as a justified measure or a protectionist policy?

[Geoff Irvine]

I don't think it's protectionism at all. It's a conservation measure that's been brought in by the State of Maine and the harvesters there to protect their lobster stock.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

So you're not at all concerned that this is a hidden protectionist measure on the part of that country.

[Geoff Irvine]

No, I don't think there's anything hidden in it at all. They're doing it to try to ensure that they have lobster for future generations.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

With this measure, will domestic or processing markets be enough to ensure the sale of our products?

[Geoff Irvine]

There's no question that it could impact us. We'll have to sell more of that smaller lobster to Asia and to China. We'll potentially have to do some different processing with it. We're not sure what the impact will be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cannings, for two and a half minutes, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'm going to continue with Mr. Irvine from the Lobster Council.

I just wanted to get some clarification. This whole study really is predicated, at least in my mind, on some concern over the trade impacts of decisions made in Europe and the United States about seafood and how it's harvested, etc.

I'm just wondering, Mr. Irvine, if you could let me know if there's any difference between how this will impact these new changes, whether it's the size.... You've already answered that, I think, but in terms of other things around the right whale mitigation processes and how lobster pots are set, I assume these regulations that are being looked at are already in place in the United States. American fishers are dealing with that. We will have to deal with it here. Or is there something that really puts Canadian fishers at a disadvantage here?

[Geoff Irvine]

Well, the challenge with the right whale is a challenge for both New England and Canadian harvesters and for the whole industry.

They've got their own particular challenges with it. They've lost their MSC certification, for example, because of right whale entanglements and mortalities in the U.S. We've been able to hold on to ours, which is good.

At the end of the day, we're taking these measures because the entire world is watching us and we have an endangered species that we have to manage. We have to do the right thing. It's not just in the U.S. It's European. We meet regularly with the Swedish seafood importing association, with the Dutch and with the whole European importing association. We update them every year on these measures.

It's important to the world. They're watching us and what we do with right whales and with all mammals. I think that's the pressure that's on us, as well as our own Species at Risk Act, which dictates that the minister must take action.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I would agree with you.

I just want to make the point that these actions are the same across the borders. There's no difference in terms of competition between us and the United States fishers. We will perhaps have to take increased actions and limit catches as a consequence of that, but this is necessary adaptation and mitigation to preserve right whale populations. Any discussion would really be around how applicable or how effective those measures were.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

[Geoff Irvine]

I'm sorry. I'd love to defer that to Ian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Do you want to give a brief answer to Mr. Cannings?

[Geoff Irvine]

Well, I can, briefly. I'd love Ian to speak up on it too.

The Canadian measures are world class. I think everybody would say that we've gone above and beyond by shutting down grids and doing what we do. The Americans do nothing like that. They have static closures and different measures. We have probably the most stringent measures in the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[Geoff Irvine]

I'd love to hear from Ian.

[Ian MacPherson]

I have just one sentence: We need equivalency, but each country has different approaches. There's a constant dialogue going on about what's more effective or what could be, but not everyone is following the same measures.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Baldinelli, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

It's kind of interesting. I just want to follow up on that response by both Mr. Irvine and Mr. MacPherson on the above-and-beyond requirements in place here in Canada and the actions we're taking.

In our first meeting on Tuesday, we had Mr. Sproul of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association. He talked about how we don't have a true champion to talk about that and the actions that are taking place here.

He also talked about this notion of the need for a fisheries ambassador, whose role would be to champion the Canadian fisheries industries, their best practices, their success stories and, more importantly, their world-class products that are being produced.

I would like to ask that question of all of the members of the panel.

I'll start with you, Mr. Lansbergen. Could comment on that, and then could some of the other members of our panel as well?

[Paul Lansbergen]

Yes, thank you.

Madam Chair, we have suggested to the government before that we need a champion for the industry. Agriculture in Canada benefits from having a strong champion in its department. Unfortunately, DFO tends to focus much more on regulating the industry than on trying to help the industry be prosperous for coastal communities.

Conducting fisheries science is important. The economic benefits that accrue from having that science and well-informed fisheries management decisions are much greater than the cost of doing the science.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Irvine, go ahead.

[Geoff Irvine]

I would echo what Paul said.

I remember when we had a fisheries ambassador, and I think it was a useful position. It gave us a voice in Ottawa at a senior level. I think that's an interesting idea.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Barry, go ahead.