Fisheries Committee on Nov. 1st, 2018

[Philippe Morel]

—or decreased.

[Blaine Calkins]

—gone down in the last 10 years.

[Philippe Morel]

Yes.

[Blaine Calkins]

Okay. Thank you.

Reports from NOAA indicate the probability of extirpation for the southern resident killer whale, under current conditions, which would involve these conditions from the last 10 years, is less than 10% in the next 100 years. While other sources increase this probability marginally to account for changing variables, the consensus indicates that the southern resident killer whale population will continue to exist for generations to come.

Is it not true that a recent decision to designate the southern resident killer whale extinction as an imminent threat under the Species at Risk Act was prompted or heavily influenced by pressure from Ecojustice, and that no additional scientific research or consultation with indigenous groups on this issue was done following that communiqué from Ecojustice?

I'm actually getting this from the “Southern Resident Killer Whale: Imminent Threat Assessment”, in which paragraph 3 says, and I quote:

In January 2018, the ministers received a letter from EcoJustice, representing World Wildlife Fund, Natural Resources Defence Council, Georgia Strait Alliance, Raincoast Conservation Foundation and the David Suzuki Foundation

—it's publicly known that many of these organizations get funding from third parties and outside of Canada—

asking that the Ministers recommend to the GiC an emergency order to provide for the survival and recovery of the SRKW [so it happens soon]. EcoJustice requested that the Ministers form the opinion that the species is facing imminent threats from reduced prey availability, physical and acoustic disturbance and environmental contaminants.

In paragraph 1, it also said in this report, and I quote:

EcoJustice also provided supporting documentation in their letter to the competent ministers dated January 30, 2018. No new science advice was generated specifically to inform the assessment nor was the interpretation of the information or the conclusions reached in the assessment the subject of a scientific peer-review process.

When I asked Ecojustice this morning before the committee the question about whose idea it was to actually form the opinion that there was an imminent threat, they said it was clearly the department's. The department's documents say it was clearly Ecojustice.

Could you please tell me which is the truth?

[Philippe Morel]

It's certainly not Ecojustice's decision to say it's an imminent threat. It's the department that does that, based on science. When the minister is ready to take a decision with the science advice we provide to him and to Minister McKenna, both the competent ministers under SARA, they take the decision on the facts provided by the department and not in relation to any outside pressure coming from—

[Blaine Calkins]

Was the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ever threatened by legal action from Ecojustice since November of 2017 if DFO didn't close the areas that Ecojustice wanted them to close for recreational and commercial fishing?

[Philippe Morel]

No, we didn't feel threatened by Ecojustice or by any other group. They did send some letters, as many people send letters. The killer whale is one of the items the department receives letters on—from schools, individuals, MPs and members of legislative assemblies.

[Blaine Calkins]

Understood.

[Philippe Morel]

A lot of people write about killer whales.

[Blaine Calkins]

Yes. I don't envy your job, sir.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Blaine Calkins]

The other question I have for you is this. In November of 2017, the department conducted numerous round tables and discussions with stakeholders to formulate what was supposed to be the plan going forward for closures. The industry or the individuals I met with seemed to suggest to me that the department officials recommended a completely different landscape in terms of what would be effective for closures, not starting at Otter Point but actually going out further. Do you know what I'm talking about when I say Otter Point? It's at the south end of Vancouver Island, just beyond....

At any rate, they basically told me that the closures actually didn't reflect anything that was agreed upon in those consultations with the fishermen and with the various stakeholders, and that the closures actually reflected the exact mandate that Ecojustice asked for.

Do you have any clarification for me on that?

[Adam Burns]

I wasn't involved in the specific issue at hand, but I can tell you that these types of management decisions would certainly be informed by the views of industry stakeholders and indigenous groups but also by the best available science. All of that would have been taken into account in the decision.

[Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Morel, my last—

[The Chair]

Mr. Calkins, you're way over time.

We'll now go back to the government side.

Mr. Morrissey, you have five minutes or less, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm not sure which official from DFO made the statement that you were pursuing harmonization with the U.S. on the closure regime to put in place when whales are sighted. I'm referencing the east coast. Could you elaborate a bit more?

[Adam Burns]

I believe that was me. It was in reference to southern resident killer whale measures, but I will say that we work very closely with colleagues in the greater Atlantic region of the U.S. national fisheries management service. We coordinate activities, share best practices around fisheries management measures, and collaborate on such issues as the gear innovation we were talking about earlier.

We are very closely aligned with U.S. colleagues. We meet with them on a regular basis about these measures.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay.

I want to follow up on a question pursued earlier by my colleague. We had two briefs earlier today from two fisher organizations. One was the PEIFA and the other was the group representing the lobster fishers of the Gaspé. They were clear in their objectives—namely, to ensure the protection of the north Atlantic whale and at the same time mitigate the impact on their fishing footprint.

They questioned at length Canada's application of a closure protocol that is different from the one in the U.S. The reference was to the U.S. using the sighting of three whales versus one whale, which I believe you addressed. It really seemed puzzling, because they gave us an outline from the Gaspé, and the fishery was close to the shore in June, when they were fishing in seven and a half feet of water. Do you really think, or does evidence show, that a north Atlantic right whale would be found in seven feet of water?

[Adam Burns]

We're certainly going to look at this more closely and see if there are ways in which we can improve the protocols we have in place for 2019. I can tell you that there are incidents where whales are sighted extremely close to shore. North Atlantic right whales are sighted extremely close to shore.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

What's your definition of “extremely close”?

[Adam Burns]

I mean within a few meters of shore. It's very, very close.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Don't you analyze the depth of the water versus proximity to shore?

[Adam Burns]

That is one of the questions that we're asking our scientists, and we'll have more information in December that will help inform those types of decisions, obviously.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

The other area of concern was the size of the—and I may have the terminology wrong—static zone. There are two terminologies they use on the establishment of the fishing zones, static and dynamic.

Apparently the U.S. uses a smaller....

[Adam Burns]

The U.S. uses a very different approach now. The U.S. has been engaged in measures to protect North Atlantic right whales like these for a very long period of time because their fisheries overlapped with the range of the right whales for a lot longer. We've only been at this for a couple of years in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

One of the things we did this year was implement that static closure, which was meant to cover the area that accounted for 90% of the right whale sightings last year, the objective being to create a bit of stability and to close off that area where we were quite certain the right whales would show up. They did, but they showed up in a slightly different range, a slightly broader range, and so we did have the dynamic protocol as well.

I think what you might be referring to is the area that we would close around the sighting of a single whale. Some expressed a view that it was too large an area, and again that's something else that we'll be looking at. We've asked for some science advice that will help inform that. We've certainly heard the views of stakeholders, and so we will be looking at that issue as well in terms of what area is closed.