Fisheries Committee on Feb. 7th, 2017

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

Much has been made of changes to the Fisheries Act that were implemented under the previous government, for which the focus was on the aboriginal, recreational, and commercial fish stocks and the fish that support them. There was a concern that we lost the ecosystem approach to managing the entire ecosystem around our fish stocks.

Ms. Gelfand, did you detect any issues with the shift that was made in terms of being able to accurately monitor the big picture and the health of our fisheries?

[Julie Gelfand]

We did not look at the impact of the new Fisheries Act on the management of the fish stocks in this audit. One thing we did notice though was that the reductions in funding that DFO had were probably the reason why, as Mr. Stringer mentioned, they focused on the most important commercially viable stocks in order to do the IFMPs, and that's why there were 110 of them and not all 154 of them. I would guess that as a result of reductions in funding, they had to make some priority decisions. To answer your specific question, however, we did not specifically look at the impacts of the changes to the Fisheries Act in this audit.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Sopuck, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

Just for the record, in terms of funding, our government instituted a new program in the department called the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program that has funded 800 fisheries habitat enhancement programs across the country to date, so let's not get too carried away with this notion of reduced funding all the time. Much of the funding was shifted to projects that actually created fish habitat and enhanced fish numbers, as opposed to studies, which I'm not belittling. The point is that it was the focus of our government.

I found the report, Commissioner, somewhat misleading—the title especially. This actually irritates me from the standpoint of loose language that's not specific enough. The report's entitled “Sustaining Canada's Major Fish Stocks”.

Mr. Stringer, I asked you a question a few years ago in committee: what's the most valuable fish species in Canada? I remember very well that you said the walleye. The word “walleye” isn't mentioned once in this report. Your title should have been “Sustaining Canada's Major Marine Fish Stocks That Support Commercial Fisheries” because that's what the report actually was about.

If someone was to pick this up, they would assume...because Canada's fisheries go far beyond marine commercial fisheries. I would strongly recommend in the next report, or in subsequent reports, that the titles be very specific as to what they are. If the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, for example, saw the title of this report, they'd say, ”Great. Let's see what's going on in the Great Lakes.” There's not a mention of the Great Lakes fish stocks, which are at least as major as any marine fish stock. That's just an observation.

I have another observation and question for the commissioner. In part 2.4, you write, “Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the federal department responsible for managing and regulating fisheries.”

Well, no, it's not. That implies that DFO manages all fisheries in this country, and they don't. Much management has been delegated to the provinces, especially in terms of allocating commercial fishing quotas, recreational fishing seasons, and so on. My question, Commissioner, is this. Why include that sentence that's so broad but so clearly inaccurate?

[Julie Gelfand]

It is the federal department. I am the federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. I do not audit. I work in the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. That's the supreme audit institution that audits federal departments. It is not within my mandate to audit at the provincial level.

The statement that “Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the federal department responsible for managing and regulating fisheries”, it is the federal department that is responsible for that.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Again, with respect, as a former regional fisheries biologist in Manitoba, no, it's not. Managing fisheries has been delegated to provincial governments, but we'll leave it at that. Again, I recommend that the language in this report certainly be tightened up.

Commissioner, you made the choice not to look at allocations, but allocations are critical to the sustainability of fish stocks. For example, the Atlantic salmon fishery is completely a recreational and indigenous fishery now. There's no commercial fishing for Atlantic salmon, and that was done for the sustainability of the stocks.

I gather, and perhaps Mr. Morrissey can correct me, that the tuna fishery off Prince Edward Island is becoming a sport fishery, which will enhance its sustainability. Why would you not at least look at allocation as a management tool to enhance sustainability?

[Julie Gelfand]

We have limited resources in terms of how we develop our audits. Audits can be this big, and they can be this big. Depending on the size of the team, you have to make a decision.

In our section called “Focus of the audit”, we indicate clearly in 2.8 what the focus of the audit is. In 2.12, we clearly indicate that “we did not examine the Department's enforcement activities or how it allocates fishing quotas among commercial, recreational, or Indigenous fisheries, or among fishing fleets. We concentrated our examination on management planning for individual stocks of commercial fisheries, which have the greatest impact on stock levels in most fisheries.”

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Stringer, I have a problem with certification like MSC. What's happening under these certification programs—whether it's for certification, humane trapping certification, MSC certification, and so on—is that it's as if Canada is delegating fisheries management responsibilities to an outside agency that is completely unaccountable to the voters, completely unaccountable to the fishing communities that depend on those resources. They take the decision-making process out of the hands of departments that ultimately report to elected officials. We've had this discussion at this committee before. It's elected officials that the citizens have redress to. Citizens have no redress to the MSC if they disagree with the assessment by the MSC.

Why would we place a priority on certification?

[Kevin Stringer]

Thanks for the question. Concern about requiring MSC certification is an issue we often hear from some of the harvesters. It's totally up to industry if they want to get that certification, but it really is about the markets and maintaining the markets and the accessibility to the markets. Some countries and some companies have said that they will or plan to only stock certified fish. We either respond to that or we don't.

I would also say that our sustainable fisheries framework, established in 2009, was done at about the time that the MSC excitement was developing, so it really came along about 10 to 15 years ago. We realized that we were actually doing much of that, and we thought we should actually put it in a sustainable fisheries framework. We will always make sure that we are looking after what our priorities are and what we need to do as core issues. We will also do what we can to assist with marine stewardship certification. It can't come first, but we do understand that it's important to industry.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

As somebody who represents a rural area, I know it's largely rural communities that have been abused by certification programs across the world. I go back to forestry and trapping, so it's not just this. As a member of Parliament, I'm extremely sensitive to these kinds of issues.

I have a question for you, Mr. Stringer, that is not related strictly to this but is related to fisheries sustainability. It has been reported that fertile Asian carp have been found in the Great Lakes. Can you tell us where the department is at on this particular issue and what you intend to do about it?

[Kevin Stringer]

Over the last two or three years, we've heard about individual findings in Toronto Harbour, in the Sandusky River system, in Lake Erie or just out of Lake Erie, so we have done a risk assessment. We did a risk assessment for bighead carp and for silver carp a few years ago. We've just completed a risk assessment for grass carp. There are four types of Asian carp. They're all a challenge. Maybe the least of the challenge are the grass carp, but they're still a challenge. They're voracious. They eat a lot of algae, etc.

The finding is—as I understand it and I ask Arran to correct me if I'm wrong—that it's not established, but has arrived. We have an Asian carp program that does early detection. We seek to remove them as quickly as we can. We work with the U.S. on it. Part of the challenge is that most of the findings are on the U.S. side, not on the Canadian side. We think the ones on the Canadian side, for the most part, come from the live food trade. On the U.S. side, we're less certain about that.

We are working with stakeholders. We're talking to Ontario. We're talking to stakeholders. We're assessing the new science, and we are maybe entering a new phase in terms of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Stringer.

Mr. Donnelly, you have seven minutes, please.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, I'd like to thank you and your team for your report and for your presentation today.

You mentioned that your next study is the aquaculture study. Do you have a timeline on that?

[Julie Gelfand]

I think it's next spring. What are we now? It's February 2017, so it would be the spring of 2018, probably March, April, May.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

The fisheries committee recently undertook a study on northern cod, and we're still working away on that. As you know, cod has been under a moratorium for almost 25 years, and this stock does not have a rebuilding plan. In fact, three of the 19 stocks in the critical zone do not have rebuilding plans. How important do you think rebuilding plans are to recovering stocks?

[Julie Gelfand]

It was the most disconcerting finding, from my perspective, given why I started the audit. I started the audit because I wanted to make sure that we weren't headed towards another collapse. I wouldn't want that to happen. When I read the team's findings, I saw this bit about 12 stocks that are considered to be in the critical zone, but we continue to fish them and there's no rebuilding plan. That was the issue that was the most disconcerting and upsetting.

If a fish stock is critical and we keep fishing and don't have a plan to rebuild it, I think we're at risk. Rebuilding plans are necessary. You need to question whether we should continue to fish species that are in the critical zone. That is a decision that the department makes. I don't make that decision, but if the department says once a species hits the critical zone that it should have a rebuilding plan, that's what I audit. I audit whether it has a rebuilding plan.

The answer in the case of 12 stocks was no.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Stringer, Ms. Gelfand's report emphasizes how important rebuilding plans are. You just heard her say how important she feels they are and how vital they are to recovering stocks, especially in the critical zone. One of the recommendations in the commissioner's report is that DFO should set out priorities and timelines for establishing the reference points at which major stocks it manages can be considered healthy, in the cautious zone, or in the critical zone. The department committed to a plan for March 2017.

Mr. Stringer, can you provide the committee with an update regarding where you're at on developing this plan? When can we expect to see all rebuilding plans for stocks that are in the critical zone, including northern cod?

Finally, can you let us know which stocks will be prioritized?

[Kevin Stringer]

The plan that we're working on, which we said will be complete by March 31, is going to have all of that, so I can't speak to what will be in the plan. We are working on the gaps that have been identified, the ones that we really need to address first, the timelines for implementation, and we're going to have that plan done by the end of March.

In terms of the priority, you talked about northern cod, specifically 2J3KL cod, and we do have a limit reference point for that. It's 660,000 tonnes. We've been working with stakeholders on a rebuilding strategy. Even though we don't have a formal rebuilding plan on our website, we have all kinds of plans in place. We're working with stakeholders. We have the WWF involved with the inshore and the offshore fleet on a number of plans. We have a very detailed set of plans, but not in a formal, rebuilding plan. We know we need to move into a formal, rebuilding plan.

In terms of the potential for collapse, it's the opposite for cod at the moment. About a decade to 15 years ago, it was 2% of the limit reference point, which is quite terrifying and way at the bottom of the critical zone. Three or four years ago, it was 18%; two years ago, at 26%; and last year, at 34%. Science is coming out soon on the northern cod and its comeback is a success story. The challenge is that we do need a formal, rebuilding strategy to ensure that we don't take off on that fishery too soon. It's a success story, but it does need that formal, rebuilding strategy.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Why are 44 management plans for certain stocks missing or outdated?

[Kevin Stringer]

Again, we have focused our efforts. We do have plans in place for all of them. However, we do not have formal, integrated fisheries management plans in place for all of them. In fact, at one point, which was probably in about 2007, we said we were going to keep them evergreen. Then when we went back six years later, they were out of date and we hadn't updated them.

That's the effort we need to accomplish it. I don't mean to belittle it at all. It is an important gap in terms of our own discipline and our own ability to be convinced that we are doing the right thing.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I think you mentioned it in your remarks, but can you reiterate what the key thing required to allow you to get to 100% management plans or even to formalize these? You did reference an injection of cash. That helps. Is that the key thing or are there any other things that might...?

[Kevin Stringer]

There's no question that cash always helps. You won't find a public servant that doesn't say that and you won't find a public servant that doesn't say that they will manage, regardless of what the resource levels are. It will be based on....

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

So you needed cash.

[Kevin Stringer]

Absolutely. All that said, our plan is going to say how long it's going to take us to do it. The level of resources is important in terms of how long it's going to take to close that gap.