Fisheries Committee on April 6th, 2017

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

Your department policy advises that rebuilding plans should be developed before the stock crosses the critical threshold. In light of this, can you commit to not increasing the quota on stocks currently in the critical zone until there is a rebuilding plan in place with reference points and timelines?

[Kevin Stringer]

That is always our objective. There's no question that fisheries management plays into this as an important factor, but when the commissioner looked at the stocks that are in the critical zone, she identified 12.

That was from our 2014 report. There are now 16. One of the additional ones is northern shrimp. No amount of recovery strategy for northern shrimp in SFA 6 is going to make that come back. That's about an oceanographic conditions change. In other words, we're not going to stop something from getting into the critical zone by what we do in fisheries management. Sometimes that's the case. We seek to do everything we can from a fisheries management perspective to ensure that we don't slip below that limit reference point and into the critical zone.

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

You say that's always the department's objective. Is that a commitment? Is that a “We won't”?

[Kevin Stringer]

It is always the department's objective to seek to do what we can to make sure.... The entire objective of what we're trying to do is not to have those stocks get into the critical zone.

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

Okay. Thank you.

The environment commissioner called into question the reliability and usefulness of the data of third-party observer programs in providing information to DFO for use in fishery management decisions. As a result, DFO has missed scientific surveys and problems with third-party observer programs. The audit found that data gaps prevented DFO from classifying certain fish stocks as healthy, cautious, or critical. Could you explain how the department is addressing that issue?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

There is about 30 seconds left. I'll let you continue past that somewhat.

[Catherine Blewett]

Thank you very much.

If it's okay, I'm going to turn to Marc, who can give some specifics on that really quickly.

[Marc Clemens]

I think part of the response is also with Jean.

Just to start from the second part of your question about the impact on our ability to analyze stock status, that information comes from scientific surveys. In some cases it also comes from observer programs if that data is needed.

What are we doing to improve the reliability of data from the observer programs? We're developing a national policy on catch monitoring. The aim of the policy is to set out a protocol for determining the appropriate levels of at-sea observer coverage in fisheries. Currently, that doesn't exist.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

The time's up. Thank you very much.

Ms. Jordan, you have seven minutes.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing again before this committee.

I'm going to take a little bit of a different track with my questions. As you know, I come from the south shore of Nova Scotia. Two particular species, the Atlantic whitefish and the Atlantic salmon are at risk. The Atlantic whitefish, I believe, is now endangered.

One of the concerns that I have heard in the communities and with organizations that have worked with this specific fish is that DFO's attitude, plan, and way of managing is to save what we have, not rebuild what we have. There are real concerns that there's no plan in place to rebuild the stocks, but just one to make sure that we don't lose what we've got.

I'm just wondering if you can comment on that. Can you put people at ease that we do want to rebuild this stock? A lot of the concern comes from the fact that the hatchery that we had was not only closed, but was totally dismantled. There's some question as to where the smolts, the eggs, and everything else went when that was dismantled. There has been an interest in rebuilding another hatchery. Is that a possibility? I know I'm asking you all kinds of questions at once, but they're all interrelated.

Furthermore, while you were giving testimony, I heard a couple of times about the importance of stock. How do you judge what the importance of stock is? Does that play a role in your rebuilding plans? If something is a commercial fishery, is it more important than something that is almost gone, like the Atlantic whitefish?

I'll start with you, Ms. Blewett. Maybe you can start that conversation.

[Catherine Blewett]

We may tag team a little bit to unpack the question, if that's okay.

The first part is a resource issue. I can't speak as much to the previous cuts and challenges from hatcheries being closed and the plans made.

You'll notice that I focused on some of those 154 economically important stocks, but we have a commitment to all of them, you know. I don't want too undue emphasis on.... We're focused on all of the stocks.

I might ask Jean to talk a little bit about our rebuilding plans and approach, and Kevin might want to talk a little bit about the balance in terms of retrieval.

Does that work?

Jean.

[Jean Landry]

In terms of the science we, I will make a link with what Mr. Stringer mentioned before. In some cases it's very difficult to control what will happen. We can act on the things we can control, but when there are other factors, it's very difficult to control what's going to happen.

In terms of the work we do in science, what I can say is that we continue to monitor and provide updates on the status of the resource. We have many salmon populations that are not doing well, especially in the more southern regions.

With budget 2016, we put in place the Atlantic salmon research joint venture. In my view it's a really a precious tool to bring together everybody who is concerned about Atlantic salmon in order to leverage expertise, knowledge, and resources. We'll engage in more research and more monitoring. We'll try to better understand what happens with Atlantic salmon. We do the best we can to improve our knowledge and to try to fill the gap in knowledge.

[Kevin Stringer]

I'll just add quickly to that.

Concerning the focus on the big stocks, as the deputy said, that has been the case and, certainly, we need the integrated fisheries managements plans for those major stocks. But we also, as the deputy said, need to be paying attention to the others. Hence, there's a focus on capelin when we're working on cod. There's a relationship between cod and other species and a relationship among cod, shrimp, and crab as the ecosystem changes.

A broader ecosystem approach is something that we have been moving towards. You'll find that we changed our integrated fisheries management plans over the years to include an ecosystem component. We know that we're not just managing one stock; we're managing an ecosystem. More and more we're moving in that direction, but, yes, there has been that focus to get that initial IFMPs, the initial limit reference points, etc., in place.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Am I still good?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

You have two minutes.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'm going to continue on the Atlantic whitefish and salmon, specifically. Is there an appetite to allow community organizations, fisheries groups, and fisheries management groups that work in our area to develop a hatchery? Would that be something that DFO would be supportive of in order to help? We're talking about groups that have a knowledge base, a good plan in place. Would DFO be willing to work with those groups if there were an interest in developing a hatchery?

[Kevin Stringer]

We're always willing to work with groups. There are different views about hatcheries, about whether they create competing fish, competing in terms of predation, etc. As Jean said, we have partnerships with local groups up and down all of Atlantic Canada. We have a wild Atlantic salmon policy that speaks to these things, which is the foundation for how we manage and work with watershed groups. I would say that of all of our fisheries, we have more partnerships with watershed groups on Atlantic salmon than in any other fishery we have. With respect to specific hatcheries, that one has been a challenge, but I know people are talking about this.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Okay. I have one final quick question.

With regard to invasive species, one of the challenges we have with the Atlantic whitefish, particularly, has been the chain pickerel. That was a result of somebody's thinking it was a great idea to stock a lake.

Is there anything that can be done to mitigate those problems with invasive species, particularly when we're looking at species at risk? What is the department doing to deal with those kinds of challenges that are affecting our species at risk?

[Catherine Blewett]

Species at risk and invasive species, generally, are a national focus and concern for us as well. We recognize where there are concerns across the country. It is something you may have seen on a resource question. We received funding for some invasive species work in the department. We're going to continue to be quite focused.

I don't know the specifics on the whitefish versus the pickerel, but we'll follow up and let you know. I don't know the specifics in that region. I know others. We'll get back to you, if that's okay, to find out what the approach is.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

We're going to be adjusting the time a little bit given our time constraints, so there will be four questioners. You'll have four minutes each instead of five. I'm going to be fairly tight with the time this time. I allowed a little more time for the first round, but for this second round, I'm going to be tight with the four minutes.

Mr. Arnold, you have four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses for being here today. It's great to have you in to give us further information on this report.

I don't mean to sound facetious, but getting back to what Mr. Donnelly started to address, in 1995, DFO committed to developing integrated fisheries management plans for the major fish stocks. In 2001, they recommitted to developing those plans. Last year, the commissioner's report identified that there were still 44 stocks for which plans hadn't been developed or plans needed to be revised.

What we saw by way of a response was that the department had committed to developing a plan to develop plans. Yes, develop a plan to develop plans that were committed to some 20 ago. Can you explain why it's taken more than 20 years to develop plans, and now all you've reached after this environment commissioner's report is a plan to develop plans?

[Catherine Blewett]

Mr. Chair, I don't find it facetious at all. I'll try to give you as straight-up an answer as I can.

I'll start in the short term. This year, we've gone from 71% to 79%—and I have to say very candidly—we welcomed the report the commissioner did. It gave us an opportunity to look at where we were, where there were areas that we could push to complete it. The work is ongoing all the time. Frankly, that is a challenge that we will often have, keeping some of these things evergreen. Some of the plans existed but they were outdated.

You're right. We have a plan in place, but if your question is, “What's your commitment to actually push and get these done?” I can't speak to the early nineties, but I think you will see an earnest and direct push to make some progress. I think you could have us back next year to ask us.

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

I can't help but be somewhat skeptical, looking at past history—

[Catherine Blewett]

Understood.

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

—and when I see in the response here that you have also established timelines for updating both plans before the 2018-19 fiscal year and every subsequent year thereafter until the work is complete.

Can you give us an approximate timeline when you think these plans might be complete so that we may have targets? I think that's something this committee has seen over and over again, that there is a lack of targets and accountability to a lot of the things that are creating problems here.