Fisheries Committee on May 2nd, 2017

[Phil Morlock]

I think the evidence is pretty clear that they are. It depends where you look, of course.

Historically, when science has been followed, and solid science has been followed, fish stocks were in pretty good shape. When politics gets in the way, and that's irrespective of whether it's NGO politics, government politics, or whatever, things go off the rails. I think the Atlantic cod collapse is an example of that. There are certainly problems in some places. The question is, what prescription fits the ill? Science gives us the answer, credible science, not agenda-based science, not hyperbole, but factual science.

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

Let's go to your credible science, then. You mentioned the science that you believe when Mr. Hardie asked you the question about what do we believe, or who do we listen to. Can you tell me who funds the science that you follow? Where does the funding come from for it?

[Phil Morlock]

Tax dollars.

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

So it's funded through...?

[Phil Morlock]

Through all of us.

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

Yes. Can you elaborate on that, please?

[Phil Morlock]

If it were true that, to use the term, “the sky is falling” and that these fisheries are in such dire straits, and if it were true across the country in terrestrial and aquatic areas, then I would say that the agencies responsible for the management of those resources have abysmally failed at their mandates.

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

Do you trust DFO science?

[Phil Morlock]

Do I trust DFO science?

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

Yes.

[Phil Morlock]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

The other question I had for you was this. You said that you had requested from Gail Shea a chance to appear about recreational fishing and that you're still waiting for a response. There has, obviously, been a change in government. Have you reached out to the current government for that same opportunity?

[Phil Morlock]

Yes, and had the same no response.

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

There was no response. Okay.

[Phil Morlock]

What we asked Gail Shea for was a memorandum of understanding with the recreational fishing industry that the California example would not be translated into this country and that private funding would not drive it. They rushed to have an MOU with the U.S.-based organizations that were funding the process in PNCIMA, but they refused us having one with the Canadian organization.

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

Was that the same request you made of the current government?

[Phil Morlock]

That was the request made of her government, to Gail Shea directly.

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

No, of the current government.

[Phil Morlock]

No. We've just written to them and said that we wanted to be engaged. We've also written to the Minister of Environment and have not heard back on that either.

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

Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Nowlan, I would like you to finish your comments that were cut off earlier with regard to the difference between research funding and....

Could you please elaborate on that?

[Linda Nowlan]

Sure.

I work for a non-profit that has several associated organizations. One is an association, and that's why I'm testifying here today. It does not receive money for advocacy. There's also a research foundation that has received money from the foundations that were referred to earlier.

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

Thank you.

Dr. Cox, you've heard Mr. Morlock on the health of species in Canada.

As a person who deals with fisheries management, would you agree with that statement, that the fish stocks in Canada are actually healthy?

[Prof. Sean Cox]

With every stock assessment I've been involved in, the main recommendation is to reduce fish mortality. Most of the stocks I've been involved with in the sustainable fisheries framework have been very close to the cautious zone, and some of them actually below limit reference points. These are big commercial fisheries.

Earlier in my career, I did a lot of work on recreational fisheries. We published a paper in 2003 called “Canada's Recreational Fisheries: The Invisible Collapse?” about Canada's recreational fisheries. It was basically that a lot of our recreational fisheries have quietly made the transition from wild production to hatchery-supported production. That's the invisible part. People are still fishing, but they're fishing for fish that come out of hatcheries more than they're coming out of wild production.

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

Thank you.

Dr. Woodley, I have two questions for you.

With regard to Aichi target six, could you expand on that a little, please?

[Dr. Stephen Woodley]

There are 20 Aichi targets, and the purpose of the Aichi targets is to halt biodiversity loss globally. Aichi target six is on good fisheries management. There has been a huge focus on target 11. It kind of rose as the tall poppy for protected area and received a lot of attention. The other Aichi targets are equally of importance, and it's equally important that Canada reports against them.

What counts under the different targets.... We shouldn't assume that things like good fisheries management measures have to count under the protected areas target. They should count under target six. That's the point I was trying to make. There's a rush to show that we've met target 11, but it's also important to show that we've met target six.