Fisheries Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

We will now go to Mr. Arnold.

You have five minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Smedbol, you talked about the allocation of the harvestable amount being determined by science, but then the decision on how that harvestable amount would be apportioned would be a policy decision. Can you elaborate on that a little bit further? Who sets the policy on how it's divided up?

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

First, to make a small correction, DFO science provides advice on levels of harvest. We don't set a harvest level within a precautionary approach framework. We do recommend on levels relative to risk.

On the second part, I'm not entirely sure where exactly that policy level sits within the department. Usually those discussions around allocation occur at the resource management table, and at the low level with the fishery advisory boards. Higher than that, I'm afraid it's outside my area of expertise and experience.

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

Okay. Thank you.

What other factors does DFO base fisheries management on? Do the various branches within DFO operate on the same prioritization of parameters in determining seasons?

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

I can speak for DFO science in general around that. Our role is to provide advice for resource management and provide advice on particular questions that we're tasked with addressing. Usually those answers are couched in the language of sustainability and risk, in terms of risk to the resource. Really, sir, I'm afraid I simply don't have the expertise or the experience to answer the second part of your question.

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

Okay. Thank you.

Is the conservation of fisheries the pre-eminent objective of DFO science?

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

Our role within DFO science is to provide advice on the sustainable use of harvestable resources. We also provide advice on a number of other types of issues or items that relate to fisheries science and ocean science.

A lot of our role in terms of the provision of advice is response. It's a response to our clients, both internal to the department and external to the department. When it comes to decision-making, it's just providing information, evidence-based recommendations, and risk of potential decisions around harvest and other ocean activities.

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

To get back to the science that you work on, then, how does your department adapt to making decisions based on science when you don't have data from certain harvests that are taking place? What do you base the decisions on when you don't have hard numbers to work with? Do you have to estimate? How do you do that?

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

Generally speaking, this is a core component of fisheries science. It's not just lobster; it crosses all the taxa for which we provide advice. Uncertainty and the explicit expression of uncertainty in our level of confidence, in our knowledge of, say, abundance and trends within a population, is a core piece of information that has to be communicated to resource managers and resource users and the public.

We are very rarely in a situation, sir, where we have a lot of information where we can provide highly precise and accurate trajectories or advice. The key thing for us—

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

Thank you.

What direction from the minister's office has your science group received instructing you on how to adjust your scientific methods of assessment or to account for the harvest that's occurring outside of DFO's season openings?

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

To my knowledge, sir, at this point we have not received any specific direction. We have provided advice on some queries that came through the media, but other than that, we are still undertaking our usual monitoring and provision of advice for lobster.

Matthew, I don't know if you have a different experience.

[Matthew Hardy]

No. I would entirely agree with that.

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

Thank you.

If there's any time left, I would like to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

No. You've gone a little bit over, actually, Mr. Arnold.

We'll now go to Mr. Cormier for five minutes or less, please.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Fuller, my first question is for you. First of all, you talked about those processing plants owned by first nations and how it was a great collaboration. That's in my own riding. There are two. I see first-hand that great collaboration throughout the years. I think we would not have seen that 20 years ago. We came a long way. It's going well now.

That said, my dad was a fisherman for 30 years. I see first-hand the highs and lows of this fishery. Back in 1980s, in the north here, there were a lot of lobster. Then, back in 1990, there were almost no lobster. My family was on social assistance because of that for many years. A restocking effort was put in place not only by commercial fisherman, but by first nation fishermen also. Everybody worked together, so now I think the proof of that is that we have more lobster in our area.

That said, you said also that cod and herring stocks were in decline too, and maybe herring more so because of the bait we used. In your opinion, do you think the conservation piece or aspect should be a number one priority here while at the same time respecting the rights of first nations on this moderate livelihood, but doing it in a commercial season, for example? I know that many questions were asked about it. In your own opinion, if we talk about the soft-shell market, like the DFO scientist was saying—and you also said that we should look for a soft-shell market—why look for a soft-shell market if the number one priority here is conservation? What is your opinion on this?

Do you feel that we should prioritize conservation, while respecting at the same time the moderate livelihood, so that all of those things can be done at the same time during the commercial season and we don't hurt the lobster stocks, not only for only commercial fisherman but also for first nation communities, and all Canadians and all people who depend on that business and industry?

[Susanna Fuller]

I hear you. I think we need to do a lot more science in understanding the conservation value of what happens when we do fish soft-shell lobster.

I know that in St. Marys Bay there is scallop fishing during the period that the lobsters are moulting. That has gone on for years. I don't think that's necessarily a good idea. In the State of Maine, they have a year-round fishery and their stocks are not dissimilar to ours. I think we need a lot more questions.

I think fishing out of season is something that.... I'm not an indigenous person. I grew up around fishing communities. Fishing out of season is something we don't do, right? But I will say, how do we accommodate the livelihood fishery? Why do first nations want to fish out of season? We need to unpack that and really look at the reasons. It may be conservation. It may be because they cannot feel that they can do that safely, right?

We need to really look at those, and I think we need much more work on understanding conservation, including...and thank you for mentioning the forage fisheries, because if our lobster fisheries to increase, or spread out or change, we need to think about the bait and where that source is coming from. We are hitting a critical field. Herring and mackerel are in the critical zone. It is not good.

I think there are also some things that can be done by lobster fishing area and the bay area, but that's going to require real collaboration between non-indigenous and first nation fishermen, as well as DFO.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Good. Thank you for that.

For our DFO friends who are also the line, you were talking about the data you were collecting and about having some tests done by DFO and maybe also by some fishermen. How can you make sure that the resources are in good health? For example, if I take an area here in my zone, the lobster population is exploding, but if I just go 75 kilometres west of this zone, there's less lobster in that area.

On your data that you're collecting, how sure are you sure that they're exact? My understanding, with my father being a fisherman for 30 years, is that there's no dockside monitoring for lobster. There's no quota being put in place. There's nothing for that. How can you make sure that the resources are in good health if we don't have perfect and accurate data like they do in other fisheries, like in crab, for example, where we have quota and we also have good data? How can you make sure the lobster resources are in good health?

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

There are several components to that to unpack. The first one is that in a lot of LFAs, we are dependent on fishery-dependent data, which comes in the form of logbooks and landing slips. That's the information we get to work with in science. We do have, in several other areas, fishery-independent data collection that we can either compare with that fishery-dependent data or tune it, if you will.

Recognize, as I said, that uncertainty is a fundamental part of the advice that we provide. It's just the reality of our situation.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Let's say with your data that you collect—

I think I'm done. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You're done—that's the easy way to say.

I want to take a moment to thank our witnesses for this session of our committee study. From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Hardy and Mr. Smedbol, it's been a pleasure; and from Oceans North Canada, Ms. Fuller, I'm glad to see you at committee again and your educating us on various topics.

We will now allow the witnesses to leave so we can get into committee business for the remaining 44 or 45 minutes of committee.

Thank you again.

[Dr. Kent Smedbol]

Thank you for the opportunity.

[Matthew Hardy]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Okay, I don't think we have to suspend or change anything to proceed now to committee business. Of course, we're still in public and televised.

We've had a number of requests to try to do some committee business, so we will do that now in the time remaining. I know we have things we need to do. I think right off the top, we need to decide where we're going with the current study on a moderate livelihood fishery. How many more meetings do we do, or when do we want to come to a dead stop and submit recommendations or drafting instructions to our analysts? And, of course, what study do we do next?

I will say right from the start that I think we only can plan right now up as far as December 16. We don't know what will be happening beyond that, so we probably have to keep it to that. We won't get a lot done between now and then.

Mr. Johns, I see you waving your hand.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I suggest that we wrap up the study that we're doing right now. I think we've heard from witnesses. I think it's time to get a report done and then get to the salmon study and finish it, because we were in the middle of that study. We have a salmon emergency in British Columbia, and we need to get those recommendations out to the minister. I'm a bit concerned that we aren't going to have that in place before the economic statement that they're making on Monday. Let's hope they're addressing it in that. There are important items in that study. Then it's Ms. Gill's turn coming up here. I think we should be doing something there as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Hardie.