Fisheries Committee on Nov. 25th, 2024

[Todd Williams]

I'm sorry.

Yes, as regulators—Fisheries and Oceans—we do work very closely with harvesters and their associations.

Sometimes the policies around the issuance of licences, such as residency, may vary from region to region and locality to locality, and certainly, if it's a recommendation of the committee, we would take that under consideration very seriously.

Thank you.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you.

I'll continue with you, Mr. Williams.

Members of the Bloc Québécois went out into the field a few days ago, actually it was a few weeks ago. Our party held a symposium to consult all fishers in the Maritimes. We learned some important points that I am raising now as part of this study on the Fisheries Act.

We heard about broad-ranging issues and factors that are also relevant to our committee's study, including the fact that fishers' science is not being taken into account. I could give you several examples. For at least six years, we have been calling on DFO to reopen the redfish fishery. In the meantime, the redfish population is free to eat all the shrimp. We are obviously calling on DFO to increase the scope of the seal hunt and to work on the PR front. Seals are destroying the biomass. I could go on and on. Then there's the striped bass. Your data is still based on the old striped bass population, whereas the new population is eating everything. The striped bass is moving upriver and even eating the salmon.

When your department makes decisions, does it take into account the scientific knowledge of the people working in the field?

[Todd Williams]

Certainly science and the information brought forward from harvesters are very important, as is the indigenous knowledge.

I will turn it over to my colleague Mr. Vigneault to speak further on the science.

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault, Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you for the question.

In fact, the science advice is based on a number of factors, including observations and data reported by fishers on-site. However, you have to take into account the fact that a scientific stock assessment is based on systematic observations. This means there are other considerations, but a lot of effort is made to make as much room as possible for fishers to participate in the committees. We have developed products to better train them, so that they understand the process—

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Vigneault, but I think fishers understand the process quite well.

They also mentioned the fact that your department's methodology doesn't track the movement of fish stocks, so some of the data you gather is always taken from the same place and at the same point in time, whereas fish are likely to move, depending on climate change and other factors. That's one of the reasons the fishers are saying their input is not being considered. They say that their observations vary from yours at times.

Dr. Lyne Morissette talked to us about environmental mediation in the context of ecosystem management.

Is that something you could look at?

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

In terms of the science part of your comment about the movement of fish, the same argument could very well be applied to the fishery, given that it focuses on areas where the fish are, which skews the outcome of the observations a bit. It's the sum total of all available information, including information gathered on the ground, i.e., science in the field, that contributes to the completeness of our scientific opinions.

In terms of environmental mediation, I think that's more of a fisheries management issue. For science as such, we currently have tools to encourage the participation of fishers and take their data into account.

I don't know if my colleague Mr. Williams wants to add anything about the proposed environmental mediation.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Ms. David and Mr. Williams may have an opinion on that.

I'll leave it to both of you to answer my question.

[Todd Williams]

I have nothing further to add.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Ms. David has nothing to add either.

And yet Dr. Lyne Morissette is an eminent scientist who gave a very interesting presentation on environmental mediation. I would invite you to consider that.

We were even told that politics should be dissociated from ecosystem management. We learned that there are issues that shouldn't be used for political purposes, such as the survival of our ecosystems.

What are your thoughts on separating politics and ecosystem management? What does your department think?

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

From a science perspective, we don't engage in politics. Ours is an independent process that has been launched to provide scientific advice.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Nonetheless, we were able to see that the minister had made decisions that were not necessarily in line with your scientific advice.

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

The science portion that goes to the minister is essentially what is published in our science advice. There are other considerations.

Once again, I will ask my colleague Mr. Williams to comment on the other factors that come into play.

[Todd Williams]

Thank you very much.

It's very important to note that in decision-making with respect to fisheries, there are many considerations that a minister may take into account, with the science, of course, being one of those. One also has to consider the socio-economic considerations, existing policies, indigenous and cultural considerations and feedback from harvesters, including indigenous harvesters.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

That was going to be my next question.

Apparently, there aren't a lot of sociologists and economists involved in decision-making at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That came up as well.

Do you have any experts in local economics, for example, who could give you their opinion on benefits at the regional level? Do you have sociologists who can give you their specialized opinion on your decisions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I have to move on, Madame Desbiens. Hopefully we can get an answer to that question in writing, please, to the committee.

Now we have Ms. Barron for six minutes or less, please.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses here today.

I'll put my first question out to the best person here to answer it. I'm trying to understand how to better incorporate the precautionary approach into the act.

We know that when the science is inconclusive or unclear, the precautionary approach is a particularly vital tool as we deal with the consequences of the climate crisis. It's also vital for the minister to be able to make sound decisions and to be able to take a cautious approach. In the act, there are certain provisions outlined in the decision-making process.

How do we more clearly place within the act the tool of the precautionary approach and the ability for the minister to be able to better utilize that tool when needed? Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Todd Williams]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's an excellent question.

What we've seen over the past 30 years is a progression or an evolution in the way we manage fisheries. What came out of the collapse of the cod stocks is the precautionary approach. That is then reflected in the modified Fisheries Act through the fish stock provisions in section 6.1 and section 6.2. Those provisions and the regulations that support them directly align with the precautionary approach, but they also provide some level of flexibility for the minister to make a decision—going back to a previous question—in light of socio-economic considerations or other considerations, such as those related to indigenous rights or fisheries.

As a department, we certainly welcome further recommendations with respect to how those provisions, specifically, might be strengthened, clarified or further enhanced. Certainly, those provisions were and are a reflection of the precautionary approach.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

Another thing that comes up quite frequently at our committee is a recommendation for the formation of an independent science committee that is separate from all of the political components we are immersed in day to day so that recommendations can be brought forward directly to the minister without political influence being involved in the information provided.

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts as to how the act could support the necessary work of our improving the process of providing science to the minister in a non-partisan, independent way.

[Todd Williams]

It should be very clear that the science advice that comes to me and that I use as a fisheries manager has gone through an independent peer-reviewed process. The peer review process is reflected, in a very clear format, in the memorandum that goes to the minister. Perhaps the Fisheries Act could be more prescriptive to reflect existing practice, but the advice that we incorporate is certainly is independent advice.

Perhaps Mr. Vigneault wishes to add something.

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

Quickly, for context, Fisheries and Oceans has one of the most comprehensive and transparent processes for ensuring that there's an independent science advice process. We're still implementing new measures to further those independencies.

For example, there's the new expert identification committee that was created this year, in collaboration with the chief science adviser, who independently selects external participants for key science advice meetings. We also have policies on conflict of interest and participation. Everything we provide in science advice is published in the open literature.

Within the current Fisheries Act, there are a lot of provisions to ensure the independence of the science.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

I will follow up on that.

Some of the concerns that have been brought forward were about who is making decisions around what science is made available to the minister and what science is not. That's where the bigger problem seems to come out in that process. That's why, among other things, we are hearing from many witnesses who come to the table seeking an independent, separate committee.

I understand there is some good work happening and that there's an attempt to be more transparent. However, I think that until we move that committee outside and make it independent, we're going to inevitably continue to have these same problems, over and over again.

I'm wondering if you have any suggestions as to how we can embed a more independent process or committee in the act if there were a decision to move forward in that way.

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

Thank you for the question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'd ask for that to be sent in in writing, please, because Ms. Barron's time has expired.

We'll now go to Mr. Bragdon for five minutes or less.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I'm yielding my time to Mr. Small for this round. He's on screen, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

That's so generous when he's not in the room.

Go ahead, Mr. Small.