Evidence of meeting #19 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was decisions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
In my remaining seconds, I'll get Dr. Whitney to comment briefly.
12:45 p.m.
Program Director, Fisheries Management and Science, Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance
It's no problem. I can speak to that as the program director for an indigenous organization.
We've been actively reaching out to the PSSI team. I think “silos” is a really good word to use when referring to this new subsection within the department. They don't seem to know how to work with first nations in the context of any of the four pillars of the PSSI. They are consistently saying that they have to do more thinking and will get back to us.
It's been about a year—we're coming up to a year as of July—since the first closures were released under the PSSI, and it is incredibly hard to understand or see transparency in the process, including in how the initial PSSI closures will be continuing this year. As Mr. Taylor said, there's a great deal of inconsistency in how that's going to be implemented this year, which is leading to considerable problems on the ground.
The nations I work for are still wondering whether the closures will be continuing this year, as they were announced year as long-term closures, or whether they will not be and if they'll be open to fisheries. I think there are considerable challenges with the linkage between the science driving those management decisions...or not.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you for that.
We'll go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes, please.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will continue with you, Ms. Whitney.
Yesterday, on our side, we met with a group of fishers from the Gaspé, specifically herring and mackerel fishers. I know there has been a lot of talk about Pacific salmon and the problems in the west, but I would like to draw your attention to the situation in Quebec.
We realize that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans seems to want to close down small pelagic fisheries. Fishers who fish with hook and line, for example, now find themselves penniless and have nothing in front of them. The decision is supposedly linked to the scarcity of fish. In addition, we were told that only they were required to report their catches in order to do indicative fishing. Fishers are wondering who will measure the resource from now on if they are prevented from fishing.
What do you think about the closure of the herring and mackerel fishery this year? Do you have an opinion on that? Can you relate it to the problems you're experiencing?
12:50 p.m.
Program Director, Fisheries Management and Science, Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance
I'm not familiar with those specific regional fisheries, as I'm sure you can imagine, but we had similar challenges in B.C.
This year, the minister unilaterally declared herring fisheries closed, as Mr. Taylor mentioned, including our nation's spawn on kelp fisheries, which are specifically identified in the integrated fisheries management plan as sustainable. There is no scientific basis for that closure.
Again, I'll emphasize the unilateral nature of that decision. Specifically, some of the nations that we work for have long-standing co-governance agreements for those fisheries, and up until that ministerial decision, they'd had significant discussions with the department around planning and implementing that fishery this year.
I think one thing that speaks to is uncertainty and data gaps, especially in areas that have less western science but have significant local or traditional and indigenous knowledge that can speak to management decisions that actually make sense for the people who are living in that land or seascape.
An earlier question asked how indigenous knowledge can support and marry with western science. It's particularly helpful where there are data gaps or uncertainty and in areas that are less studied or are not at the right scale for the current integrated fishery management regime or DFO's region-based approach.
Salmon is another really good example. In the region where I work, no integrated stock status assessments are done for any of our stocks across five species of Pacific salmon, yet fisheries are enacted annually. The nations therefore carry the burden of evidence to show that a fishery should not proceed versus having the fishery show they should be implemented.
We're operating in a completely data-deficient space.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Madame Desbiens. We've gone quite a bit over your allotted time.
We'll go to Ms. Barron for two and a half minutes, please.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you.
I was hoping to direct this next question to Mr. Bateman.
Of course, this is front of mind for many right now. I was wondering if you could touch on the recent Discovery Islands decision around the open-net pen fish farms and the science that was used and relied upon in these decisions.
Could you speak specifically to areas such as sea lice and the information around that, please, which may or may not have been meaningfully used in these decisions?
12:50 p.m.
Manager, Salmon Health, Pacific Salmon Foundation
Thank you for the question.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, the risk assessments that were done had several, what I consider, fatal flaws. In the case of sea lice and the cumulative effects of the other pathogens that were considered, there was no risk assessment done. It's mind-boggling, to be honest, because sea lice are such a high-profile example of a risk coming from salmon farming.
There is a great deal of new evidence that could have been considered at the time of the risk assessments to gauge the risk from sea lice. In particular, there is DFO science that says that sockeye salmon are at extreme risk from sea lice, relative to Atlantic salmon on the farms. There is what I would consider a degree of damning evidence with regard to sea lice that was actively ignored by the policy decision of choosing not to perform a sea lice risk assessment.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Bateman.
I wanted to loop back to Dr. Whitney. I have allotted some space for your colleague, if he wants to take the opportunity to expand on my question about the importance of indigenous knowledge.
I wonder if your colleague wanted to comment.
12:55 p.m.
Alejandro Frid Science Coordinator, Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance
Thank you for the opportunity.
I'll give you a very concrete example that refers to the longer baselines of indigenous knowledge and how they can benefit the process.
A colleague and I did an analysis of fishery-independent data that shows very rapid declines in the size and age structure of yelloweye rockfish. Those time series did not start until 2003, which is long after commercial fisheries had already caused tremendous declines in that and many other groundfish species.
If we just look at the picture that we analyzed between 2003 and 2015, from DFO's own survey data, we see a decline of about half a centimetre per year in the average size of yelloweye rockfish and an average decline of about 10 months per year in the average age of yelloweye rockfish. This has tremendous implications for fecundity, because larger females are disproportionally more fecund than smaller females per unit of body size.
This was in 2003, at the start of the time series. Looking at indigenous knowledge through structured interviews, we reconstructed the body sizes of yelloweye going back to the 1950s or so and how, in the catches of indigenous fishers, those sizes changed over time. Between 1980—which is before any of these scientific surveys had begun—and 2000, we see a decline of nearly half the average size.
If we only look at the scientific data, we will have a shifting baseline of what would have been considered normal. It would be starting in 2003, which is about half the body size and disproportionally lower fecundity that was there before the commercial fisheries got under way.
That's one example.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you for that.
Ms. Barron, you almost had a five-minute round. You're at that time.
We'll now go to Mr. Small for five minutes or less, please.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have some questions for Mr. Zeman. Are you familiar with the Korman report on the emergency recovery potential for B.C. steelhead?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Are you aware that Korman and his team wrote that pinniped predation is an important factor driving steelhead decline?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Was that included in the final document that was produced in CSAS, or was it left out?
12:55 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
Yes. There are two pieces to that.
When you refer to the Korman report, you're referring to the recovery potential assessment document, which was conducted by three authors. Korman was one of them. He's independent. Another one was with the provincial government, which has the responsibility of managing steelhead. The third was with DFO.
This recovery potential assessment report was conducted and was then peer-reviewed by, I believe, 42 different managers and researchers, and it was sent up. That report still has not seen the light of day. Years later, it has still not been disclosed to the public.
In British Columbia, we have a bit of tennis match that happens between the province, around managing freshwater resources, and DFO, around managing pinniped predation. I would say that there is a lot of science on both ends. Both are failing in their responsibilities to adequately fund science and to implement science-based decisions to move salmon forward.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Does it make sense that Korman's clear conclusion based on research could simply be discarded by the CSAS process?
1 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
It certainly doesn't because the process is supposed to be a peer-reviewed, transparent process that is used to inform both DFO and the Canadian public, and it's impossible to inform the Canadian public about a document that has never been released to the public.
April 28th, 2022 / 1 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
For Mr. Riddell, pinniped populations have grown tenfold to fifteenfold for various species and are projected to grow at 10% per year going forward.
How much of a factor do you think the growth of pinniped population has played in the rebuilding of fish stocks in coastal B.C.?
1 p.m.
Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation
Your numbers are not quite correct at this time. Among the pinnipeds on the coast—and we're talking basically of the seals, including some of the larger fur seals moving down the coast—the harbour seal population through B.C. has been pretty stable for about 20 years, but it grew at the rate you're talking about when hunting was finished in the early 1970s. For approximately 20 to 30 years now, there's no question in people's minds that the role of pinnipeds has increased as a controlling factor.
Do we think it could prevent recovery of salmon? No, we do not. It would potentially be a mortality factor that we would maybe have to remove from an opportunity to fish, for example. One of the things that people struggle with is that you can only kill so many fish to sustain a population. You can kill it by a seal or you can kill it by a fisher, or you can kill it by industrial development. The bottom line is that it's all mortality and has to be accounted through accurate stock assessment and then management.
But it does not have to be the limiting factor to recovery.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
My figure on the growth of those populations goes back to 1970.
Do you think we should have a pinniped management initiative to go hand-in-hand with other fisheries policy?
1 p.m.
Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation
If you're referring to a pinniped management plan, then yes, it would be an opportunity to control the population and its effect. That does not equate to a predator removal plan. It could be a change in how we still manage log booms in Canada on the west coast. It could be a factor of restoration of estuaries that are, to a very frequent extent, highly disrupted, so it removes the habitats that salmon, for example, use for protection and feeding.
As long as you're talking about a pinniped management plan that is not equivalent to an immediate harvest and removal, then I would agree with your statement.