Fisheries Committee on May 5th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 21 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on February 1, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of science at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

For those participating by video conference, when you are ready to speak, click on the icon to activate your mike, and please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. For interpretation, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either the floor, English or French. I’ll remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Before I go to witnesses, I would like to welcome the member from Saanich—Gulf Islands, a person whom I've come to know as a friend.

Ms. May, welcome to the committee again.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses here today and apologize for the delay. There was a vote call and, of course, that takes precedent over any other work that's taking place here on the Hill. As well, I will let everybody know that we can go to 1:30, hard stop. We can't go any longer, but we will get that much of a bit of extra time.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses today. Appearing as an individual and in person, we have Mr. Greig Oldford, Ph.D. candidate and scientist, University of British Columbia. Also, virtually, we have a number of witnesses: Dr. Gideon Mordecai, research associate, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia; Dr. Dominique Robert, professor and Canada research chair in fisheries ecology, Université du Québec à Rimouski; from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Dr. John Reynolds, chair; from Ecometric Research Inc., Dr. Josh Korman, fisheries scientist; and, from Ocean Networks Canada, Dr. Kathryn Moran, president and chief executive officer.

I will now go to Mr. Oldford, please, for his opening statement of five minutes or less.

[Greig Oldford, PhD Candidate and Scientist, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to be here today. As I understand it, my function here is to provide testimony as an ecosystem scientist. I have expertise in integrative ecology and computer simulation modelling with a focus on Canada's west coast.

DFO has an ecosystem science framework. In it, ecosystem science is defined as a broad approach to studying relationships and interactions in the ecosystem, and it integrates science outputs. We prioritize and try to understand the key relationships in nature and their links to human needs and management actions.

Since 2018 I've had the privilege of conducting Ph.D. research at the University of British Columbia's Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries. This research is funded in part by DFO. I'm an indentured public servant on education leave. Given my absence from DFO for a prolonged period, please note that I'm not privy to current departmental processes and procedures. I'm appearing today as an individual, not as a DFO spokesperson.

My research is motivated by a mystery—that is, the declines and chronically low rates of marine survival of Pacific salmon in the Salish Sea since the 1970s. Specifically, I've been investigating the possible causes of low marine survival in juvenile coho and chinook salmon. I've developed oceanographic and ecosystem simulation models with the aim of integrating and evaluating a suite of scientific hypotheses. These hypotheses were put forth by the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project, a five-year interdisciplinary initiative.

Interdisciplinary work and collaborations between institutions are essential for ecosystem science. The work thus far was made possible through resources and expertise from the global ocean modelling lab led by Professor Villy Christensen, from international collaborators, and from DFO scientists. Support has been provided by the Pacific Salmon Foundation, DFO, UBC, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Ecopath International and by access to Compute Canada's high-performance computing infrastructure.

The work of integrating data and science to investigate the declines in marine survival has been a daunting challenge. As you've heard, certain key hypotheses have emerged. They include increased predator abundances; viruses and pathogens; declines in prey abundance or prey nutritional value; industrial pollutants and contaminants; habitat loss; and various effects related to climate regime shifts and climate change. These are all summarized in a report that was produced last year by scientists leading the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project.

My Ph.D. research is ongoing, and it's not yet through peer review, but I'll do my best to answer questions.

Mr. Chair, with my remaining minute, I should like to emphasize the importance from an ecosystem science perspective of “scoping” science—essentially, the process of arriving at carefully crafted questions. I'd like to quote from a popular text on adaptive management of natural resources:

...the most difficult step is where it's decided on what basic components are to be considered. Perhaps the most important lesson is the value of deliberately looking at the system more broadly and in somewhat more detail than initially appears worthwhile.

Making progress in the field of ecosystem science requires “encompassing intellectual approaches across a spectrum ranging from reductionist to holistic.” It therefore would be supportive of an ecosystem approach to management to “cast a wide net” to include indigenous knowledge, fisher knowledge, local knowledge, citizen science and other valued sources as early in the process as possible. Notably, this is aligned with the SAGE principle of inclusiveness.

To wrap up, casting a wide net is not incompatible with modern ecosystem science and ecological modelling. In fact, it's necessary if we're to make a dent in understanding how these complex socioecological systems work.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Oldford.

We'll now go to Dr. Gideon Mordecai for five minutes or less, please.

[Dr. Gideon Mordecai, Research Associate, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to speak today.

I am a viral ecologist and geneticist at the University of British Columbia. I work alongside a team of scientists from the Pacific Salmon Foundation and DFO. Much of my research is focused on a virus called piscine orthoreovirus, abbreviated as PRV.

I would like to talk to you about PRV, because I think it highlights some of the issues that have been raised to the committee regarding science advice. On paper, DFO sets a very high standard for scientific integrity. However, I have witnessed striking examples of where DFO has failed to meet these standards in regard to the management of PRV.

The story begins in Norway in the late 1990s. There were outbreaks of a new heart disease in Atlantic salmon farms, but it wasn't until over 10 years later that the virus, PRV, was discovered and implicated as the possible cause of disease. Thanks to some of the impressive research within DFO, it didn't take long for scientists to realize that this virus was also present in British Columbia.

In 2011 PRV was detected by Dr. Kristi Miller's lab in farmed Chinook salmon that were suffering from disease. Her work was the first sign that PRV might pose a risk to Pacific salmon.

As recently reported in the Globe and Mail, the public were kept in the dark about this research for 10 years. Had this work not been held back from the scientific community, perhaps some of the impact on salmon in B.C. from this virus may have been prevented.

Since its discovery, PRV has been linked to diseases in salmon all around the world, including diseases similar to that described in the blocked study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Dr. Mordecai, could you lower your mike just a little? The interpreters are not hearing you.

Perfect. Please continue.

[Dr. Gideon Mordecai]

There is now overwhelming evidence that PRV poses a risk to wild Pacific salmon, and salmon farming is amplifying those risks. I will review this body of work in my written submission to you, but the take-home message is that salmon farms are a source of infection to wild salmon, and infections are linked to disease, poor health and poor survival.

Despite all this evidence, most of which was gathered by DFO scientists themselves, DFO have largely proceeded as if these findings did not exist, and conclude that farms pose minimal risk. As a consequence, salmon have not received the protection they need.

While Dr. Miller's study was being hidden, DFO managers actively supported other scientists to work with the salmon farming industry to undermine her findings, making claims that PRV does not cause disease. My scientific evaluation is that none of this work rules out the possibility or negates existing evidence that PRV can, and does, cause disease in salmon.

PRV sent from B.C. to Norway has been shown to cause the same patterns of disease that occur on farms in B.C., but DFO continues to ignore this result since the study was conducted in Norway. For some reason, DFO requires disease relationships to be proven within Canada.

Can you imagine if we used similar thresholds in human medicine? The COVID virus would not be classified as a disease agent in Canada, since the only human challenge trial was conducted in the U.K.

DFO's CSAS review found that PRV cannot be the cause of disease because it can be found in healthy fish and without high mortality on farms. This is just like saying that COVID does not cause disease because some infected individuals are asymptomatic. Making such fundamental errors in reasoning makes me very concerned that DFO is not providing evidence-based science in line with their scientific integrity principles.

DFO's science relies on the selection of industry-funded lab studies, which place a high bar in their definition of what constitutes “disease”. Meanwhile, research that does find evidence of harm is ignored or suppressed. This raises questions of whether conflict of interest could have influenced how CSAS reviews were designed, interpreted and reported.

One of Canada's top fishery scientists, Jeffrey Hutchings, posed this question: “Are we interested in preventing disease, or the semantics of whether mortality events meet the right definitions?” This simple question is a powerful statement on how DFO has mismanaged this issue using restrictive definitions and cherry-picking data to fit a narrative. DFO has repeatedly lost in court, because their management of pathogens on farms is deemed unlawful and their decision-making lacks transparency.

The response from DFO officials will be that the CSAS process meets peer review standards. You have heard from previous witnesses some of the problems of the CSAS process. For instance, the panel can be dominated by participants with close ties to the industry. Normally in science, reviewers who have a conflict of interest are often excluded, especially if the conflict is financial. Would you ask a tobacco company to review the science risks concerning lung cancer?

The examples that this committee has heard illustrate how science advice from DFO is not always accurate, reliable, up to date or free from political and commercial interference. The assessment and summary of scientific information to decision-makers need to be free from vested interests. My recommendation is for an independent fisheries science body that would be able to review and weigh evidence, especially in light of conflicts of interest.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Dr. Robert for five minutes or less, please.

[Dr. Dominique Robert, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Fisheries Ecology, Institut des sciences de la mer, Université du Québec à Rimouski, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will briefly introduce myself. I am a professor and research chair in fisheries ecology at the Université du Québec à Rimouski. As part of my research program, I regularly work with researchers from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, in the regions of Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Maritimes and the Gulf. I have also participated in the work of the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, or CSAS, in all of these regions. I participated in these processes as a university researcher, and sometimes as an external reviewer. So I consider myself to have good experience with these types of processes in eastern Canada for various fish stocks.

First of all, I would like to commend the quality of the work of DFO researchers, who I believe are highly qualified to carry out the scientific work in their mandate. When conducting stock assessments, data are rigorously presented and conclusions are reached by consensus. They are generally based on available scientific data. However, the quality of available data varies greatly between stocks. The assessment of some historically and culturally important species, such as Atlantic cod in eastern Canada, relies on high quality data from multiple sources. Other stocks, however, such as forage species, are data poor. Basic measures, such as their spawning biomass, are sometimes unknown. The quality of the recommendations that scientists can make is therefore directly dependent on the data available.

A limitation to collecting sufficient data on some stocks is the ability of DFO to undertake new surveys. Despite the recent arrival of new coastal vessels and trawlers, the Canadian Coast Guard fleet, on which DFO relies for its monitoring activities, is aging and overused. It is clearly insufficient to consider adding major new surveys. This problem is particularly acute in the Arctic regions, where increased fishing activity is expected in the coming years due to global warming. I believe that DFO needs modern research platforms to better fulfill its resource assessment mandate.

The rapid ecosystem changes we are currently experiencing because of global warming also require the consideration of ecosystem variables in stock assessments to ensure sustainable management of our resources. The ecosystem approach to fisheries management is a major component of the new Fisheries Act, passed in 2019. That same year, the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat published a DFO research paper. This report, written in 2019 by Pierre Pepin and his associates, presented the state of affairs on including ecosystem variables in stock assessments.

The report concluded that, out of 178 stock assessments, less than half considered ecosystem aspects, even in a qualitative way. Given the scale of the effects of climate change, it seems crucial to consider the recommendations of this report in the short term. Three years after publication, however, it is hard for me to know what kind of plan DFO has put in place based on the elements of the report. I recommend accelerating the implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Canada.

One of the interesting aspects of this report is the need to better consider the social and economic impacts of climate change. To be more flexible and effective, management approaches should integrate the economic and social context of fisheries, both explicitly and scientifically, as well as information on stock dynamics. This capacity does not currently exist within the department. I therefore recommend that, upstream of management decisions, economists and sociologists be involved in the scientific process.

Finally, as several witnesses have already mentioned during this study, I support and recommend the establishment of a decision-making structure that would include a ministerial obligation to make decisions based on the findings of scientific stock assessment processes, with no room for discretionary intervention.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Dr. Reynolds, for five minutes or less, please.

[Dr. John Reynolds, Chair, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to participate with the standing committee.

I'm going to start by wearing my hat as a professor at Simon Fraser University, not on behalf of COSEWIC, and with that responsibility I'll briefly remind the committee of some of the difficulties that DFO has had with translating scientific advice into management advice. Then I'll describe an alternative model for the way this might be done more appropriately based on my experiences with COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

Long before I became chair of COSEWIC, I saw a long history of difficulties that DFO management had in dealing with research by my own team at Simon Fraser University and by other academics showing that wild salmon populations are harmed by sea lice emanating from salmon farms on the west coast of Canada. Dr. Bateman from the Pacific Salmon Foundation described some of those issues to this committee last week and you just heard from Dr. Mordecai about similar issues with the effects of viruses.

Until recently there has been a consistent pattern of denial of the harm caused to wild salmon by salmon farming, which suggests to me, as a salmon biologist, that policy preferences have been affecting science advice rather than the other way around.

The other example that I'll very briefly mention involving DFO's struggle to generate independent science advice comes from the case of endangered steelhead trout in British Columbia. Again, the committee has heard already from others about that. I won't go into detail, but the key issue is that although DFO convened a panel of federal and provincial scientists and industry stakeholders to review the fish's status and potential for recovery, the advice to the minister that came from this review reduced the emphasis on the role of bycatch salmon fisheries as an ongoing threat to the steelhead—and bycatch management, I'll remind you, is DFO's responsibility. This is another example where there's been an issue when it comes to the translation of peer-reviewed science advice into management advice.

Mr. Chair, I mention these two examples, as I said, from my vantage point as a professor at Simon Fraser University. I had no idea that I would eventually become the chair of COSEWIC, where I learned about a model for greater independence and transparency.

Members of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada are appointed by the Minister of Environment and we are explicitly directed to provide independent advice. That independence is enshrined in the Species at Risk Act and it is reiterated in the ministerial appointment letters that we receive. Many of the members, including me, are volunteers. Others contribute as part of their day jobs as endangered species experts employed by provinces, territories and federal agencies.

Our status reports undergo three rounds of extensive independent peer review, and our meetings where we decide on the status of threatened species are open to observers. The results of our work are used not only by the federal government for decisions about protection and recovery under the Species at Risk Act but also by a much wider audience of people who have a shared interest in conservation. For example, in June 2021, when DFO announced the creation of a $647 million Pacific salmon strategy, COSEWIC's determinations on the status of salmon were mentioned explicitly.

The good news is that as chair of COSEWIC, I am very pleased to report that our collaborations with DFO's scientists on status reports of aquatic species have been very positive. We have two DFO scientists appointed to our committee and we work closely with them and many others on aquatic species. The interactions with DFO at the science level have always been very positive, and I'm grateful for the help and expertise that DFO brings to our shared enterprise, but the key to our success is that we all follow a hard directive to provide unbiased, independent science advice where we ignore our day jobs or any potential desired outcomes that others may have.

Mr. Chair, I suggest that a similar directive could run from DFO science through to management. Specifically, DFO could adopt a prime directive where management objectives are expressly prohibited from influencing science, and there could be checks and balances along the way to ensure that is occurring. Science management should also be fully transparent with all documents involved in decision-making publicly available and subject to peer review from outside of DFO.

I believe that if these principles of world-class science were also applied to transparent decisions for management, this would lead to improved outcomes for the conservation of aquatic biodiversity and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll go to Dr. Korman for five minutes or less, please.

[Dr. Josh Korman, Fisheries Scientist, Ecometric Research Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to be a witness today.

I'd like to begin by providing a brief summary of my background.

I'm a fishery scientist who runs a small consulting company in Vancouver and I'm an adjunct professor at the University of B.C. My work focuses on the effects of dams and harvesting on the population dynamics of salmon, steelhead and trout. I've been an author on seven papers that have gone through the CSAS or PSARC review process. I have also acted a reviewer on a number of occasions.

I believe the main reason I was asked to appear before this committee is that I'm the senior author of the emergency recovery potential assessment for interior Fraser River steelhead that was reviewed under CSAS in 2018, which Dr. Reynolds just mentioned.

From my experience with CSAS, the review process of working papers is actually quite rigorous. I have not observed that unsupported bias from DFO fisheries management or outside parties have unduly influenced CSAS working papers or their final versions.

However, I have observed substantive meddling by DFO in the conversion of a recovery potential assessment report for interior Fraser steelhead into the scientific advice report or SAR. A SAR is intended to summarize the key findings of CSAS papers and serves as a central document that provides management advice.

There were two main conclusions from our final recovery report relevant to management advice. First, reductions in the abundance of seals and sea lions was deemed to be the most effective way of recovering steelhead populations. This fundamental conclusion was substantially altered by DFO when they wrote the SAR. For example, they stated there was no consensus that there was a causal relationship between the two—meaning a relation between steelhead and seals and sea lions.

This directly contradicts our final report, where multiple lines of evidence for the relationship between steelhead and seals and sea lions was presented.

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

Mr. Chair, we're not hearing the interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Hold on one second, Dr. Korman.

Madame Desbiens.

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

I can't hear the interpretation.

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm not getting....

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

All right.

Maybe the speech rate was too fast for the interpreter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Dr. Korman, we're having trouble interpreting for some of our participants here today. The interpreters are asking if you could slow down a little bit and maybe move your mike down slightly.

Usually people are telling to me slow down, but today, I have to tell you to do it for the interpreters.

Please continue.

[Dr. Josh Korman]

I'm sorry about that. I'll talk a bit slower.

I don't recall hearing any substantiated objections to our conclusions during the CSAS proceedings, but I can't document this discrepancy because the proceedings are still not available.

Second, the recovery potential report showed that the predicted trajectories of steelhead populations were relatively insensitive to reductions in steelhead bycatch in salmon fisheries. This occurred because the current harvest rates on steelhead are estimated to be relatively low, at approximately—

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

Mr. Chair, I am sorry.

I am raising a point of order again, because we still don't hear the interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll check with interpretation for a moment before we start again.

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

Maybe we should just give our interpreters a little time so that they can catch up.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We're going to try this again.

Mr. Small, I don't think you have the floor, so I'd appreciate some silence, please.

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

I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Chair, to thank the interpreters, who do an exceptional job. It is not always easy to follow the conversations and it requires speed. I thank them once again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

That's duly noted.

Dr. Korman, if you could start somewhere a little bit back from where we ended, it would be much appreciated.