Fisheries Committee on May 5th, 2022

[Dr. Gideon Mordecai]

In science, we have independent peer review, and if we have someone who's truly independent from the process, they'll be able to weigh up the different datasets and try to come to a conclusion, recognizing that uncertainty, and with some transparency of that uncertainty.

The problem with the CSAS process, I believe, was that because the panel was dominated by one type of person with links to the industry, the consensus didn't reflect the complexities in that data and the different findings. Within that consensus process, some of the important work that had been done and those conclusions found...those ideas were suppressed.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

From what we've heard this morning, there's the scientific advisory report, the SAR, and then there's the consensus model in the development of the science.

I'll put words in your mouth; I can't ask the question any other way. Would it be your opinion, Dr. Mordecai, that those are two filters that actually prevent necessary information getting to the minister?

[Dr. Gideon Mordecai]

I focus on a mechanism to have transparency throughout these processes. The review process needs to be open and transparent. We can see what information is going in, and we can see what information is coming out and being fed to the decision-maker.

As scientists, if we know the information is getting to a decision-maker, but they base their decision on a variety of other factors, we at least know that the science is being considered. That's currently not the case, and I think that's the root of the problem. I'd say that focusing on transparency would go a long way in helping those issues.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

I have a question for Dr. Reynolds.

In earlier studies, it was mentioned that you could take all of the scientists involved here, lay them end to end and they would never reach a conclusion.

That is a critical issue, because we need to know, from your standpoint, what kind of advice is possible to give to a minister. With all of the uncertainties and all of the unknowns, what would a minister actually hear from science? In the process of trying to make a decision, would it be “Here's the data,” or would there be recommendations? What would that look like or what could it look like, given all of the factors that scientists have to deal with?

[Dr. John Reynolds]

In cases like this, I think there are two issues that can help with this.

The first is a precautionary principle can be adopted. If it looks like there could be a problem, then a precautionary principle would suggest that you should assume there may well be one. That doesn't mean you necessarily shut everything down. Perhaps the recommendation to the minister would not go that far if there is so much uncertainty that we have to invoke the precautionary principle. It's well known that we should not be using that as a reason for inaction.

The other way to deal with this, though, is to look at the weight of evidence. We do that in science all the time. You could try to shoot down an individual study and say that it's just a correlation, for example, but eventually, the number of studies that are all pointing in the same direction by independent researchers could become overwhelming. The advice to the minister could be, “There is uncertainty in a complex problem, but the weight of evidence points to this, and, therefore, here are the potential options.”

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I wonder how much of that would actually take place given that every time a minister makes a decision, there's going to be somebody who doesn't like the decision popping up and saying, “No, we have science that says that's all wrong; you shouldn't do that.”

This leads to something that Mr. Arnold mentioned in his very first question, which I think is very critical. He talked about science supporting decisions. That seems to me to be backwards in a sense. Shouldn't it be decisions supported by science? The first way, science supporting decisions, is the Fraser Institute model of research. Sorry, but it is simply the wrong way to go at it.

Would you agree, Dr. Reynolds?

[Dr. John Reynolds]

Yes. I think science comes first and science can point toward the state of the problem, if you think of it as a problem. It can also be used to consider potential solutions.

For example, Dr. Korman mentioned that they wrote that report, which would have also modelled the effects of different potential management actions on benefiting the steelhead. You can model or advise on what the potential options are and what are mostly likely to be effective. The minister then can take that information about the options and what the science is that is supporting those options, and then bring in these other factors that they have to consider, the trade-offs and the people who will be harmed by the management actions, for example.

As long as that's done in a transparent and open way so that people can see where the science enters and what other factors were being considered, then that would certainly be a process that I think a lot of people could sign up to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

We'll now go to Madam Desbiens for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses, whose words are truly enlightening.

I'm going to turn to Mr. Robert.

You presented a section on other sciences, such as sociology or economics, which would allow DFO to make decisions and give directives more adapted to the social reality. I found that very interesting.

Could you tell me more about that? Does that mean that there are no sociologists or economists coming in to shed additional light on DFO decisions at the moment?

[Dr. Dominique Robert]

There are no sociologists or economists present during stock assessments. Models in other countries, for example, Ifremer in France, which is the equivalent of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, have economic and social scientists involved in the processes.

Of course, here we are looking at scientific information from the biological, fisheries and stock dynamics point of view, but when this information is transferred to management, there are no economic or social science experts. So all the decisions can hurt the communities very much because there is no filter. The socio-economic context is not adequately considered in the process.

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

I fully agree with you.

I want to come back to the issue of herring and mackerel. At the moment we are hearing about all sorts of human tragedies on the ground. I think the Department of Fisheries and Oceans might benefit from considering not only the fish stocks, but also the human side of the fishery.

So that would be a priority recommendation for you, I understand.

The other recommendation would be for scientists to be better fitted out with basic equipment, i.e., better boats to navigate the Arctic and so on. You have also highlighted this element, which is of particular interest to me.

Could you explain further the gaps that exist at the moment?

[Dr. Dominique Robert]

We have talked a lot today about species such as salmon or Atlantic cod, which are species on which we have an enormous amount of data. There have been extensive research programs on these species, for a long time, because they are valuable and they are important culturally and economically.

In eastern Canada, forage species are a good example. There are many stocks whose abundance is not even known. To know the abundance of an offshore forage species, we must develop surveys with major means. We are talking, for example, about acoustic monitoring of fisheries. We need vessels to carry out this initiative.

Currently, the Coast Guard fleet is entirely used for existing surveys. It is being monopolized. It's hard to get vessels repaired when they break down, because they're always needed. So there's a real problem there. If we want to offer better scientific advice with an ecosystem approach to management, but there is a lack of certain crucial components of the ecosystem, such as forage species, it will be difficult to achieve this. As already mentioned, there is a risk of uncertainty. And the more uncertainty there is, the more likely we are to make management mistakes.

I recommend that we look at ways to increase the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' offshore capacity.

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

There is a lot of talk about pinnipeds. According to your analysis of the situation, are these species the worst enemies of some fish, at the moment, or are there others that are even more formidable?

[Dr. Dominique Robert]

Of course, people who are familiar with the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence know that the grey seal population has increased considerably. It is really the main predator in the system right now. That is one of the main reasons why groundfish stocks and some pelagic fish stocks are not doing well.

However, we must not forget the fishing activities. We were talking about mackerel earlier. That's an example I'm familiar with, because I wrote my thesis on mackerel at a time when stocks weren't threatened. For at least a decade, Fisheries and Oceans Canada's stock assessment reports have been saying that fishing pressure on mackerel is too high. The latest reports even talk about overfishing, and it took a long time before the fishery was closed.

Earlier, we talked about the independent model that Dr. Reynolds described very well. We have to come up with a management system that is more representative of the current situation and stop pushing the problem forward. As a result, mackerel fishing was stopped suddenly this year, without warning. It was the right decision to make given the state of the stock, but I think mackerel fishing should have been suspended or severely restricted long before that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today, both in person and virtually.

I want to ask Dr. Mordecai my first question. It's been about a year and a half now, I believe, since the decision by the previous minister, Minister Jordan, to close the fish farms on the Discovery Islands.

I know there has been research conducted since that time, in particular your research article on “Aquaculture mediates global transmission of a viral pathogen to wild salmon”, as well as a recent paper by Dr. Batemen.

Could you expand a little bit on the research you've done? I'm curious to get your thoughts as to whether the decisions being made currently are using the most up-to-date, available science.

[Dr. Gideon Mordecai]

I'd summarize the science and say that we know that pathogens like PRV and Tenacibaculum are very common on farms; we know they're being transmitted from farms to wild fish; and we're beginning to understand that in some cases—for example, with PRV it's very clear—that they're linked to disease.

In a more recent paper that ranked all of the different pathogens and tried to consider if these pathogens had an impact on coho survival or their bodily condition—so the healthiness of fish—of all the different pathogens we studied, the two that came out on top were Tenacibaculum and PRV, the two pathogens most closely associated with farms.

I think the science is becoming more and more clear that there is an impact, and we can start to investigate this impact on populations.

The second half of your question was about the science review process. My experience, since publishing the paper you mentioned on PRV, is that these findings are not being considered. I see no evidence that these are being used in the science. There haven't been any official science review processes, and there's not much transparency in what happens on the inside.

What I can tell you is that for a virus like PRV, with all of these links to disease that I've described, DFO still does not consider it as a disease agent. So they're making decisions—and sometimes internally—that go against the international consensus on pathogens such as PRV.

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

Thank you, Dr. Mordecai.

Could you also expand a little bit on the concept of minimal risk. We know that we see many different threats that have a compounding effect together.

I'm wondering if you agree with what I've just said and if you can expand a little bit on how the process of utilizing minimal risk perhaps impacts the ability to use research like yours in decision-making processes.

[Dr. Gideon Mordecai]

I'd like to point out that those risk assessments were only carried out for one species of salmon, and we expect there to be differences between the species. They were only carried out for one population, Fraser River sockeye. I was in a ministerial round table two days ago, where the minister herself expressed that she couldn't see how those risk assessments found minimal risk when they hadn't been considered all together.

So there are clearly issues with the way that risk assessment was carried out, but also with how it is being used and extrapolated across all of the different species of salmon and, as the minister rightly pointed out, how they're not being considered together and how the impacts might be cumulative.

I'll leave more time for questions, I think.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Oldford, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts around the use of minimal risk and how it impacts our decision-making processes.

[Greig Oldford]

I can share my reflections on what I'm hearing today, which is that it's very difficult to tease apart cause and effects in situations where we see a lot of correlation. I think scientists and researchers struggle with that, and politicians and managers will be struggling with that kind of an issue for a long time.

Nonetheless,, as other witnesses have mentioned, there are mechanisms such as the weight of evidence approach. There's the precautionary approach, as well, that can help us navigate the situation when uncertainty is always there.

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

Thank you very much, sir.

I have another question for Dr. Mordecai.

I'm wondering if you can share a little bit about any international standards that we should consider in our processes. I'm thinking, for example, of the Magnuson-Stevens act in the U.S.

Could you expand a little bit on that? Thanks.

[Dr. Gideon Mordecai]

Yes. I'd like to reflect on the last comment as well, and just say that a causal relationship isn't required to make a precautionary decision.

What you asked is true. Internationally, there are fisheries science review processes that incorporate independent science advice in the fisheries management. There are examples we can look to in the U.S., the EU, Australia and New Zealand, which have that independent aspect to them.

I'd say that Canada is falling behind internationally in that sense. Obviously, not all of these processes are necessarily immune to political interference, but the fact that you have an independent body is at least a step in the right direction. If there's some transparency in the way those decisions are made, it makes it much easier for other scientists looking in from the outside to review how these decisions are being made.

In Europe, they have groups of experts that are appointed by an independent commission for three years, who provide scientific advice on fisheries management. I think this is similar to the kind of example that Dr. Reynolds was putting forward with COSEWIC.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

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

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses. This has been fascinating so far.

My first couple of questions are for Dr. Reynolds, as chair of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which we all call COSEWIC.

Obviously we're most interested here in the aquatic species element of what you do. When there is a consideration going on within your process, is it possible that a species would have perhaps some sort of endangered status at one part of the country and not another? Does your process allow for that distinction?