Fisheries Committee on May 5th, 2022

[Dr. Josh Korman]

Sure.

Second, the recovery potential report showed that 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 15% to 20%.

However, given the unequivocal and severe conservation concern for interior Fraser steelhead, an immediate reduction in bycatch mortality is a logical potential action that the minister could take. In writing the SAR, some at DFO tried to head off this potential outcome by stating, “Allowable harm should not be permitted to exceed current levels”. We never said this in the final recovery potential document. We said, “and exploitation be reduced below current levels of exploitation whenever possible”.

It is worth noting that the recommendation to maintain status quo bycatch of steelhead in the SAR is inconsistent with what DFO has done to protect weak salmon populations. For example, DFO responded to the 1998 coho crisis by imposing very substantive fisheries closures. Substantive closures to protect Cultus Lake sockeye and more recently Fraser River chinook have also been implemented. DFO decisions thus appear risk averse for protecting weak salmon populations, but not so for protecting weak steelhead ones.

In summary, the main conclusions from the SAR for interior Fraser steelhead are not consistent with the main findings of the final recovery potential report. The SAR de-emphasized the importance of seal and sea lion predation and promoted the idea that status quo salmon fishing is okay. In my view, the first modification on effects of seals and sea lions is the most problematic because it misrepresents the primary tool available to us to improve the status of interior Fraser steelhead and likely for chinook and other salmon.

In closing, I empathize with the challenges that DFO and the minister face when making very difficult trade-off decisions for conservation of weak populations versus salmon fishing. Given this trade-off, it is hard to understand why DFO appears so reluctant to consider control of seal and sea lion populations on the south coast of B.C. I believe we need a more transparent process where the rationale for conservation and fishing decisions made by DFO can be evaluated by the public to determine if the decisions are consistent and also compatible with existing policies on harvesting and conservation.

Thanks for your attention and interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Dr. Korman, and thank you for your patience.

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

[Dr. Kathryn Moran, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ocean Networks Canada]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I will start by saying that even though the sign behind me says “Nova Scotia”, and I love all of Canada's three coasts, I'm speaking to you from the territories of Lekwungen-speaking peoples here in Victoria, British Columbia.

As you have seen, I am president and CEO of Ocean Networks Canada, but my background is oceanography and ocean engineering, not biology or ecosytem science.

Ocean Networks Canada operates world-leading, cabled ocean observatories in Canada's Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, and we collect and deliver real-time data for scientific research for societal benefits and industry.

Through our unique data management system, Oceans 3.0, data from our observatories are collected in all forms, quality assured and archived. We make all of our data open and freely available to Canadians and anyone in the world, which I would be happy to elaborate further during question period, because it is my view that open data, data products and results are the core foundation for informing policy and management decisions.

In 16 years of operations, Ocean Networks Canada has supported 20,000-plus global users, including many DFO scientists. We currently host 9,000 sensors, many of which are Canadian made, and Oceans 3.0 has collected more than a petabyte of data, which is big data.

As a major science initiative with an operating budget in the order of $27 million a year, we receive funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation for 60% of those dollars through ISED and 40% from the delivery of essential national data products and services that align and help the federal government achieve departmental mandates, including DFO's mandate under the oceans protection plan and for ocean protection in the soon-to-be-expanded marine protected areas.

For example, Ocean Networks Canada operates high-frequency coastal radar and underwater microphones called hydrophones. These high-frequency radars are on land and look out over vast areas of the surface ocean in areas such as the Port of Vancouver, Port of Prince Rupert and Halifax where real-time, surface current data are provided for users that help to make the marine system safe.

The hydrophones are sensors that listen to underwater noise and are essential for reducing noise and for understanding species at risk and their habitats, including here on the west coast the southern resident killer whales.

Another example is Ocean Networks Canada’s long-time series data, a particularly important scientific contribution for DFO. For 16 years we have captured and provided essential ocean variables that help provide scientific evidence to ocean changes and anomalies caused by climate change. This includes areas such as Canada's first marine protected area, the Endeavour Ridge, and much of DFO's current Pacific area of interest.

Ocean Networks Canada also provides data support during DFO scientific expeditions, marine protected area expeditions and indigenous community outreach and engagement. One of Ocean Networks Canada's most successful programs supported by DFO is our community fishers program. These are partnerships with communities, mostly indigenous, who collect data from their own vessels of opportunity. We will be expanding this program even further across Canada's coasts over the next four years through DFO support to empower our indigenous communities to collect their own data and to do that on behalf of Canada as stewards of our coasts.

The ocean crosses many departments. With the creation of the oceans protection plan, it was perhaps the first time that Canada developed a multi-departmental ocean approach to deliver this five-year program. Today, however, there's a heightened need for cross-department collaboration in the Arctic Ocean and on the rest of Canada's coasts, but in the Arctic Ocean specifically because it is home to the longest part of our coastline, which is the longest in the world. With the extreme climate-induced changes that are occurring in the ocean, Arctic security and sovereignty must be a top priority for DFO and other federal departments.

I have some experience in this area. Before I came to B.C., I was working in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under the Obama administration, where I served as associate director focusing on many areas, including the Arctic and climate policy issues.

During this time, I helped develop the first U.S. national ocean policy across multiple agencies—more than 25 departments and entities. I think it is past time for Canada to take this approach to marshal and leverage assets across the federal family and in partnership with ocean infrastructure operators like Ocean Networks Canada and others along other coasts.

I'll close by saying that I'd be happy to talk more about our strength in data, and how data and open data can help achieve very rich and robust management decisions for the ocean.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Dr. Moran.

That concludes the statements by witnesses.

We'll now go to rounds of questioning by members. I will ask members to please identify who you're directing your questions to in order to make best use of your time. We have six witnesses today, and there's nothing worse than having everybody stare at the screen or at one another.

We'll start off with Mr. Arnold for six minutes or less.

I will note that Dr. Reynolds has a hard stop at one o'clock our time, so if you have questions for Dr. Reynolds, you might want to get them in before that time slot.

We have Mr. Arnold, please, for six minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all six witnesses for participating in this important study.

I'll start off with a question for Mr. Mordecai and Mr. Korman.

Based on your experiences in working around fishery science in the Pacific region, what have your observations been in terms of how DFO plans, resources and handles science meant to support the decisions of the department and the minister?

Perhaps Mr. Mordecai can go first.

[Dr. Gideon Mordecai]

Thank you for the question.

I covered much of my points in my statement. I guess I focus on instances where we've heard of science coming from DFO scientists themselves, whether that's through a CSAS process or through internal communication of science, and science not making its way to the management decisions.

We've heard different examples of how at various stages there can be a block to information. I think that's where the committee needs to focus: on making sure the science information can get to the decision-makers without that block.

I'll leave time for Dr. Korman.

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

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Korman.

[Dr. Josh Korman]

My experiences with stock assessment, counting salmon and harvests and determining harvest rates, are principally the work I've done with DFO. The challenge is that there are a heck of a lot of salmon streams and inadequate funding to monitor them. That has varied over the administrations with regard to the amount of funding DFO has received.

There are cases where they've been explicitly directed to collect better data, such as in the interior Fraser coho crisis. Twenty years later, when we go to look at the new data, we realize that the better stock assessment was not done. I'm not close enough to the department to know how much of that has to do with funding and how much has to do with problems within the department. I suspect some mix is possible.

I think a common theme is sort of that promises are made to do better science and, in looking at that in the fullness of time, you see that often that doesn't work out.

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

Thank you, Mr. Korman.

Can you provide any suggestions for or recommendations on the process of determining what science should be undertaken and how that eventual information and data are relayed up to the decision-making process in the department or the minister's office? How can the system be improved?

[Dr. Josh Korman]

You know, I really—

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

I guess we heard from Dr. Reynolds about a more independent process. Do you have any thoughts on that yourself?

[Dr. Josh Korman]

Yes, with regard to making the decisions from science and translating that into management, I agree with the sentiments of a number of the panellists today. We need some sort of firewall or independence to confirm that what the science says is translated into the management advice.

For one thing, in our case, it could have been done by letting the authors of our steelhead report take the first crack at the management advice. We were excluded from writing that document.

There are some obvious things that can be done to better strengthen the linkage between the management advice and the science.

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

Thank you.

Again, this is for you, Mr. Korman. You provided evidence to the Cohen commission that showed that the short data record at the time meant that there was a very low statistical power of the data being able to to show potential relationships between salmon farm variables and measures of sockeye health and productivity. Is that correct?

[Dr. Josh Korman]

Yes.

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

Cohen also accepted your evidence, and that of Dr. Dill, that scientists needed another 10 years of regulatory data, until at least mid-2020, before they could more confidently identify if there were any relationships that might exist.

Would that be correct?

[Dr. Josh Korman]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

In your opinion, has the data record been established since the Cohen commission that can confidently identify impacts of B.C. salmon farms on wild salmon?

[Dr. Josh Korman]

Well, there's been substantive research since that time, and you've heard some of it in Dr. Miller-Saunders' testimony, and others. I think progress has been made.

The challenge is that the questions they're trying to answer are very difficult, so throwing more money at it, and even cutting-edge research, is going to make it very difficult to ultimately establish how disease transfers from farms to wild fish, and how that translates into survival and, ultimately, returns of salmon. It's a very tough question.

I think some progress has been made, but clearly not enough to make some strong science-based decisions on the farms. There's a lot of uncertainty about their impacts at this point. I believe that uncertainty is going to remain for quite a while due to the challenge of the questions they face, in spite of the good research that's being done.

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

Okay. Thank you.

In your opinion, then, a decade after the Cohen report, where is DFO at in completing the study of the interactions between salmon farms and wild salmon?

[Dr. Josh Korman]

I would pass that to Dr. Mordecai, or others who have been closer to that.

They have certainly made some progress.

Of course, you've heard the controversy about whether these eight or nine SARS on salmon farm risk were accurate or not. There's quite a bit of debate. I haven't been close enough to know, but I certainly look at research by Dr. Miller-Saunders, Dr. Mordecai and others, and there's certainly good work being done. Progress is being made. I just think it's a hard question to answer.

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

Thank you.

I think my time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold. You've gone a little bit over. I'm trying to be as strict as I can today with such short time.

We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've heard fascinating testimony from everybody so far today.

We'll start with Dr. Mordecai. You noted in your article in the newspaper that the consensus model was the mechanism that was actually a barrier to Dr. Miller-Saunders' research ever seeing the light of day. She mentioned this as well.

That must have been put in place for a reason. Can you give us a sense as to why it might have been there and, more importantly, what an alternative to that model should look like?

[Dr. Gideon Mordecai]

I can't speak to the CSAS process. I wasn't there in person. As scientists, we're used to having conflicting datasets. This is not a novel problem. I think there are better ways of dealing with that. I'm not sure—

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

What do those better ways look like, sir?