Fisheries Committee on June 2nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

There are only six seconds left. It's hardly time to get in a question, let alone an answer.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for appearing. This is a very interesting study we've undertaken here.

I'll start off with Ms. Burridge, if I could.

Ms. Burridge, you mentioned in your opening remarks something around how the science work or the research requests come forward. In the information we've received in answer to a recent Order Paper question, we see the budget for ocean science has increased by 65%, yet there's been a decrease of 3% in the fisheries science budget.

Can you speak a bit more about how you see the science that is being requested to be undertaken, and how it's affecting the harvesters?

[Christina Burridge]

We certainly have seen ourselves that, as welcome as the influx of science money has been over the last few years, most of it has gone to ocean science and very little has gone to fisheries science. As I'm sure my colleagues will agree, stock assessment, evaluation of the risk and the risk mitigation that fisheries management undertakes are absolutely essential. We are seeing that the increased demand on science has grown exponentially. Much of this is regulatory and legislative, so it tends to bump regular stock assessments. Even if we need a stock assessment to meet a Marine Stewardship Council condition, there are so few staff able to work on these projects that, if a SARA or a COSEWIC comes up, the relevant people are taken off work for industry and directed to SARA work. That's only going to get worse with the fish stock provisions.

One of the recommendations we would like to see from this committee is the proper resolving of the stock assessment and science function. I think that's particularly critical given that we're seeing the retirement of many of the well-established stock assessment and technical people from DFO, replaced with recent graduates who have no experience, so there's no chance for mentoring and growing up into the stock assessment process.

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

Thank you. I need to move on.

I'd like to move to Mr. Côté now.

Mr. Côté, you mentioned that you have developed an AI system to predict stocks and harvest levels, possibly, but you're not able to move further forward with that. Have you developed that program because the department isn't able to provide the information, or do you feel it is going to be more beneficial in predicting harvest rates or seasons in the future?

[Jean Côté]

It's a good question. Basically, I've been discussing that with a lobster biologist in Quebec, but never have the time to do it. He knows how to model, but he never has the time to do it. There's a lot of work, and now he's on a congé de maladie; he's not there.

I wanted to do something so I could use the data, and I wanted to do it right now and start somewhere. That's why I went to a different area, a private place. It's a small model. We are starting at one point, but the minister, like Mrs. Burridge said, is losing a lot of experienced people. Some new ones are coming, but they don't necessarily have the experience to do so.

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

Thank you. I'm trying to fit in as many questions as I can.

I'd like to move to Mr. Fisher now, with the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance.

Mr. Fisher, can you tell the committee if work plans have been finalized for the prioritization of the developing and sharing of science and traditional indigenous knowledge?

[Aidan Fisher]

Not to my knowledge, I would say. In reference to DFO work plans, in that respect, we haven't seen anything.

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

Actually, I was referring to the Fraser Salmon Collaborative Management Agreement. Has there been anything finalized there?

[Aidan Fisher]

There have been a few. The Fraser Salmon Management Council process is something I associate with peripherally. I'm not deeply involved in the day-to-day work of that. I work on the technical side.

We did produce work plans for two years, but so far, as of this fiscal, we haven't seen a work plan, and all work has halted on the Fraser Salmon Management Council management board process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold. You went a bit over there.

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

There's been interesting testimony on science during this committee study. A number of common themes have been coming out, regardless of who the witnesses are, so I'll frame my question from this perspective. When the department and the minister increase quota, nobody questions the science—the fisher, nobody; you never hear a complaint. The science is fine. It's always focused on when there are too few fish for everybody to catch and it comes to dividing them up.

To Ms. Giffin and whoever else, I agree totally that the department could do a better job of including fisher knowledge in its decision-making process, but what information should the department use? I'll use a recent example from the closure of the gulf herring and mackerel. It depended on which group I was lobbied by. One group of fishers said somebody else should have been closed, and the next group said it should have been them. Each group that met with me had a different answer on who was causing the problem.

Ms. Giffin, on that particular fishery decision, did the minister miss something? Would the decision have been better if some knowledge you had could have been presented to her? What part of the stock assessment did the department get wrong in making the decision to advise the closure of the gulf herring and mackerel fishery?

[Melanie Giffin]

That is a great question, with a lot of different aspects to it, I think.

First, I'll touch on the fact that—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I generally want to know where: Where was the decision...and where might the minister have...?

Do you have information you can provide to the committee on which area of that may have been overlooked?

[Melanie Giffin]

I think the area that was overlooked was the observations that fishers have been seeing for years. It was not “new news” that we thought the mackerel fishery was in trouble. For years at the Atlantic mackerel advisory committee table, each organization had been making recommendations.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

The fishers had been recommending to restrict the quota on this fishery for years, and the department overlooked it?

[Melanie Giffin]

They had been recommending different changes that could've been made to prevent this from happening in the first place, yes.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Could you itemize a few of those changes that may have been ignored that the fishers were recommending?

[Melanie Giffin]

Sure. We talked about an increase in the minimum size, which has worked in other countries to improve the quality of the stock. We talked about a better understanding of the egg survey. We talked about new fishing methods and new fishing gear that would target specific sizes. All were overlooked. I would say that's been over the past 10 years that we've been making those recommendations.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you for that.

Perhaps you could follow this up on paper, because I feel it's very important that the advice going from the science division of the department should also, in a documented way, in a formal process, incorporate the fisher knowledge. You are correct that they're the first people who see changes. This advice has been given by all groups, and in fact Mr. Côté as well.

How could the department, in a structured and formal way, incorporate the information and the advice from fishers, recognizing that the fishers are often competing amongst themselves in giving advice? I know you won't have time to finish this answer or get to the details, but I very much would like for the committee to have the benefit of your vast expertise on how to address the transparency issue and how to address the mistrust between the department scientists and fishers.

That's a lot to frame up in 70 seconds, Ms. Giffin, so we'll need some of that on paper.

[Melanie Giffin]

I can do this pretty quickly, I think.

One way to address the transparency would be to share with industry and the advisory committee a summary table of what each association recommended, and let each other organization see what all other organizations are submitting as well. That's not shared currently. I have no idea what other organizations recommend.

On the other side of things, in terms of what fishers are seeing, I've actually had discussions with Erin Carruthers at the FFAW about a voluntary logbook, so that we can quantify what's happening right now. Everyone seems to be anecdotally saying they see a lot of small mackerel. They're seeing it in Newfoundland; we're seeing it in P.E.I.

If we could quantify that in a standardized way, so that all fishers are submitting that information together in that method, then that's something that DFO scientists could actually use going forward, to reshape the data they plan to collect. I don't know that it's as complicated as it may appear.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thanks so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

I know I asked witnesses to raise their hand if they wanted to join in on a comment, but Mr. Sullivan had his hand up. I'll remind members that they can see only one person on their screen. Take a look at the screen on the wall here behind me, and you'll see if somebody has their hand up.

Mr. Sullivan, if you had a bit of a response for that particular interjection at that time, please send it in in writing if you don't get a chance to say it here as we move forward.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll address Mr. Côté again, not because I don't like the others, but because he is closer to the St. Lawrence River and the gulf. But don't feel bad about it.

Mr. Côté, I'm familiar with your group, I know that there are non‑indigenous and indigenous groups of fishers, and I know that you all work together.

What makes you think that the data that DFO refuses to disclose would have been collected by an indigenous group?

[Jean Côté]

We don't know.

What I was saying earlier is that there was a second commercial fishing season, presumably for research and exploration purposes. It's never been very clear. When we ask for more details, we don't get the details of the protocol or the data. We can't know them, no matter what the field. It's the same with the evaluation; there's always data missing. We would like to see this data made public or, at the very least, have it available to us, because we all work together.

If we want to move in the same direction, we need to see all this data.

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

I agree with you, Mr. Côté.

Thirty years ago, my father fished recreationally. He took me fishing for cod in the Saguenay and around the gulf. He told me that there would soon be no more cod because of the pinnipeds. He told me to eat it because there would soon be none left.

Why do you think that, 30 years later, we still haven't found solutions to the overpopulation and management of the pinniped resource in relation to the decline in pelagic fishery?