Fisheries Committee on June 9th, 2022

[Christopher J. Bos]

The project in Sooke is 100% funded by private money. We actually pay the department for services related to delivery, raising of fish, covering of electrical costs and covering office staff to ensure that the project meets its demands.

We would like to see an opportunity to go further with things like the marking of the fish, further coded wire tags and increasing the number of fish, and we're actually being stymied with those opportunities too.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

That leads into my next question. How could they better help in the future? You have alluded to that, but maybe explain a little bit more.

[Christopher J. Bos]

The beautiful thing about the Sooke project is that it's like a blank canvas. It has great opportunity. It's proving itself to be suitable for strategic enhancement, where you get a higher rate of survival. Rather than simply releasing fish into a river, you get a much better return on your investment by raising them and penning them for a short period of time at the estuary.

That is what we would like to do in greater numbers in the Sooke Basin, but also we would like to see opportunities to scale that in other locations that have already been identified, often locations where historical projects like this were in place but were closed down by the department for no apparent reason.

It seems strange that you have a successful project going on in one place and it's not being looked at in other places. There appears to be a policy change or a bias against the project in the management of the department.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you.

We see DFO use the excuse that the salmon fishery needs to be closed to feed southern resident killer whales as a tool to close key fishing areas. Is this true?

[Christopher J. Bos]

I have a fairly good understanding of this because we were closed from a part of the Juan de Fuca Strait for two years as an appeasement to people who wanted to see large areas closed to fishing during the time when the southern resident killer whales were there. Recent studies have shown that there's virtually no foraging activity at all in that, so the department has now reversed course and opened it up again.

It seems that there isn't science to support some of the actions, but there's incredible pressure to close areas. I personally believe that the recreational fishing community has virtually no impact whatsoever on the health and well-being of the southern resident killer whales.

I cite an example. Between the 1970s and the 1990s the department's own figures show that the fishing community, the public fishery for salmon, was at its peak and the largest effort was taking place, and at the same time during that 20 years the population of the southern resident killer whales went from 70 animals to 98, I believe. That is an indication. If you have more activity on the water from recreational fishing and a growth over that same 20-year period of southern resident killer whales, it shows that the recreational fishery isn't really the cause of the current decline.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Is there a viable option?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Zimmer. You're time is over.

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

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for the record, Mr. Small was saying earlier that DFO listens too much to NGOs, like Oceana, for example.

Oceana called for a shutdown of the capelin fishery this year, and DFO didn't listen to the advice, so we went on with what was still a capelin fishery. I just wanted to put that on the record. Of course, as I said at the beginning, I think we also have to take into account the impact that it's going to have on communities when we shut down a fishery.

My question will be for Mr. Mallet now, speaking of fisheries borders.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Mallet. We are fortunate to have the opportunity to speak regularly about issues facing the fisheries in our regions. The closure of the spring herring fishery and the mackerel fishery is going to affect fishers in our regions who rely solely on those fisheries. As Mr. Morrissey said earlier, fisheries have been shut down in the past, the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example.

I think the department should set up a relief program for fishers affected by the closure of the spring herring and mackerel fisheries. What do you think?

[Martin Mallet]

Thank you for that excellent question, Mr. Cormier.

There should definitely be a relief program to support the industry, something that would help harvester organizations restructure certain fisheries and, above all, provide financial assistance to fishers who depend on pelagic fisheries. Another option is a licence buyback program for fishers who are ready to retire. That way, those who remain could take advantage of more profitability.

That said, we saw this winter's decision on the mackerel and herring fisheries, and the department seems to have no concrete plan for what comes next. The mackerel decision, in particular, came as a surprise to everyone. The Atlantic Mackerel Advisory Committee issued recommendations, proposing seven quota options. Which one did the department choose? The worst one, a full moratorium that also extends to the bait fishery. That means every fishery whose harvest depends on bait, including lobster and snow crab, is affected. We are worried because the bait we are going to need next year isn't being caught now.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Before we talk about bait, I have two things to say.

When the department officials were here, when we began this study, I asked them whether they had any scientists on the water monitoring the situation immediately following the closure of the mackerel fishery. They said yes. I think that answer is open to interpretation.

Did you see department scientists out on the water conducting scientific surveys as soon as the fishery closed, when the herring were there, as you said earlier?

[Martin Mallet]

No. It was actually fishers who were out on the water at that time, so the opportunity to collect that data was lost. At the MFU, we managed to set up a small-scale program at the last minute so that a handful of fishers could go out fishing and collect a little bit of data, but it was too little too late. I want to reiterate the fact that you can't impose a moratorium and completely shut down a fishery without having a plan or a meaningful discussion with industry leaders like us. It wreaks havoc on the industry and really casts doubt on the survival of many small coastal businesses.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I know your organization does a lot of research on artificial bait, among other things. The practice of catching a resource just to use it as bait raises questions in people's minds. There is, however, a species that could be used as bait, Asian carp, but there is significant resistance to the idea. The committee has talked about that a lot, and so have you. Can you tell us about the barriers you run into when it comes to the use of Asian carp as bait? If not Asian carp, why not redfish, as Mr. Lanteigne suggested earlier, given how plentiful it is in the Gulf?

Describe for us, if you would, the barriers you face when you try to get the necessary approvals for using Asian carp as bait in our waters?

[Martin Mallet]

One of the things mentioned is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Maybe we could get an answer sent into the committee by email.

We've gone way over, Mr. Cormier, so I—

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I'd like a written answer, please.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes.

I'll have to move on now to clew up with Monsieur Desilets and Ms. Barron.

Monsieur Desilets, go ahead for two and a half minutes, please.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

It's me, Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas. I'm filling in for Mr. Desilets.

Good afternoon to my fellow members and the witnesses who are with us today.

My first questions are for Mr. Lanteigne.

Mr. Lanteigne, one of my fellow members asked you about the regular staff turnover at the department and certain members of the leadership who obviously have significant sway over the department's decision-making.

I'd like you to comment on the policy on scientific integrity, which goes back to 2019. Under the policy, department researchers and scientists have the right to speak about or express themselves on science and their research. What's more, they are encouraged to do so without approval or pre-approval and without being designated as an official spokesperson.

Can you comment on your experience with department scientists and their ability to discuss their research?

[Jean Lanteigne]

That's an excellent question.

Yes, we have noticed some changes in that regard. The scientists are much more open with us and share much more now than they used to. It's a great initiative, the scientists are being more transparent.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Lanteigne.

Do you think it would be a good idea to always have external experts involved in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' scientific process?

[Jean Lanteigne]

Yes, it would be.

Peer involvement is good. We're not against the idea. However, we're not being consulted at all. I think it would be advisable to give the industry an opportunity to provide input on the peers we'd like to see at the table when matters have a direct influence on DFO decisions.

We support peer consultations; they need to take place. That's why we recommend having observers on board; I think others have asked for the same thing. We also recommend having a parallel research network with universities, industry, and the department. I think that would lead to better collaboration. Finally, we suggested that a panel be established to talk regularly about the fisheries and discuss other issues we'd like to see addressed in the coming years.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Lanteigne.

Can you tell us about the benefits of external consultations from a scientific standpoint? Currently, the department's scientists are in charge but you also have expertise in this area, you're out there every day, it's your livelihood.

What can you directly contribute to the department and to its scientists?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Could you give us a very short answer, please?

[Jean Lanteigne]

We can provide them with a great deal of information. The fishers see the impact of actions first-hand and are the first to observe changes.

I'll respect the chair's opinion.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Lanteigne.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

I want to say a huge thank you to all our witnesses today for their participation and for sharing their knowledge on this particular topic.

Thank you to our clerk, our analysts and our interpreters.

Ms. Barron, I don't know if you have your hand up.