Fisheries Committee on June 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Good morning, everyone. I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 28 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.

This meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021.

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.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses for today.

Of course, no strangers to THE committee and no strangers to fisheries issues, we have, as individuals, Mr. Robert Hardy, fisheries consultant, and Mr. Christopher Jones, retired senior fisheries manager, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They're trying to work out some technical difficulties to get Mr. Jones connected properly.

We also have with us Andrew Trites, professor, marine mammal research unit, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia. Furthermore, from the David Suzuki Foundation, we have Jeffery Young, senior science and policy analyst; from Oceana Canada, Robert Rangeley, director of science; and from Wild First, Sean Jones.

We will go to our rounds of opening statements now.

We'll first go to Mr. Hardy for five minutes or less, please.

[Robert Hardy, Fisheries Consultant, As an Individual]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and other presenters. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the most important and controversial fishery science topics, seal predation, and its impact on Canada's east, west, and Arctic fisheries.

This year is the 30th anniversary of the closure of the northern cod fishery. Once the greatest fishery in the world, it was closed in July 1992, and represents the largest layoff in Canadian history. After three decades of a moratorium, imposed fishing regulations and continued science, the northern cod and other fisheries are a mere fraction of their previous existence.

DFO's latest science indicates that cod stocks remain in a critical state with little recovery. The fishing industry and the public for many years have pointed to record seal populations and predation as a possible cause. DFO science is reluctant to accept the impact of seals on any fish stocks, i.e., Atlantic cod, capelin, Atlantic mackerel, or west and east coast salmon, and instead remains dismissive and ignores the evidence provided by fishers, indigenous people, industry associations and seal science from other North Atlantic fishing nations—countries with the same seal and fish species as our own.

There is considerable international commentary regarding the impact of pinnipeds on fisheries. Countries like Norway, Iceland, the United States, the Baltics and Scandinavia are recognizing the impact of seals. All of these countries have fewer seal species than Canada, and most with only a few hundred thousand animals compared with our estimated combined population of 10 million in Atlantic Canada.

DFO in January 2022 provided information on daily harp seal consumption rates at 3% of body weight, or roughly 3 kilograms per day, while data from Norwegian scientists indicate higher rates, up to 7 to 9 kilograms per day. The difference when extrapolated over 7.6 million harp seals is significant and cannot be discounted. Norway, in 1986 and 1995, experienced significant decline in all fish resources. Their science referred to it as a harp seal “invasion”. Depletion of our fisheries leading up to 1992 has not received a similar review by Canada's fisheries managers.

I hope you got my handout there, and I do include two graphs. One is from Norwegian science. You see the two valleys there in the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s, and above they have written in there “seal invasion”. This is directly from Norwegian scientists. Below I include a chart from DFO of northwest Atlantic cod production, and you see the decline leading up to the moratorium in 1992. That decline, that horizontal line, continues across the chart without any recovery.

Most recently, after the submission of the Atlantic seal science task team report, there has been a discussion of a seal summit or forum. There have been far too many seal studies, committees and forums without any real action. There are many other Atlantic seal science task team recommendations relating to enhanced diet sampling, spatial analysis through the entire seal habitat, market access, greater fisher participation in science programs and the important analysis of resident river seals. These recommended science activities should be prioritized and implemented immediately.

In closing, I will include a media quote from a senior DFO scientist that “For years, fishermen have have been told it's fishing that drives populations” and that DFO manages fishermen, not fish, so it's only natural fishermen might consider seals as a competitive fishery.

I call it “predator envy”. From my lifetime of experience and perspective, there is no envy in the current state of Canada's fishery or its science program. It's time for action and not endless debate.

Thank you for your valuable time. I look forward to answering any questions and sharing all related information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

I see Mr. Jones is all connected.

Mr. Jones, you can go with your opening statement up to five minutes or less, please. No, you're still on mute. You have gone back on mute again.

Can we ask tech to get in touch with Mr. Jones to see if we can get that straightened out?

We will go to Andrew Trites next.

[Dr. Andrew Trites, Professor, Marine Mammal Research Unit, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Andrew Trites. I am a professor at the institute for the oceans and fisheries at the University of British Columbia and director of the marine mammal research unit.

I have been studying marine mammals for over 40 years. My research encompasses field studies, laboratory work and computer-based studies. Many of my studies have been done in collaboration with research scientists at DFO, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I've also served, and continue to serve, on a number of advisory committees, including the marine mammal specialist group for COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. As such, I am acutely aware of the threats and conservation challenges facing marine mammals in Canada, as well as the challenges marine mammals pose for fisheries.

Canada is recognized as a world leader in fisheries and oceans research, which reflects well on the productivity and quality of research done by DFO, universities and other groups. However, I think we fall short as a country in terms of doing science that matters to fishermen, coastal communities, tourist operators and fisheries managers, among others. I think a new approach is warranted to ensure that the fisheries and oceans research undertaken in the coming years addresses the concerns expressed by the different sectors that have a significant stake in the health of Canada's fisheries and marine ecosystems.

One of the most satisfying research programs I've participated in during my career was a five-year program called the Canadian Fisheries Research Network, or CFRN. It was funded by NSERC and ended in 2015. CFRN was a collaborative research program overseen by fishermen, academics and government scientists that had graduate student training at its core. It involved 30 academics from 15 universities working closely with DFO and representatives of fishing fleets from Canada's Atlantic, Pacific and freshwater fisheries. The collective goal of the CFRN was to develop fisheries research capacity and enhance collaborations across sectors. By all accounts, it built the trust of fishermen, facilitated needed independent research, produced timely results and showed a way to reshape fisheries research in Canada for the better.

Unfortunately, there was no means for NSERC to continue the program after 2015, nor were there funds forthcoming from DFO to continue to support this type of collaborative, independent research. In my opinion, CFRN was a successful, unprecedented program that addressed many of the concerns raised about science at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It should have been allowed to continue, but it faltered in the absence of political support and dedicated funding.

I'd like to encourage you to think about reinstating a Canadian Fisheries Research Network-type program, or consider a smaller national program to fund research clusters that draw on the strengths of universities to answer priority DFO and industry questions. Research clusters, centred at universities, could be formed across Canada to address issues pertaining to lobsters, groundfish, salmon, climate change, marine mammals and many other topics. Using the CFRN blueprint, the centre of each cluster would be graduate student-led research supported by a small team of six mentors, let's say, from industry, DFO and academia to formulate research plans, identify research topics and assist in securing the necessary resources.

I have no doubt that providing each cluster with an annual budget of, let's say, $100,000 will pay off big time in terms of cost-effectiveness and timeliness of results, in addition to training students who have a much-needed, grounded understanding of Canadian fisheries and who can become top future hires for DFO or industry.

In conclusion, I'd like to encourage you to work with universities to consider new ways to fund fisheries science that restores confidence and builds collaborations between DFO and industry, as well as strengthens Canada's capacity to undertake timely and comprehensive fisheries research. I believe that establishing and funding university-based fisheries research clusters, with the support of industry and DFO managers and researchers, would significantly help address many of the concerns that have been raised about science at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak with you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Dr. Rangeley from Oceana Canada for five minutes or less, please.

[Dr. Robert Rangeley]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important work.

My name is Dr. Robert Rangeley, and I am Oceana Canada's director of science.

I would like to focus on three recommendations within the scope of this study, all related to Oceana's mission to restore our oceans to abundance to help feed the world. We believe these recommendations get to the heart of what science information is prioritized, how effectively it is used in decision-making and how DFO shares the basis of those decisions with the public.

Oceana Canada believes that DFO must prioritize and resource the increase in capacity necessary to complete fisheries rebuilding plans, adequately monitor our fisheries and increase public accountability in decision-making.

First, Canada's new rebuilding regulation should mark a major turning point for our fisheries that ensures critically depleted populations get the necessary plans for a long overdue effort on rebuilding. Of course, success depends on how well the regulations are implemented, and that requires collecting and making decisions based on good science.

DFO now has 24 months to create plans for the 16 critical stocks in the batch one list of the new regulations, and soon the minister must batch in all remaining stocks. This is good news. What is not at all clear is how the requirements will be met, given DFO's track record.

Oceana Canada's annual fishery audit found that only seven of 33 critically depleted stocks—that's about 21%—have rebuilding plans and that most are of poor quality. DFO achieves only 20% of their deliverables laid out in annual work plans, but, had they met their priorities, they would have doubled the number of completed rebuilding plans.

Because of a lack of science resources, the task may be larger than DFO is acknowledging. A new analysis that includes data-poor stocks suggests that the total number in the critical zone may be 58, or 25% of all our stocks, not counting salmon.

Second, DFO needs to address inconsistencies in catch monitoring by fully implementing the fishery monitoring policy introduced in 2019, which sets national standards for objectives and methods. One of the reasons our stocks continue to be overfished or fail to recover is that DFO consistently undercounts how many fish are taken, including all sources of fishing from commercial and recreational to bait and bycatch. There are no fishing mortality estimates for 80% of our stocks, and for the remainder, we don't have the full picture. To give populations a chance to recover, DFO must count everything caught in a fishery and account for all sources of fishing mortality in decision-making.

Third, DFO must publicly communicate the scientific findings on which management is based in advance of fisheries decisions. The Canadian science advisory secretariat, CSAS, has a policy intended to ensure transparency and timely dissemination of publications. Unfortunately, less than 10% of science publications are released on time.

To make matters worse, the most relevant science advice was often not publicly available until after the decision was made and communicated. As a result, and despite the government's intention to promote public transparency and policy engagement, decision-making in DFO may be based too frequently on a flawed or limited understanding of the underlying scientific evidence.

To recap, Oceana Canada recommends that DFO prioritizes and increases their capacity to develop science-based rebuilding plans for all critically depleted stocks, to invest in and implement the fisheries monitoring policy so we count everything we catch and to publicly communicate the scientific basis on which fisheries management decisions are made.

The health of one of Canada's most important industries and the future of our coastal communities depends on how and how well scientific information is collected, used and communicated.

To demonstrate that they are meeting these and other responsibilities, Oceana recommends that DFO publishes, in an annual report on the status of stocks, staffing levels and expenditures by program area and fisheries management performance in a publicly available report to Parliament.

While I have narrowly focused my comments, there is a broader engagement and sources of evidence, including by indigenous communities, that must ultimately inform fisheries decision-making in an ecosystem context while urgently addressing the growing threats of climate change.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

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

[Sean Jones, Lawyer, Wild First]

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

My name is Sean Jones. I've been legal counsel for Wild First on finfish aquaculture issues for over six years. I'm appearing today on behalf of Wild First.

I thank the committee and its members for conducting this important study into science at DFO.

I've also acted on behalf of first nations, including the 'Namgis First Nation and Homalco First Nation, on related issues, including DFO's unlawful regulation of the piscine orthoreovirus, the orderly transition of open net-pen feedlots from the Broughton Archipelago, and the minister's decision to phase out feedlots from the Discovery Islands.

My experience has convinced me that the aquaculture management directorate and the Canadian science advisory secretariat consistently suppress, misrepresent and ignore the scientific evidence demonstrating that open net-pen feedlots of Atlantic salmon threaten the survival of wild Pacific salmon. DFO relies on this suppression and misrepresentation to excuse itself from executing its legal obligations, both domestically and internationally.

I am convinced that the minister, members of Parliament and the Canadian public cannot rely on either the aquaculture management directorate or the Canadian science advisory secretariat for an accurate and objective assessment of the harm that open net-pen feedlots cause to endangered Pacific salmon.

I respectfully suggest in the strongest possible terms that this committee recommend that, first, the minister appoint an independent scientific adviser to advise the minister on the voluminous scientific evidence demonstrating that open net-pen feedlots infect wild Pacific salmon with parasites and pathogens that cause population-level impacts to wild Pacific salmon. This recommendation is consistent with the 2018 independent panel on aquaculture science's conclusion that DFO could not evaluate science objectively and its recommendation that DFO appoint a departmental adviser on aquaculture issues.

Second, the conduct of DFO and the misfeasance of DFO managers should be investigated further and fully by an independent third party such as a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, and preferably by an investigator with the power of subpoena.

Both actions are necessary to ensure the minister has accurate information before her.

I make these recommendations after reviewing tens of thousands of pages of documents released under the Access to Information Act and after being involved in processes in which DFO managers have, among other things, unlawfully suppressed the research of Canadian and international scientists and interfered with scientists' communication of their research to DFO decision-makers. They have misrepresented the content of scientific papers in risk assessments and publicly misrepresented the consensus achieved by scientists during risk assessments, including changing the findings of scientists without their consent. They have departed, without justification, from international standards for diagnosing disease and detecting outbreaks including allowing industry licensees to vote on risk assessments and how disease would be diagnosed. They have adopted unlawful criteria for adopting the precautionary principle and presented conclusions in risk assessments for which there was no evidence and refused to provide evidence to support those conclusions when requested.

This litany of misfeasance by DFO managers parallels its conduct during the collapse of the Atlantic cod fishery, when DFO routinely suppressed and misrepresented evidence of harm. The perniciously ubiquitous nature of this misconduct confirms that it's not the product of a few exceptional bad apples, but the fruit of a poisoned orchard.

Justice Cohen warned of this outcome. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development found that DFO was vulnerable to claims that it prioritized the interests of the aquaculture industry. Canada's chief scientist confirmed that DFO could not evaluate evidence without bias. DFO has not corrected any of this misconduct.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm not hearing the interpretation anymore.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We're going to have to pause for a second, Mr. Jones, because we're not getting interpretation.

Is it good now? Okay.

Please continue, Mr. Jones.

[Sean Jones]

Thank you.

With great respect for the work of this committee, I strongly recommend that this committee's work be a first step and that this committee recommend that an independent third party further investigate DFO and DFO managers to make recommendations for the necessary reform.

Otherwise, the protection and conservation of Canada's public fishery on the west coast of Canada will remain in unsafe hands.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to Mr. Young for five minutes or less.

[Jeffery Young, Senior Science and Policy Analyst, David Suzuki Foundation]

Hello and thank you to the chair and committee for having me here today.

As a bit of background, I've been working on Pacific salmon conservation and overall species recovery in Canada for the past 20 years. I have participated in various DFO stakeholder and scientific processes, including the Pacific salmon integrated harvest planning committee, the Fraser River panel under the Pacific Salmon Commission, southern resident killer whale technical working groups and government scientific reviews, including recovery-potential assessments for at-risk Pacific salmon populations.

Science is central to DFO function. It is the best way to understand the state of the fisheries and oceans we are trying to protect and manage. It is also our most effective tool at measuring our success in meeting our targets and tracking progress towards new goals.

Right now, the process for DFO decision-making is broken, and science is at the middle of this failure, or, more concerningly, is being pushed to the side. There's a tendency within DFO to maximize its own discretion while minimizing accountability, which in turn is failing our fish, oceans and all Canadians. Without clear direction and transparent reporting on measurable objectives, this is an inevitable outcome.

Stakeholder tables and even technical working groups formed by DFO have largely served to reposition DFO as an arbiter between interests rather than a regulator and upholder of good science and evidence-based information. Further, there remain far too many instances in which there is a demonstrated conflict of interest between DFO managers and the fisheries or aquaculture operations they are meant to regulate and manage, further marginalizing science and avoiding hard decisions that must be made for the benefit of the fish, oceans and the future of these very industries.

The lack of a transparent accountability framework is evident, but it doesn't have to be this way. DFO in general has a good track record in completing scientific research and the necessary monitoring to evaluate fish stock and habitat condition. The ability to do good science is there.

Over the past 20 years, DFO has successfully developed and published a number of key policies that are informed by the latest science on effective, ecological management and that represent best practices globally. Such policies include the Pacific wild salmon policy and the sustainable fisheries framework.

Although the support for these core functions and policies has fluctuated over time, we currently have the resources and ministerial direction—at least in Pacific salmon via the Pacific salmon strategy initiative—to truly address outstanding issues with the function of DFO management and science, to address key gaps in critical core monitoring and research, and to implement these critical policies.

I feel it is important to add that within the context of science, it is critical to understand that ecosystems are highly complex and that our science and management systems need to be designed around understanding risk and managing our own impacts. Using science to attempt to push our impacts as far as we possibly can has failed. Further, attempting to manipulate or control ecosystems, often to address problems we have created in the first place, has also failed. Examples include salmon hatcheries, which have largely made the problems of salmon abundance and health even worse. In the recent words of an academic colleague, if salmon hatcheries were a drug, they would not be approved by Health Canada.

The belief that culling a salmon predator, such as seals and sea lions, will improve salmon abundance disregards the complexity of these ecosystems and unintended negative outcomes that could ensue. These pinnipeds are a natural part of these ecosystems, and attempts to control their populations through intentional killing is even more likely to fail to produce intended benefits than are our attempts to manage the salmon fisheries themselves.

We have the plans and policies and, to a large degree, the financial and human resource capacity to implement them. Our challenge today is a lack of accountability built on a foundation of transparent, evidence-based reporting. Science needs to be recentred in the decision-making structure, while we ensure that it is adequately transparent and independent of political interference. It is appropriate for the political decision-makers to weigh multiple considerations, but it is critical that science advice and information be as objective as possible and be made available to the public.

How do we do it? Implement existing policies that provide clear and science-based guidance on how to achieve conservation and management outcomes. Create a clear plan for achieving co-governance with first nations. Make public commitments to achieve specific outcomes related to these policies. Create a tracking and auditing mechanism focused on these outcomes, including independent technical advisory bodies. COSEWIC provides a good model. A previous witness discussed this quite extensively.

Report on results and provide guidance on implementation. Focus existing or new stakeholder processes around achieving these objectives, and restructure DFO where necessary to support these changes and remove conflicts of interest.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go back and try Mr. Christopher Jones again.

You have five minutes or less....

You're still on mute.

[Christopher Jones, Senior Fisheries Manager, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Retired), As an Individual]

Let me try this. Can you hear me now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes. You're coming through loud and clear.

[Christopher Jones]

My apologies. I'm working with technology that didn't get sent to me in time. That's my excuse, and I'll stick with it for now.

Thank you, everyone, for the opportunity to have a discussion with you today. As for my background, I'm a former federal fisheries manager. I've worked in Ottawa, overseas and throughout Atlantic Canada. I've worked with CSAS in requesting CSAS stock assessments and framework reviews, and participated in stock assessment reviews and editorial assessments of that process.

What I'm about to delve into is a series of questions. It appears that during the past several years, DFO has updated most of its stock assessment models, which for the most part have resulted in decreasing assessments. As a consequence of those efforts to update recent assessment models, several key questions arise that would be helpful if they could be elaborated on. I currently work with a group of retired scientists from DFO, those working both within the fishery as fishermen and on the sea and with companies domestically and internationally.

There are some questions that come to mind that are representative of all our discussions. Why were the assessment models updated at this time? There are arguments that suggest that it was time to take a more conservation-focused approach, but what parameters were updated, and to what degree were they updated? These are the technical questions that come out from discussions that the scientists who are outside the department are keen to try to understand. It isn't clear to them what science was used to update those parameters.

Using halibut as an example, the halibut fishery has been solid on the Atlantic coast for years. The population has recovered under the existing models. This has created questions. If the existing model was either inadequate or flawed, how could the halibut population thrive using it? What was the rationale for changing the model if the model may not have been flawed? The new model suggests reducing the quota by 13%. Is this an indicator of increased accuracy within the new model, or has the model been adjusted to reflect the enhanced conservation objectives? If not, is there an accuracy threshold that the new assessment modelling is striving to achieve?

Another interesting question comes to mind, because we're associated fairly closely with Scandinavian scientists. Are there correlations between the updated Canadian assessment models and typical Scandinavian stock assessment models, whereas most fish stocks are either increasing or at an all-time-high stable level in Scandinavia?

With respect to the department's promotion of marine protected areas and marine refuges and their projected increase in number, complexity and sizes, what degree of commitment of physical and human resources has science separately forecasted to directly support and subsequently monitor these initiatives? In other words, what degree of resources may have to be pared off from science to support ongoing monitoring of the ever-increasing numbers and sizes of these protected areas?

What is the anticipated impact on science resources to continue stock assessments should increased science resources be delegated elsewhere? For example, in the maritime region, stocks have been segregated into two-tier systems where high-profile stocks receive higher levels of science versus the lower-profile stocks, which receive little to no science assessment. Stakeholders have been advised that this ratio may change to even less science support in future because of increased demands elsewhere.

These are but questions that come to mind from a group of scientists who work within the industry and on the water. On the recommendations that emanate from this, we would hope that science is open and transparent in developing a presentation and priorities so that we can all debate them as they move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to our rounds of questioning.

Before I start, I neglected to mention that Mr. Kram is joining us today in place of Mr. Zimmer, and Ms. Valdez is replacing Mr. Kelloway.

Welcome to FOPO.

We'll now go to the rounds of questioning of witnesses. I will ask members to please identify who you want to answer the question. We have six witnesses here today. I don't want everybody staring at the screen or wondering who the question is for. It's your time, but you'll lose time if you don't identify who you want to answer your question.

We'll first go to Mr. Perkins for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming in for this important study. We all appreciate your time.

It's been an interesting study. Since we have two Joneses, I guess I'll have to use the first name. We don't generally use the first name. I'll go with Christopher Jones for $50.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I'll go with Mr. Jones for the first few questions I have.

You have an extensive background, having worked both in the department in policy areas and now in your retirement, I assume, working with fishing groups and organizations.

Can you let the committee know a bit about the difference in what your experience is and how those who are on the water fishing are consulted and dealt with today in the consultations and development of the science and decision-making processes that the minister has versus perhaps the time when you were in the department?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Jones, before you start to answer, could you move your mike up a little higher? The interpreters are getting some static from it.

Okay. Try it again now with your answer, please.

[Christopher Jones]

Can you hear me clearly now?

Okay.

Things have changed substantially over the past 30 years, as most things have. In the past, my experience was that I was actually able, in consultations with industry and fishermen's groups, to have a team of economists, statisticians and scientists with me to answer questions. It was highly intense. We spent a great deal of our time preparing for the presentations and dialogue and also a great deal of time recapping and developing the recommendations that emanated from those discussions and consultations.

What we're finding today is that fisheries management arrives with consultations for groups and they assume that all fishermen belong to an association. Those who don't are discounted, not engaged, not involved and not contacted.

Fisheries management doesn't seem to have the same team of scientists, economists and statisticians with enforcement background who would come to meetings that we had in the past. The fishermen, many of whom are a mix of both previous generations and current generations, are frustrated. They ask questions, which someone will take under advisement, and someone may come back to them. They're also feeling left out of that process, because very seldom does anyone ever get back to them.

The degree of fisheries—

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

I have limited time, so can I perhaps move on to my next question?

In the case of marine-protected areas, which you've mentioned, we have a couple of issues: one recently announced by the minister on the marine refuge off the Eastern Canyons of Nova Scotia and another one that's been ongoing in discussions on the Eastern Shore area of interest. Have you been part of discussions with the department about what the actual science is and the purpose of those marine-protected areas? Does the department actually have any science to support what it is that they're protecting?

[Christopher Jones]

This was challenging. Yes, I have been involved with the department on these issues, most notably Oceans. We have not had the dialogue with science. The department uses science as an argument, but when a group of us sit down and do the analysis on impact and try to quantify the impact—we try to measure it, which was a point made earlier—and ask the questions, science is not involved in those dialogues. It's simply Oceans referencing science. That's a most frustrating exercise, because science is not there to give us a direct response or to provide an opportunity for direct questions.