Fisheries Committee on June 14th, 2022

[Robert Hardy]

Thank you for your question. I got the translation.

When you have seven to 10 million animals consuming anywhere from 1 kilogram to 7 kilograms of fish a day, the daily consumption rate is huge. The prey fish, in terms of capelin and herring that other species rely on, are predominant species that seals consume. With a very large population of seals, eating prey fish would have an impact on other fish species and larger fish species, for sure.

There were 7.6 million harp seals in the last census. Is it presently increasing? Has it stabilized? Some people indicate that the seal body mass is being reduced. Science indicates that the pupping rates are down. You may be at a state where the population has reached its maximum carrying capacity and going forward, seal populations could be reduced, quite simply because they have eaten themselves out of house and home.

I appreciate your father's comments of when he was on the water. I spent a lifetime on the water. I hear comments every day that are similar. To date, to be quite honest to the people who are attending this meeting, there has been very little done on seals. I think we need to open our eyes and have a look at the science that has been done in other countries and at the data that is available on seal diet.

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

It will be nice to visit Norway, if we get permission to do that, so we can ask those questions.

Mr. Hardy, we are in a situation where we would like to find a solution to control the seal population. I have met with sealers who hunt responsibly. Nothing is lost or wasted in their catch. The meat is used to feed first nations who no longer have access to their traditional food supply. Do you think this kind of hunt would meet the acceptability criteria?

[Robert Hardy]

Absolutely. Seal offers many different products that can be utilized. The animal should be fully utilized when it's taken.

I think Canada has missed out on an opportunity to produce edible food, not only for our northern communities, but also for countries that do not have an adequate food supply. There are various humane efforts with other types of products—grains and different types of products—and seal, if processed correctly, could offer a high-protein food source for the many people who will starve in the world. With the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, we see on the news every day that this is going to be a bigger issue.

Seal is a resource. Seal offers probably some of the best protein. It is rich in omega-3. All health professionals will indicate the benefits of omega-3. Seal offers premium omega-3.

There are many things that we need to do and we need action. We need our government to support the product research, market development and market access, because over the years, as we know, the animal rights groups have—

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

Do you feel that the DFO and the government should invest additional funds into fair and acceptable promotion, should a decision be made to reestablish some respectful and responsible sealing? Do we need to fund better promotion?

[Robert Hardy]

Absolutely. I think all federal government departments working with provincial governments, local communities and indigenous groups need to co-operate and find a way to go forward.

You are absolutely right with the reference to how humane the seal hunt is. It has been studied by international veterinarians many times. The hunt is as humane as a wild hunt can be. We need to co-operate, find a use and harvest the 455,000 animals—harp seals alone—which there is an existing quota for.

Many believe that if we could take the quota, we would see an immediate impact on our fisheries around Atlantic Canada and on similar problems on the west coast.

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

Thank you.

[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.

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here today for all of the important information you have provided.

I want to ask my question of Mr. Young, who I'm happy is with us here today.

Mr. Young, you spoke about the importance of making decisions, understanding the complexity of ecosystems and how previous attempts to manipulate and control our complex marine ecosystems have not proven fruitful. You also spoke about the importance of co-governance with first nations and included that as one of your recommendations.

Could you highlight for us a little bit the interconnection between the ecosystem approach and first nation co-governance? How would these decision-making processes in a co-governance model help to provide more sound decisions that would be more sustainable for both fisheries and our marine environment?

[Jeffery Young]

Ultimately, part of what I was trying to suggest is that science isn't necessarily about a perfect understanding of things, and this is especially true when we're dealing with ecosystems and broad, wild species that live under the water. Nonetheless, ultimately, we can apply our own principles and objectives and then try to measure and identify whether we're being successful at doing that. Science plays a key role in that. Science thrives on daylight and ultimately ensuring that it's made public and that decisions that are made politically are informed by that science, and others understanding what that science is is very important.

The co-governance piece is very critical in really adjusting and moving our management of fisheries and aquatic ecosystems back to their rightful place. It also presents an opportunity to relook at how we look at ecosystems in science and its role in management.

As it currently stands, we're not yet moving adequately towards co-governance in a way that ensures that we're taking advantage of that opportunity and empowering these first nations communities to take on those responsibilities themselves. There are multiple demonstrations of extremely powerful leadership from first nations communities that are bringing traditional knowledge and science in an open, transparent approach to fisheries management that is a model for us to follow.

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

Thank you very much.

Through the chair, Mr. Young, do you have any examples you could provide of where we've seen some success in this area?

[Jeffery Young]

Along the west coast, there are a number of communities that have really stepped forward in the last 10, 15 or 20 years, developing entirely new science programs and new approaches to fisheries management that are much more consistent with global best practices. Some of these places include the Nuu-chah-nulth on the west coast of Vancouver Island and various communities in the Skeena River watershed. Throughout the Fraser watershed, very substantial efforts are under way right now to get a better handle on the population dynamics of their own salmon and to develop some of these co-governance models with both the federal and provincial government to get back to salmon recovery and ultimately a return of salmon to these communities so that they can benefit them.

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

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Mr. Jones.

To move forward in a better way, it's good for us to look at international jurisdictions and what their best practices are in terms of science. Could you clarify this and talk more about some examples of best practices internationally when it comes to science that you've seen that Canada perhaps should emulate?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Ms. Barron, there are two Joneses on line, so you might want to identify which one your question is for.

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

Thank you.

It's for Mr. Sean Jones, please.

[Sean Jones]

I thank you for your question.

The previous witness spoke about collaborative governance with first nations. I think in Canada that's a model that can bring another voice to the table. Certainly in the CSAS process, it is one that excludes first nations despite their duty to consult being triggered.

I think one of the things, particularly with respect to finfish aquaculture, is that Canada needs to be more closely guided by the OIE's guidance and it's aquatic animal health code and manuals. For example, when DFO recently let industry licensees vote on how to diagnose HSMI, heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, a disease caused by PRV, it provided those folks with no direction, no terms of reference or no guidance either with respect to Canada's legal duties under the Fishery (General) Regulations or under the OIE's aquatic code.

As a result, they adopted a definition for disease that's almost impossible to make a diagnosis from. They departed from diagnosing disease in individuals at all for this disease and will only now diagnose HSMI if there is population mortality attributed to it. Of course, that creates a logical absurdity. You can't attribute population-level impacts if you aren't diagnosing individuals, and you can't diagnose—according to DFO's process—individuals unless you have population-level impacts. This departs from DFO's obligation to implement the precautionary principle; that is, anticipate, attack and prevent harm. Instead, DFO is looking for proof that the harm has occurred before it will act.

It also deviates from the OIE's aquatic manual in terms of the criteria for establishing sensitivity for diagnosis of outbreaks in epidemiological units and relying on a scientific perspective for diagnosis in an individual.

Moreover, it created significant conflicts of interest where industry licensees were asked to vote on how to diagnose a disease that, if diagnosed, would create significant regulatory burdens on their operations.

I think we need to follow the OIE's international guidance on managing those conflicts of interest, but DFO and CFIA also need to follow that international guidance on reporting emerging diseases.

When PRV was first detected in 2011 in British Columbia, that should have triggered DFO's and CFIA's obligation to report an emerging disease, that we now had a foreign virus detected in British Columbia that was causing disease in endangered chinook. Instead, that disease was—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Jones. We've gone way over time and we have to get to the other participants for questions.

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today. It's been a very interesting study.

I would like to start with Mr. Jones if I could.

You mentioned in your comments just a moment ago and in your opening remarks that there remain far too many instances where DFO staff are demonstrating a conflict of interest with the fisheries or aquaculture operations they are meant to regulate and manage, further marginalizing science and avoiding the hard decisions that must be made for the benefit of the fish, oceans and these very industries' future.

We probably don't have time today, but I'd like to ask you if you could provide specific examples of that. I think we are all accountable; we certainly are as elected representatives. The department has some very good staff working for it, but it's unclear to this committee so far where some of these decisions are ending up. If you are able to provide any of those examples, it would certainly help the committee's work on this study.

[Sean Jones]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold, for your question.

Very briefly, I can provide three examples in addition to the example with the HSMI diagnosis that I referred to earlier.

The first is suppression of a diagnosis of HSMI in 2016. Dr. Miller-Saunders and her team had diagnosed HMSI using an internationally accepted case definition. Documents released under the access to information—

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

I hate to interrupt, but we will run out of time very quickly. If you're able to provide this information very briefly today or in writing after, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

[Sean Jones]

Sure, I can do that.

The access to information documents illustrate that DFO and industry rewrote the press release suppressing Dr. Miller-Saunders's diagnosis.

The second example is with respect to Tenacibaculum. During the Discovery Islands consultation, scientists within DFO had evidence that Tenacibaculum was causing population-level impacts in the Discovery Islands. A briefing note was prepared. This briefing note never made it to the minister. Instead, DFO managers briefed the industry on the same research.

When first nations, during consultation, asked for that research, they were told that there was no evidence that Tenacibaculum causes harm, despite DFO having briefed industry.

The third example—

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

Thank you.

I want to get on to some other witnesses here today, if we can. We've already consumed half of my time here. We'd appreciate the third one in a written submission to the committee, so that we can consider it.

My next question is for Mr. Sean Jones.

Mr. Jones, in recent years we've seen major decisions relating to fisheries being made by judges with more frequency than any other time I can remember. Here we are studying science at DFO and receiving testimony from you as a lawyer. Certainly, all respect goes to you for your role and the work that you do.

In your opinion, is the Fisheries Act in its current form relevant and updated enough to keep decisions under the purview of the minister and out of the hands of judges?

[Sean Jones]

I think the Fisheries Act could use significant revision with respect to how evidence and the powers of the minister are exercised.

I don't think that there's a problem with judges making decisions. In the significant fisheries decisions that I'm aware of, all on judicial review with respect to PRV and the Discovery Island decision, the judge does not make the decision or substitute his or her preferred outcome for the minister's.

In fact, in all of those instances, the court simply turned the decision back to the minister to reconsider.

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

Thank you.

In your opinion, would we see fewer decisions being made by judges if the minister stuck to the Fisheries Act, under her purview, and sound science as she makes her decisions?

[Sean Jones]

I think we'd see fewer decisions being overturned on judicial review if DFO managers were providing the minister with a more fulsome and objective representation of the evidence before her.

In all of the instances that I'm aware of—the two PRV decisions and the Discovery Islands decision—the record placed before the minister was a very one-sided record that did not canvass all of the available evidence or options.

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

I believe that's my time, Mr. Chair.