Fisheries Committee on June 21st, 2022

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

This is one of those questions you could go on for hours about. The reality is that every stock assessment model is fundamentally different in how it's structured. One of the important pieces at the review process is to pick apart that model and to make sure that it actually makes sense. Do the values for recruitment make sense? Do they match what's seen on the water? Do the patterns for growth match what we're seeing on the water? Do the trends in biomass match what we see on the water?

That is often much more important, that validation process, than what the actual model structure would be. We can have a very simple model that can give very good answers, so we don't need a more complex model. You can also have some very complex models that tend to alias very important things that are going on in the stock such as ignoring recruitment patterns and ignoring strong year-classes that support the fishery.

Really, the challenge is to make sure that, when we review these models, you have the right experts in the room to pull them apart and to tease these pieces out to make sure they're giving a real signal and that you also have the people around who can demonstrate it.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay. Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. LeBlanc.

Leonard, you referenced, in your written brief to the committee, the need for better collaboration between the fisher experience and DFO. We've heard this extensively in this report about the sometimes inability of fisher knowledge to find its way into the science-based decision-making process at DFO.

My question for you is a candid one. When the minister announces an increase in stocks, nobody questions the science, including fishers. The minute you start cutting the quota, then everybody starts to question the science. What would you recommend to this committee for its recommendations to the minister that the information provided by fishers is valid and can be taken into the consideration process? Could you give us your opinion on that?

[Leonard LeBlanc]

Thank you for the question.

I've raised that same point at different committees. When stocks were going up, the science was everybody's best friend. When the stocks were going down, the program that they were using before was all of a sudden invalid. It didn't work, because the numbers they were coming up with didn't satisfy the fishermen. I've expressed that in many committees.

As I think some of the previous speakers alluded to, there's value in what fishermen see. What they witness on the ocean could be included in science evaluations. We have thousands of eyes on the ocean every day who see change, and thousands of ears. That could be put into the science, but science seems to think that if it's not up to their standard, then it's basically no good. I think there's a need to re-evaluate how science is done and how science is calculated. I think what the fishermen can bring, their knowledge and what they see, is very valuable.

I think the process has to change. I'm not pointing the finger at anybody, but it seems like, in some instances, if you don't have a university degree, you're not to be heard. That frustrates me. I don't have a university degree, but I've worked with science for 40 years.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Leonard. That's a valid point, and actually, that's the first time we've heard that. If you could provide anything in a written form to us on how you would like to see fisher knowledge incorporated into the department's scientific decisions, it would be appreciated.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bonnell, you've spoken about the issue of whether or not an adequate number of science budgets are being provided on the “F” side of DFO, the fisheries side. I think in 2021 the budget was $158 million. It has not increased as much as the ocean side of the science has over the last six or seven years. That's grown by about 63%. If it had grown by 63% on the fishery management side, this year there would be another $37 million available for fisheries science.

Do you have any idea of how much $37 million would help in providing for the gaps that exist in the integrated fisheries management plans?

[Carey Bonnell]

I'd need to get my calculator out for that one, I think. It's a very good question. That would provide tremendous value if targeted in the right direction.

I want to preface all of this by saying that we're certainly not opposed to the investments that have been made in ocean science. I mean, $1.5 billion has gone into the oceans protection plan within the department over the last five or six years, I think. That's a significant investment. Some of that, at least, has gone into direct issues around the marine mammal issues that we covered earlier, but we're not seeing anywhere a remotely comparable investment in the expansion of stock assessment capacity in terms of research vessel surveys. We're certainly not seeing an investment in stock assessment scientists, or not at the level required with all of the challenges on the horizon in terms of meeting third party certification standards around the Marine Stewardship Council, where we need management strategy evaluations and harvest control rules. You also have batch one stocks that I think Dr. Vascotto touched on earlier in terms of rebuilding plans.

We have initiatives lined up in the queue right now with the department. I can only speak for us, but I'm sure there are others in industry across the country, where you have initiatives lined up in a queue that need to be done, but you have a very small number of stock assessment scientists available to do it. They're all the same people working on the same files. You're going to have an issue of a generational gap if you're not careful, as the brightest and smartest scientists and stock assessment modellers are going to be exiting the system in the coming years through retirement. You're not going to have those transitional skills in terms of new people coming in.

I'm really concerned about this. We've been flagging this for a number of years. That $30-something million certainly would be quite valuable if targeted and focused specifically in the area of stock assessment science, modelling capacity, meeting fisheries' required targets that we need to meet, getting the best science available in a changing climate—all things that are really desperately needed. We certainly need that infusion of funding. That amount or more would be very welcome right now, I can certainly tell you that.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Vascotto, I'm going to follow up on Mr. Morrissey's question. It's a bit of a follow-up on the modelling accuracy. You said having the right people in the room was your next question, which you didn't get to ask, in terms of questioning that science.

One of the issues I have brought up here is the analysis that our team has done. An example is that at the time of year when the mackerel science is being done on the spawning biomass in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the average water temperature over the last decade has been eight degrees as opposed to the temperature in which mackerel spawn at in the gulf, which is 10 to 13 degrees.

Is that the kind of questioning you would like to see in terms of having access in the room to what's being done, because a lot of that science that's being done to do the stock assessments is not actually peer reviewed?

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

Yes, that is exactly the focus, where you have a body of knowledge from outside that is in conflict or in contrast to that presented in the room. Unless that knowledge is brought to the table during those discussions in the CSAS process, it generally is not accepted, so then it is forced to be offered after the fact when it cannot be actually incorporated into the science or decision-making process.

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

Thank you very much.

I'll go back to Mr. Bonnell.

In talking about the use of commercial fleets or fleets to help doing the science as a backup, is that a more cost-effective way? Is this something that DFO should be doing with limited budgets, actually not as a backup but as an expanded program to have access to more platforms to more economically be able to do the science they need to do on the species that aren't being covered right now?

[Carey Bonnell]

Yes, absolutely. It's not even a debatable topic. There's no doubt that the use of industry platforms when properly standardized, with proper engagement between the industry platform provider, the industry association engaged and DFO, you go through that proper exercise.... Coast Guard government research vessels certainly cannot match the cost-effectiveness, and I would argue they probably can't match the coverage and the reliability. There's data to back that up if the committee were so inclined to take a closer look.

Yes, I think it could easily be expanded. You're not sacrificing anything in terms of the legitimacy of the research. Again, I want to stress this point. This work is done with oversight and led by DFO. It's us providing platforms for the research and we're good at managing boats. That's what we do. We can provide boats on a time series basis, on a cost-effective basis, with good planning, and it can be as a contingency plan.

Obviously, investments have been made in new vessel capacity so it can be provided as a contingency plan. However, in cases where there are new needs because the vessels that are coming into the sector right now are filling existing responsibilities but there are still many gaps that exist across the country for that matter, I think it could certainly be utilized incrementally—industry platforms—to provide a cost-effective means with some good limited funding from government to make that work. I think it's a model that should be more closely considered in terms of a recommendation by the committee and certainly by the department.

We have raised it and there has been some interest in this. I'm not saying there's no interest, but there have been some challenges, obviously, in getting over the hump and actioning some of this as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

We will now go to Mr. Hanley, for five minutes or less, please.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing. You have all from various angles, I think, today described how science is a method and not a person or a degree, and not a decision. Fundamentally, it's about careful and documented observation that is reproducible and transparent.

I liked the way that Mr. Bonnell described the importance of validation of surveys by fisher industry knowledge, because I think that helps to ground-truth the scientific method behind stock assessment.

My first question for Mr. Bonnell is actually not quite about that. It's about indigenous knowledge. We know that indigenous peoples have thousands of years of experience in fishing sustainably. Their insight is central to understanding how we nurture fisheries and helps to inform decisions regarding commercial fishing and prioritizing sustainability.

I'm wondering, with regard to Ocean Choice, whether you have a framework in place for indigenous consultation. Even if not, how can DFO support ensuring indigenous knowledge is included in commercial fishing?

[Carey Bonnell]

Thank you for the question. It's certainly one that I'm extremely interested in.

I started my career actually working with indigenous groups in Nunavut, with the Nunavut government back in 2000. I was very heavily involved through the land claim agreement process in Nunavut in terms of advancing science programming and advancing indigenous knowledge and considerations into the decision-making process. I think it's one area where the department has made some really strong strides. There is very active engagement of indigenous groups in all of it.

Certainly all the fisheries that we're involved in both in terms of the management review process and in terms of direct representation in the science review process, to my understanding at least, have a number of indigenous partnerships. As an organization, we work closely with our Innu colleagues in Labrador in the northern shrimp fishery, which we take great pride in. We have a great relationship.

Many of our associations today—I'm on the executive of the Fisheries Council of Canada—have very strong representation from the indigenous communities, particularly in the eastern Arctic. Their views are certainly heard around that table as well. I think it's an important topic. The reconciliation agenda is a very active agenda right now that we are all paying very close attention to. Certainly indigenous knowledge and indigenous stakeholders deserve a seat at the table, and direct representation and input into the decision-making process.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you. That's very apropos for today's National Indigenous Peoples Day.

I want to turn to Mr. Prevost. I'm very grateful that you're here. This is the first time I think in this series that we're hearing about fish being used as bait and how important that is to the overall sustainability of the crustacean industry. I'm hoping to see this reflected in our report.

I was also interested when you talked about the crustacean fishery as being very traditional. Of course tradition is so important to community investment in the fishery, continuation of the livelihood, etc., but on the other hand, there may be practices that are slower to adapt to modern reality.

I'm just wondering if you could comment on DFO's role, or potential role, in fostering culture change in adapting to the modern realities of stocks.

[Mark Prevost]

Thank you for the question.

I don't know if DFO really has done anything in that area. I fish lobster, crab, herring and mackerel. I fish the way I was taught. Nobody else has shown me benefits of doing it any other way. The only reason I got into the alternative bait business was that I just found it wasteful while I was fishing herring and mackerel. Trying to reduce output protein for input protein makes a lot of sense. It just seemed like such a waste.

We are finding that the people who are changing or have interest in alternatives to traditional bait are younger. It will probably be a few generations before people are willing to change.

I appreciate the question. Thank you.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I believe I have 15 seconds left. I have a short question for Dr. Vascotto.

You gave a really good overview of the Facebook cable situation with Mr. Perkins' questions. Going back to that, was there a specific shortcoming of DFO that you could outline in about 10 seconds?

[Dr. Kris Vascotto]

Thank you for the question.

The big issue on our side was really one related to consultation and notice. There was no notification that this was happening. We were not engaged with the department to help guide the cable. It was basically a proponent talking directly to us to let us know that it was happening. Nothing else was communicated by the department to help us shape this so that it did not impact the industry or conservation values.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hanley.

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 will turn, once again, to Mr. LeBlanc.

You talked to us about your coordination with DFO and the scientists for the protection of the lobster resource. You've indicated to us that it's been a positive experience on both sides.

Do you think that you could take part in a committee or a roundtable with DFO and the scientists in the field—I insist on this—to address all the problems facing the fishing industry?

For example, for herring and mackerel, there could have been predictability. Ten years ago, when we saw the resource decline, we could have done the same exercise as we did with lobster. If that had been done, do you think we would be where we are today?

[Leonard LeBlanc]

That is a very good question.

As you know, there are discussions in the context of an advisory committee on herring and mackerel. Science has indicated that these species are endangered. I have heard this at several meetings.

As Canadians, we have stopped fishing mackerel, but the Americans are fishing the same biomass. It's a really perplexing situation.

The committee is in place, but decisions need to be made more on the basis of science.

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

So you are telling us that the Americans and the Canadians share the same resource. Although we stop fishing, the Americans continue, which means that this will not have a positive effect on the recovery of the resource in the short term.

[Leonard LeBlanc]

As far as mackerel is concerned, it will cause problems. The resource will come back later rather than sooner.

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

I'll give you the last word in the time allotted to me. What do you propose to us, in one sentence?

[Leonard LeBlanc]

Given the great precariousness of the resource, as the minister and the scientists have said, I would have liked to have had discussions with the Americans, who should have stopped fishing the same resource.