Fisheries Committee on Oct. 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I now call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

This meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. 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.

We will begin with a panel of witnesses from Atlantic Canada, followed by a panel with officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the second hour. Before we proceed, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece to select the desired channel. Please address all comments through the chair. Finally, I'll remind you that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I would like to welcome our first panel of witnesses. Appearing as an individual here in person is Morley Knight, former assistant deputy minister, fisheries policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, retired. Representing the 4VN Management Society's board of directors, we have Mr. Herb Nash, president, whom I believe is online.

Thank you for taking the time to appear today. You will each have up to five minutes for an opening statement.

I will invite Mr. Nash to begin, please.

[Herb Nash, President, 4VN Management Society]

Thank you for inviting me on.

I only got the notice yesterday afternoon, so I never had much time to prepare too much for it.

I've been involved in the fisheries since I was 13. I quit school and went fishing. I'm 71 now and I'm still at it. It's a good life and I like it. We had good times and we had bad times over the years, but if we worked hard enough we always made a living at it. Sometimes we worked harder than we wanted to, but that's part of fishing.

I was hoping I would get to see other people first so I'd know what you were expecting, but I didn't. I'm the first one.

I did meet with...I'm not sure if it was MPs or senators back around the late 1980s or early 1990s with Mike Belliveau. We were in Ottawa at that time. We spent about three hours and they asked us questions. They even stayed after their time and shook hands with us and everything else.

I've been around the fishery and I've been representing fishermen since 1973. The first groundfish meeting in this area took place and I was at it. I've been at the groundfish meetings ever since then. I don't have a whole lot of education, but I have a whole lot of knowledge about the fishery.

Other than that, if there are any questions you want to ask, I'll answer them as best I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that, Mr. Nash. I'm sure we will get to hear a lot of answers when the questioning round starts.

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

[Morley Knight, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee and speak to your study on science.

In my presentation, I will draw on my experience working in DFO in senior level positions as a regional director of fisheries management in St. John's, as a director general in Ottawa of resource management, as a regional director general in Moncton and in Halifax, and finally as the assistant deputy minister of fisheries policy here in Ottawa.

I've since retired, and since I've retired I have continued to do some work with some indigenous organizations and elsewhere outside the country on fisheries management, so I've continued my interest.

In all of these roles, I've worked closely with DFO science.

To begin with, I'll share some thoughts on the DFO science program. I can tell you with certainty that at DFO there are hundreds of great scientists who are dedicated to their work and work countless hours every day beyond their regular workday. DFO scientists are internationally recognized as some of the best fishery scientists in the world. The Canadian science program is envied by most fishing nations and the resources poured into science in Canada are likely only equalled by a handful of countries around the world. However, DFO science is often unable to produce science advice adequate for the management of the fisheries. What is wrong?

I'll touch on four areas that I would like to address about the science that DFO produces and the impacts of that.

One is the lack of results. Surveys don't get done. There are continual problems with ships that are broken down or get deployed to other programs at times when surveys need to be completed. I am confident that you have heard lots about this from other witnesses, so I won't dwell on that point any more, but I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about that. Results don't always get analyzed on a timely basis and, therefore, the data is incomplete or outdated by the time it is used.

Two, science programs and scientists are married to theoretical processes and models. These processes fall apart when a survey doesn't get completed or when the models just aren't producing results consistent with a glaring body of evidence that shows the models just aren't producing a reality. Models use data such as abundance, size at age, maturity, natural mortality, etc., as well as some judgments by scientists, but can never account for all variables such as, for example, unknown changes in the size at maturity. The models are not always right.

Three is reliance of only science-sourced information. Available information is not always included in the output or in the models, including logbook data or observer data. There is not enough emphasis on getting harvesters to collect data and samples. Stock status reports are produced without due consideration of anecdotal information from fish harvesters and indigenous groups about the health of the stock.

Four is poor communications. Science needs to spend more time communicating with fish harvesters and spending time with them in the fishing environment. I have to say that some regions do better at this than others and some sectors in some regions do better. Efforts must be taken to improve the flow of information from science about how they do their work and how they reach their conclusions, as well as the flow of information from fish harvesters to science about what they are seeing on the water. This would help diminish the gap between the views of fish harvesters and science, likely improve science over time and undoubtedly increase confidence in science advice.

I'll now move to how science can provide better advice for fisheries management. Again, I have four points.

One is practical approaches that can use the available information in a given year or cycle and aren't hamstrung if some pieces of the puzzle don't fall into place, such as a trawl survey not getting done.

Two is more reliance on partnerships with fish harvesters and the fishing industry to gather information for science.

Three is better use of information and advice from harvesters in developing science and less emphasis on trawl surveys and computer models.

Four is less prescriptive advice and attempting to provide a precise biomass estimate and more emphasis on general advice on which direction a stock is moving in and what measures might improve the health of a stock such as measures to protect juvenile fish or spawning fish.

In conclusion, I believe that the DFO has some of the best fisheries scientists in the world, and our science program at the DFO is probably one of the best in the world as well. I don't think we need to make sweeping changes, but some things need to be addressed.

First, we need to ensure that the ships that scientists need to do their work are operating. They should be made a priority to get the science done, and people should be held accountable for making sure that the program gets delivered.

Second, we should make science programs more pragmatic and resilient and more inclusive to include all the available information, including that from fish harvesters, and also ensure there is always a product available even if a trawl survey doesn’t get done.

Third, leadership capacity needs to be improved so that the science programs are properly led in the direction they need to go.

Finally, improving communications with the fishing industry, indigenous groups and other stakeholders is a must.

This concludes my opening remarks. I would be happy to try to answer some your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Knight.

We'll now go to our first round of questioning.

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

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank all the members of this committee for agreeing to extra meetings to gather as much information as possible for this fisheries science study.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for taking time out of their busy schedules to come in and help us out here today.

Theoretically, fisheries management decisions are to be made based on solid science, of course. Livelihoods are impacted. In fact, the GDP of our nation is impacted by decisions made based on scientific evidence.

Mr. Chair, my question is for Mr. Knight.

In your experience, have you encountered situations where you thought scientific evidence may be questionable? Have you ever had to make management decisions based on science that in your own mind you might have questioned?

[Morley Knight]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's a very good question. I can tell you without hesitation that I've had to make many difficult decisions as a regional director general on the total allowable catch when I wasn't confident that the science advice was pointing in the right direction. Sometimes it was, but there are other examples when it definitely was not. History showed that it was not.

I did bring an example with me that I'd like to offer to the committee. It happened in the backyard of the riding of MP Kelloway. The other witness, Mr. Nash, might be aware of it. This happened when I was the regional director general in the Maritimes region, where I was required to set the total allowable catch for the snow crab fishery for the area east of Sydney and Glace Bay.

In 2016, there was a recommendation from science for a drastic reduction in the total allowable catch, cutting it from 620 tonnes in 2015 down to 286 tonnes in 2016, more than a 50% reduction from the previous year. By the time the recommendation for the TAC came to me, it had been reviewed by the industry advisory committee and the fish harvesters, and they offered their input on it.

Fish officers at that time were in a state of disbelief after having had a very strong fishery in 2015 with very good catch rates and widespread abundance. Some of them called me and expressed their grave concern, noting that they saw no evidence to support the drastic reduction being suggested and that they would not be able to make their vessel payments and survive on that kind of quota.

I met with the regional director of science and went over the science recommendation with him. Having had 30-plus years of experience in managing crab stocks in the Newfoundland and Labrador region and in the gulf region, I was skeptical about the validity of the advice, and I asked the regional director of science to have it reviewed. I was advised that the science had been done and peer reviewed, that there was nothing else to look at and that we shouldn't ask to review it because we would be questioning science, so I very reluctantly approved the TAC at 286 tonnes.

The fishery in 2016 was short lived with the very small quota being taken very quickly with very high catch rates. In the following year, 2017, the TAC recommendation was to set the quota at 825 tonnes, or 335% of the TAC for 2016. I raised the issue with the regional director of science. The only explanation was that the 2016 survey must have missed a crab. Noteworthy is the fact that the only time in the past decade that the TAC dropped below 620 tonnes was in 2016, at that 286-tonne level. In 2022, the TAC was 978.75 tonnes. That's quite the precision.

I use this as an example, not to single out this unfortunate situation that surely caused a lot of unnecessary grief, stress and economic loss to the fish harvesters in that area, but as an illustration of how models and processes can go wrong.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Knight.

In your opinion, do you think that fish harvesters can play more of a role in the gathering of scientific evidence? I know the industry stakeholders have been asking for more involvement in gathering scientific data to help managers and help the scientists at DFO provide advice to managers. Are the harvesters and the stakeholders correct in saying that they could be a major part of gathering scientific data?

[Morley Knight]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

I think they can participate in a more fulsome manner. There are some really good examples out there of fish harvesters participating in the collection of science. It occurs in some of the herring fisheries. It occurs in many of the crab fisheries. It occurs in some of the inshore, small boat fisheries right on up to the northern shrimp offshore fleet, where the northern shrimp research foundation gathers data and collects evidence for the management of the northern shrimp stock. I think these examples can be expanded on, and I think, in these cases, there will be fewer gaps in the data.

I also think there should be greater reliance on the data collected by the fish harvesters. I think there's probably too much skepticism about the data that comes from the fishery, but I think the fish harvesters can collect the data that provide what the scientists need to produce the results.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small. We've gone over some on the questioning.

We'll now go to Mr. Kelloway for six minutes or less, please.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses today. It's great to see everyone here as well, who makes up this committee.

I'm going to have two questions, which works out well because there are two witnesses.

The first one is for Herb.

It's nice to see you, Herb, especially after hurricane Fiona. Hopefully you're doing okay.

In your opening remarks you talked about your experience in the fishery. Just to digress for about 20 seconds, there was a book written by Dave Dingwall about the toughest and most profound negotiators he had a chance to work with. There were a lot of notable people across North America and a lot of CEOs, and there is Herb Nash, who is one of the most progressive negotiators that Dingwall had a chance to work with—and probably tangle with from time to time as well.

I'm wondering, Herb, if you can talk to us about the 4VN Management Society, how it works in terms of focusing on the sustainable fishery side and the things you've learned that work well. We've heard some common themes here—and you're starting to hear it already—around the importance and necessity to really double down or triple down on working with fish harvesters when it comes to a whole host of things related to intel in the ocean.

I wonder if you can give us a little bit about what's worked, from your perspective of over 60 years of working in the fishery. How best can we work with fishers to strengthen that partnership in terms of the information on the sea that's so important to making real, profound decisions?

[Herb Nash]

The best way you could work with us is by being available for us to talk to. I have to say you are excellent. Any time I wanted to meet you, you'd make time for me. There were other MPs along the way. I was always friends with them and we talked civilly.

I am representing a bunch of fishermen who don't understand some of the stuff. They want to go fishing and to catch as much as they can. It doesn't work that way.

We heard Morley, who I know from meetings myself. Robert Courtney and I met him many times in our meetings. As he said, they did cut the crab down. We knew it shouldn't have gone down, but we can only argue so much. It went down and since then it picked up.

This year my boat was added and the stocks were excellent. There were times when we had 105 traps out for two licences. You're allowed a permit and a half, so we had 105 traps out. Sometimes with anywhere from 60 to 70 traps they'd be on their way in with 58,000 pounds, which is what my boat would hold. I have a wet well aboard there and we can carry 58,000 pounds in water. We'd be in and we'd catch all the boat in less than a day, so there are lots of crab there.

I'm not saying to put the quota up or anything else. I'm just saying that the fishery is helpful. In 4Vn, for the groundfishery, it started off with two of us going to meetings in Ottawa and Halifax. That was always Robert Courtney and me. Since he passed way, I'm pretty well the only one who goes to them now. I am president of our 4Vn sentinel fishery and I've been president pretty well...for a couple of years. Robert took it and gave me a break and I went to vice-president, but between me and him, I think we've been president ever since it started.

No one else wants to take it because you get too many fishermen growling at you if it's something they don't like. We have to do what we think is best and hope that the majority wants to go along with it and ask for it.

This year is a really bad year for halibut in our area. This is the worst year that I've ever seen yet. I don't know why. It's just that this year is bad for us, but other years were good. It may pick up before the year is out, but it doesn't really look like that.

There's one other spot I'd like to mention, In 4Vs, a big area of our halibut grounds was made into an MPA this year and taken away from us. We're not allowed to fish there anymore. The only reason I can see, personally, is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Just a second now, Mr. Nash. I have somebody with their hand up here.

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

Mr. Chair, the interpreters are having difficulty hearing what Mr. Nash is saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Nash, I'm not saying you're speaking fast, but the interpreters are not keeping up with you in order to be able to do the interpretation.

Perhaps you could speak a little slower and clearer. Maybe move your mike up a little bit instead of having right in front of your mouth.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Herb, I also want to get a question in to Mr. Knight. I'm wondering if you could get to some of the main points that I know you want to make. Then we'll try to get a question or two in to Mr. Knight, if that's possible.

[Herb Nash]

Do you want me to continue?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Yes. If you could continue and just finish up your point there, we'll move quickly over to Mr. Knight.

[Herb Nash]

Yes.

The point I want to bring up now is the 4VsW, where we do a lot of halibut fishing. From Glace Bay it's probably 110 miles to 130 miles out there, or 140 miles, where we fish, but this year they took it from us. It's a big area. They just took all along Stone Fence and along the cove there where we fish. We got history there for years and everything, and they took it from us this year.

The only thing I can see that's going on is that there's cable getting laid from across the ocean. It's coming in that way. I'm led to believe that we got kicked out of there so that this cable could go there. Our hooks aren't going to haul up one of those cables anyway. The size is no more than a sixteenth of an inch thick. It isn't going to haul up that weight very far before it breaks. It's only string. It's not wire or anything. Our hook is on it, and our hook is only a small hook—even smaller than that—so there's no way we're going to haul up a cable that's coming across the ocean. But that's the only reason.

They took an area that I would say was eight times bigger than what they needed just for that cable. Not only are we having a hard time catching fish. DFO or the government is making it harder for us when they close such a big area. We had meetings on it. Nobody, no fisherman at that meeting, agreed with it. We all disagreed with it.

If the cable has to go there, it has to go there, but close an area of a mile or a couple of miles to put the cable down. That's all you have to do. We took cables in across the ocean there a couple of years ago in this area, in Port Morien, and we marked off a two-mile area of cable that we don't go in. There's been no trouble since then. We can work around cable. We're proving it at Port Morien, where you run a cable into Point Aconi. There hasn't been a negative word about it yet.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks, Herb. I'm sorry. I think we're pressed for time here, but I appreciate your feedback.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We're way over time here.

Madam Desbiens, you have six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Nash, what you are telling us is very interesting. We feel that you are at the heart of the action and that you are living this reality. I would like to commend your passion for fishing and your dedication to using all the means at your disposal, and this has been the case for several decades. Over the years, you have spoken with the various members of Parliament who have represented you, and this is to your credit. I thank you for being here.

Mr. Knight, as a result of what we've heard over the last several sessions, I'm concerned about the impact of more social-science-oriented scientists. In other words, when Fisheries and Oceans Canada makes a decision about closing a fishery, such as the recent closure of the herring and mackerel fisheries, there is little or no consideration of the socio-economic impact that this will have on the region affected and on the families who are devastated by the closure. There is also a lack of predictability and a lack of support from the department.

I would like to hear more from you.

[Morley Knight]

Thank you for this excellent question, which I will answer in English.

I think it's a difficult balance for science to find—to consider all of the considerations in the fishery and the social impacts that might result from their advice. At the end of the day, I think they need to take those things into consideration, but when they're absolutely certain that a stock is in dire shape and that action needs to be taken, I think we do have to take action for greater certainty for the future. At the same time, where there is advice that is not aligned....

Take mackerel as an example. For the most part, the advice from science is not aligned with the views and feelings of many people in the fishing industry. I think in those cases, there needs to be a redoubling of effort to bring greater certainty to the advice, to be sure that the decisions being taken are the right ones and to take due consideration of the impacts on the livelihoods of the people who are going to be affected by that decision.

I hope that gives you an adequate answer to the question. We have to find the balance, but we do have to take the socio-economic views into consideration, particularly when we're not sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Madam Desbiens, I have stopped the clock. I see that Mr. Cormier has his hand up, and I don't want you to lose time.

Do you have a point of order or something, Mr. Cormier?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to take away time from Ms. Desbiens, but am I the only one who doesn't see Mr. Knight? I didn't see him on my screen until now, when he just appeared. Before that, I didn't see him when he spoke and I don't know if it was the same for my colleagues.