Fisheries Committee on Oct. 7th, 2022

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

Thank you, Chair.

I believe it was you, Dr. McPherson—and I apologize, I don't believe I referred to you as doctor before—who was talking about the importance of having impartial experts and the conflict of interest policy through the CSAS process. I'm wondering what role industry plays as a participant in this process.

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

In complement to the conflict of interest policy, we also have a participation policy associated with the CSAS process, which appears on our website. It articulates the types of participants we're looking to assemble in order to undertake that evidence-based peer review I spoke of.

I'll just say, for example, that a member of the commercial fishing industry who is on the water collecting data with us would have expertise that would be relevant to the types of work we do in our CSAS review, and the policy definitely accommodates that type of expertise. We also solicit and want to include indigenous knowledge holders to contribute information to inform our conclusions in a way that is amenable to them. We have a policy that outlines the types of expertise we're looking for and how we define an expert. It appears on our website.

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

Thank you, Dr. McPherson.

Can you expand a little bit on how somebody who is there representing an industry, who wants to ensure that their business is producing a profit, could have their input considered through this process of ensuring that experts are impartial, for example, in making decisions around what research would be available and how that research would then ensure that we're making the right decisions to protect our oceans and have sustainable fisheries moving forward?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

Thank you for the question.

As part of the CSAS process and the conflict of interest policy, it's very clear that the focus of the discussion is not the subsequent management decision that is made as a result of the advice we give, but very much what evidence base we can bring forward in this discussion—where the data is, where the published papers are and where the peer-reviewed advice from other jurisdictions is that we can bring to bear on the issue at hand. As I mentioned, the chair, ultimately, is responsible for ensuring that the impartiality and the spirit of consensus based on evidence are respected throughout the process. The policy also states that, if that is not the case, that would have impacts on being accommodated and recognized as an expert in future meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

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.

Perhaps I could help Mr. Morrissey. In the government's response to a recent Order Paper question, in terms of the education level of those in the department who are DG level and above, Mr. Morrissey, only one of the 62 has a marine biology degree—an undergraduate, I believe.

I believe Dr. McPherson's is in oceanography. Is that correct?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

That's correct.

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

Dr. McPherson, you mentioned that in developing the science you consider multiple points of view, and you just mentioned that you're looking for more ways to bring in the traditional knowledge of first nations, but in the case of the closure of the Atlantic mackerel fishery this year, the mackerel fishing groups and fishermen don't believe that their point of view was heard. They don't believe that their knowledge about what they've seen and were continuing to see all summer in terms of quite large schools of mackerel—sometimes in places where they weren't traditionally—is being heard by the department.

Now, from what I've learned—and I think about the way the science and the way the management or the tracking of it are done by the department—it's that you have two primary sources of science: one is catch data and the other is the spawning biomass data for the survey that is done in June on the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

One, what are you doing to reach out and understand what fishermen are seeing on the water right now about mackerel, which is very different from what the department has done? Two, how do you assess the stock going forward if one of the two key important parts of your science is no longer there, in that you don't have any catch data whatsoever, other than what the Americans are allowed to catch?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

Thank you very much for the question.

I just wanted to offer very briefly before responding to your question about mackerel that, as you acknowledged, my training is in oceanography. I have members of my management team in the NCR who have Ph.D.s and post-graduate degrees in marine ecology, in renewable resource management and in genomics, so there are certainly other fields of science that are at play and helping to guide the science program at DFO.

Coming to mackerel, very quickly, absolutely—and I agree with you—the input of industry is very important in how we think about data collection and the type of science we do. For a number of years, we've had a mackerel science working group with industry to seek their views on sampling and what they're seeing on the water and how that could affect our sample design and affect our thinking and interpretation. As a result of those discussions, we have collected eggs and larvae through additional surveys in Newfoundland to respond to those concerns.

In addition, to ensure that we have data, which certainly won't replace but will augment the data we've collected from our own science, we have worked to secure 70 different samples from across Atlantic Canada for all sorts of biological parameters that we'll use to drive our modelling exercise that is planned next assessment for early 2023.

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

Thank you.

The fishing industry is concerned that the inability of the department to conduct consistent ongoing science data, biomass data and stock assessment data is slowly causing the industry to be at risk of losing the MSC certification, which will remove our ability to access markets around the world.

I note that right now only 58% of stocks have a biomass study even available, and that's a big factor in trying to determine whether or not you get MSC designation.

Can you comment on why the department isn't putting more emphasis on getting to 100% coverage so that we do not lose MSC status in those critical fisheries?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

I certainly can start.

Adam, if you have anything you'd like to add, I invite you to chime in, please.

Maybe just to come back to a comment I made in response to an earlier question about biomass estimates or indices, I just want to acknowledge that many of our fisheries are managed based on indices that aren't associated with an absolute biomass estimate, and for very good reasons those types of analyses can inform decision-making adequately and in line with our precautionary approach framework.

In the past two years, or since 2019, we've increased the number of limit reference point analyses by 14, as well as 12 additional updates for other species, so certainly we continue to use the resources that were provided through the fish stocks provisions funding the department received in 2019 to augment the work we do undertaking monitoring and to undertake additional assessment work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Hanley to clew up for five minutes or less, please.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I just want to give my thanks to all the officials for being here today and for all their work.

My questions, at least initially, are for Ms. Murdoch.

As senior director of the Pacific salmon strategy transformation, could you describe briefly, and at a high level, the work you're overseeing in the salmon strategy transformation and how this is part of or relates to the PSSI?

[Sarah Murdoch]

Certainly. Thanks very much for that.

As Ms. Reid already stated, we do a lot of salmon work across the department. On Pacific it's particularly out here but also in headquarters.

The focus of my new group, which has come on board since we launched the Pacific salmon strategy last year, is really to have a secretariat function. We work with colleagues and representatives from branches throughout the department that do salmon work, whether that be salmon science, fish management, enforcement or salmon enhancement.

We are also looking to launch a new directorate focused on salmon stewardship, working with external partners, including other agencies such as the provincial government and other federal agencies, but also, more importantly, first nations, local stewardship community groups, municipalities, regional districts and others who are just as concerned about the future of Pacific salmon and who have a role to play in addressing the declines.

In many ways there is some direct program delivery, which I am responsible for, but it's much more about integrating the various resources and capacities within the department as well as among our partners.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

This year in Yukon, first nations recreational and sportfishing for chinook salmon and chum were closed once again on the Yukon River, including, I understand, on the Alaskan side. Apparently the run of chum was the lowest ever recorded.

I am just wondering, in view of that—and maybe this is a more general question—how closely DFO works with American counterparts. How consistent are the assessments? What happens if there is a discrepancy in scientific assessments on each side of the border, and how do you reach consensus across borders?

[Rebecca Reid]

Perhaps I could answer that.

We do have a Pacific Salmon Treaty between Canada and the U.S. whereby stocks that cross both countries are managed collectively. There is an exchange of information at a technical level according to species. We have a number of panels that meet bilaterally, in Canada and the U.S., to talk through issues. In that way we can agree on the science going forward.

We do have our own domestic processes as well, but we do rely heavily on the Pacific Salmon Treaty in order to address those transboundary issues.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Ms. Reid.

I have a question for maybe either of you.

Certainly the current state of the chinook run in the Yukon River system is quite dire, and projections, I think, are also not looking good. Maybe you can tell me a bit more about that. Also, I'm interested in what scientific assessments tell you about the viability of community-based salmon hatcheries as part of the solution. I know there is a lot of interest in that in our first nation communities in Yukon and, I believe, in B.C. as well.

[Rebecca Reid]

I would just agree, briefly, that the situation in Yukon is very troubling, from a salmon-return perspective.

With regard to the community enhancement program, that is part of the program that Sarah has oversight for, so I invite Sarah to respond more fully.

[Sarah Murdoch]

Thanks very much, Rebecca.

As you mentioned, there are a lot of first nations and community groups looking at all efforts in terms of how we can best rebuild our stocks. Looking at hatcheries is certainly one piece of that puzzle in terms of restoration and rebuilding.

One of the tricks with salmon enhancement, of course, is doing it in a precautionary way that doesn't undermine the wild stocks you're looking to protect.

We do have a number of community-run facilities that are part of our salmon enhancement program now. Part of the second pillar, and one of the key pillars of PSSI, is looking at increasing the capacity and doing retrofits to some of the DFO facilities but also working with our first nations and community partners throughout B.C. and in Yukon to explore places where we could either enhance existing facilities or potentially look at new facilities that could support that broader effort around salmon conservation.

Certainly it is something that we would be interested in pursuing with the nations in Yukon, with the understanding—as you acknowledge—that obviously it needs to be done in a way that doesn't undermine or inadvertently weaken the wild stocks that are under threat.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hanley.

I'll close out by saying a big thank you again to the departmental officials for the giving of their time freely today to enlighten us on the perspective of science at DFO. I wish each and every one of you a happy Thanksgiving weekend with family and friends.

Before we actually go, I just have a reminder. Before we adjourn, I'd like to remind members that the committee will not be meeting next week, of course, as it's a constituency week. We will reconvene on Tuesday, October 18, to hear from witnesses on our study on the North Atlantic right whale.

Also, we did not have time today to address drafting instructions for the report on science at DFO. We will plan for some committee business at the end of our next meeting to do this, and we'll discuss any potential travel submissions for the new year as well.

With that, I want to say a big thank you to the translators, the clerks and the analysts. I hope you all enjoy the Thanksgiving weekend.

The meeting is adjourned.