Fisheries Committee on Oct. 7th, 2022

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

I'd be happy to take that question.

The selection of participants at CSAS meetings is driven by a steering committee that is formed after we have launched the process to formulate advice. The steering committee is made up of the chair, generally the part of the management side of the organization that has asked for the advice, as well as relevant experts including generally those who are going to be drafting the papers to be discussed. They go through the list of expertise that we need to bring to bear on the issue in question, and then work through how to invite participants who round out the full expertise.

I will note, though, that one of the innovations that I mentioned earlier in my remarks around the CSAS process will be, in the future, developing a registry for experts where individuals will be able to self-identify as an expert and bring forward their interest in participating in the CSAS process to ensure that we aren't missing expertise, both nationally and internationally, that might be of use.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

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

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are exclusively for Rebecca Reid around chinook closures. We heard after previous testimony from you and the minister that, despite what you say, you won't listen to anglers and you won't listen to the science. Why not?

[Rebecca Reid]

We have an advisory process set up for salmon management with commercial, recreational and first nations harvesters and advisers. It is a very comprehensive process—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Excuse me, Ms. Reid. They gave you some advice and you completely disregarded it this spring.

I'll move on to my second question. Two UBC studies recently indicated that there is an abundance of chinook while our southern resident killer whales are present in Canadian waters.

It seems that you're bent, though, on closing things down despite what the science says. What takes precedence to you, the science or the closure ideology of 30 by 30?

[Rebecca Reid]

With regard to the decision around chinook closures, we do have a responsibility to support the southern resident killer whales as a species at risk that are endangered.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Two UBC studies recently said there's an abundance of chinook at the times when they're in our Canadian waters, though.

[Rebecca Reid]

Chinook salmon represents about 90% of the diet of those whales. We have a responsibility to ensure that we provide enough fish at the right times and locations to support those—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I'll say it again. Two UBC studies recently indicated that there's an abundance of chinook when they're in our Canadian waters, yet you closed it anyway. What we're trying to understand is this: We've heard with the testimonies around science that while science is saying there are fish present—sufficient and an abundance of fish for southern resident killer whales—you closed it anyway. We wonder why.

That's what I've asked you. I'm curious. What sets the precedent? Is it the science, because the science clearly said there are enough fish, or is it the ideology of the closure of 30 by 30?

[Rebecca Reid]

I think the question about science is the important point. When we look at science, it is a series of pieces of information. We have information from universities, we have our own stock assessment scientists and we have a process to consider the abundance of chinook. It is not a single paper or single study that determines that.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I'll get to my third question, because, Ms. Reid, when UBC—which has a great reputation around the world for its science and its capabilities—is saying there's an abundance of fish, yet you close it anyway, we have questions.

The example I would bring up is that of Pender Bluffs. We were just outside of Sidney, B.C. That's a great example of closing unnecessarily. We were present in the area, but, of course, we didn't go in because it was closed. We've learned from Washington state data that southern resident killer whales are in the area only seven to 10 days on average per year. That's for the entire year, yet the closure is permanent and it's all year long.

With the 5,000 full-time-equivalent staff added to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans over the last six years, why can you not manage a moving bubble zone like the one on the east coast, where you simply manage and close the area when the whales are present? When they're present, it's closed—we'd all agree that's the thing to do—but when the whales are not present, then it's open.

With all the staff that have been added to DFO over the last number of years, why would you not implement a moving bubble zone in an area like Pender Bluffs?

[Rebecca Reid]

We do have a comprehensive approach for managing the southern resident killer whales, but just to speak specifically to your question about Pender Bluffs, we have confirmed that area as one of the most frequently used areas. For that reason we believe it's appropriate to protect it.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Washington state data has said killer whales are there only seven to 10 days per year.

[Rebecca Reid]

I would add that the bubble zones are employed as a management tool in other areas. When it comes to—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Why wouldn't you use one there if you know that the killer whales are there only seven to 10 days a year? It's such an important fishing area for the community. Why wouldn't you have it open when the whales aren't there?

[Rebecca Reid]

It is closed because of the importance of the area. The complexities of managing—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

You're not answering my question.

[Rebecca Reid]

I think I am answering it actually. It's because of the importance of the area for that species at risk.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

You're going to close it unnecessarily for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Zimmer, your time is up.

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

My questions are for Dr. McPherson.

Dr. McPherson, during this study, from time to time, witnesses who have appeared have questioned the assessment modelling format used by DFO. The information that helps in making the decisions is only as good as the modelling profile you're using. How often is the modelling profile reviewed by DFO?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

Thank you for the question.

There isn't a rule or a national standard that's applied, but we generally try to undertake a framework assessment—and that's where we go back and we look at the modelling approaches—every five years. As I said, that's inconsistent, because in some cases we don't use models to inform our stock assessment—in some cases we use indices—and so I would just say, as I said, that's in general.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Was modelling used in the decision to suspend the east coast mackerel fishery this spring?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

In that particular fishery, we do have a model that is used to provide advice to inform decisions on fisheries. It also provides projections that allow us to evaluate future prospects.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Was it used?