Fisheries Committee on Oct. 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Morrissey is shaking his head as well.

We'll continue on with Madam Desbiens' line of questioning.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Knight, how might this balance better inform our committee in the report that we will have to produce at the end of our study? What do you think is the most important thing we can do to better ensure that balance and predictability?

We hear that we have been seeing declining stocks of mackerel and herring for over 10 years. How is it that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not foresee this decline a few years in advance in order to provide guidance and support to the fishers who would be affected by the closure of these fisheries?

[Morley Knight]

Again, it's a bit of a difficult question when it comes to herring and mackerel. Mackerel is an Atlantic-wide consideration. It's a stock that Canada shares with the United States. The science advice that I'm aware of...and I may not be aware of the most recent advice, given my departure from DFO five years ago. The advice for a very long time has been that mackerel stocks are in very poor shape. For the most part, the fishing industry and the people who are on the water, the fish harvesters, don't believe the state of that advice. They are seeing in many cases an abundance of mackerel. For example, this year, in the area where I live now by the coast, there was an abundance of mackerel of a good variety of sizes and for a good duration of the season.

To answer your question about the prediction of that, it's been a long-standing issue. What has not been resolved is any bringing together of the views of the fish harvesters and science. In other words, it was an issue seven to 10 years ago, and it's still an issue today, that the view of science is one thing and the view of fish harvesters is another thing.

To answer your question, herring is a little more difficult. I'll stop here for the sake of time, but I would just illustrate that when it comes to herring, there are many different stocks of herring that are more localized, so it is a little more difficult to answer the question. It depends on the area.

Thank you.

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

What suggestion would you make to the committee in this context?

[Morley Knight]

My suggestion to the committee, in the limited time that's left, is that there has to be more communication with the fish harvesters and there has to be more pragmatic advice. When there's greater uncertainty, there has to be a redoubling of efforts to find out the real truth and be more certain about what the real situation is.

I know that's occurred to some extent in mackerel. That needs to be the way forward. There needs to be a bringing together and a ground truthing. If the views of the fishermen and the scientists are aligned, that's great. We can be pretty sure. If there's a wide disparity and we're not sure, then there should be a lot more work put in to bring together those views.

[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, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses who are here today. My first question is for Mr. Knight.

Mr. Knight, when I was listening to your testimony, I was reflecting on the violent attacks against the Mi’kmaq fishers that took place in 2000 around the lobster dispute. We learned after the incident that, if the conservation knowledge that the Mi'kmaq fishers used had been acknowledged by DFO, the violence probably would not have escalated to the extent that it did. There was a lack of understanding of Mi’kmaq conservation principles and it was later demonstrated that the lobster fishing done by Mi’kmaq fishers would have had little to no impact on the long-term conservation of the species.

Now, I'm pulling from your point around the importance of consideration of the views of fish harvesters and indigenous groups about the health of the stock. I'm wondering what efforts have been made by the department to understand the social impacts that its communications have during real-time events that impact the safety and livelihoods of fishers, using this incident, this dispute, in particular, as an example.

Thank you.

[Morley Knight]

I'm well aware of that very difficult time. I didn't work in the area where that incident occurred at the time, but I did work there after and I am aware of the situation to a very good extent. I know the people, the Mi’kmaq people, who were involved.

What efforts have been taken? I think there have been a lot of efforts taken and a lot of progress made since that time to incorporate the views and knowledge of indigenous people into the management of the fishery. There have been great efforts and great successes in some parts of Atlantic Canada, as well as in the north and western Canada since that time.

However, in the development of science advice, there have been attempts to include indigenous knowledge but there has not been, in my view, enough consideration given to indigenous knowledge or the knowledge of fish harvesters. I know that's difficult. It's very difficult to incorporate anecdotal information into a computer-based model, but I think that has to be taken into greater consideration as part of the outcome and the science advice.

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

Thank you.

Are there any additional thoughts you might have around how we can work toward having a clear communication of the reports that are being collected, ensuring that everybody is accessing the information and understands it, so that the information everybody is working with has the same context, moving forward?

[Morley Knight]

That is a very good question. I alluded to that in my opening remarks. In some cases, in some regions or in some sectors there is better communication and better exchange of information. There are more examples of the scientists working with the fish harvesters, getting input from them and communicating back to them. The end result of that would be, I hope, better science, better collection of information from fish harvesters and—no doubt—better understanding of the science and, therefore, increased confidence in the science. That needs to occur in all fisheries and in all sectors.

I would say to you that, if I picked one fishery, it probably is best illustrated in the crab fishery in eastern Canada, whether it be gulf region, Maritimes region or the Newfoundland and Labrador region, but in other fisheries it's not as good. That needs to improve.

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

Thank you, Chair. I'm back to Mr. Knight again.

Do you have any additional ideas around any partnerships or tables that could be formed between DFO and management boards, or fishing unions, to better communicate this type of data?

[Morley Knight]

As I said earlier in response to that question, there needs to be more broad-based inclusion of information from indigenous people and fish harvesters. It's occurring in some cases. In a lot of cases it's not. I think DFO science needs to look at the models where that is occurring and where it is working, build on those models and spread that throughout other areas, other regions and other fisheries.

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

Thank you.

A final follow-up piece to these questions is around any accountability mechanisms you can think of that would help ensure that DFO and the Coast Guard are sharing accurate, relevant information when it comes to the data that impacts events as they occur.

[Morley Knight]

In that question I think it's relevant to talk about accountability for the delivery of the science programs in terms of getting the surveys done that are necessary to produce the science. In my previous experience, in one part of my career I was responsible for the delivery of the conservation protection program, through the use of Coast Guard ships. After some very difficult discussions, the level of accountability was really raised and that improved.

Given the ongoing challenges in most DFO regions in getting the science programs delivered, I think there needs to be a much higher level of accountability. Those responsible should be held accountable to make sure that the surveys are done and that DFO science gets top priority. When it doesn't get delivered, those who were responsible should be held accountable.

[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.

Thank you to Mr. Nash and Mr. Knight for appearing.

I'd just like to ask a quick follow-up, if I could, Mr. Knight, to Ms. Barron's first question. The lobster dispute in 2020 was around the area of St. Marys Bay in southwest Nova Scotia, which is a critical breeding ground for all lobster in southwest Nova Scotia, but New England as well.

Fishermen tell me, because they're a source of a great deal of information, that if you pull a trap out in the summer in St. Marys Bay when the water's warm and lobsters are breeding and very active, you can yield about 90 pounds or so of lobster a day when you're pulling it several times a day in the long daylight. If you fish that in the regulated DFO season in the winter, when the water's colder, you'd get on average three to six pounds. It's not necessarily about the number of traps in the water. It's about the yield of the trap and the time of the year with regard to the breeding and non-breeding.

I wonder if you could comment on that a little.

[Morley Knight]

I'll try. I'm not precisely familiar with the metrics you're talking about in terms of the catch rates. What I can tell you to begin with is that lobster, for the most part, is our biggest fishery in Canada. It's our most important fishery dollar-wise.

When lobsters shed their shells, like all our shellfish species do, they grow into a larger shell. Their next activity is to feed as much as they can to grow into that larger shell and get the muscle back into the shell. When they do that they're very vulnerable, they're very hungry. When there's a lobster fishery during that time of year, in the summer season when lots of lobsters are either molting or soft shell, yes, there may be very good catch rates, but there may be very high mortality.

For example, if those lobsters were hauled to the surface when they're in the soft-shell state, in many cases they're going to be considered as no good. If there's no meat in the shell you'll have a shell that will be practically empty. In many cases that will be discarded. When it gets discarded it's very fragile. That lobster, at that time, when it breaks the surface of the water is very fragile. Even if it's handled very gently and put back into the water, it may float away, because there's nothing in that shell, only water. If the water drains out of it, it will float away. In many cases it's discarded in a way that it's not going to get back to the bottom, or it's injured because it's so fragile.

Even though the catch rates may be very high, that's not necessarily a good fishing practice. I would think we need to focus on getting the best quality and the best yield with the least mortality for the greater protection of the resource.

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

Thank you.

If I can go back to one thing in your remarks about science, I think you talked a bit about the ability of DFO to actually conduct the science in some cases. Sometimes it's the budget; sometimes it's not. The oceans side of the department has seen a 63% increase in its budget in five years, but the fisheries side hasn't.

My question is about ships. Lots of times DFO doesn't have access to the ships to do the science. The Greenland ship that it uses for some species is usually available only after the peak of the season when research would be done, if it's available at all. The ships that are used to go out to sea for mackerel are sometimes only available earlier, before the season's available or the spawning mass is available.

What are the options? We've heard some options here from some of the groups about using the industry's ships. Did you encounter that at all in your time? Could we supplement our inability to find ships by working with industry more closely to do that?

[Morley Knight]

It's a very good but a very complex question.

Mr. Chair, before I go on, I may have misunderstood the question from MP Barron in terms of the timeline. I don't think it changes my answer very much, other than the fact that, if you were talking about the incident that occurred in the early 2000s, the context is not a lot different from the incident that MP Perkins referred to. If you were talking about the earlier one, I think I've answered it correctly. If not, the context still applies.

In terms of the use of ships, if any of the DFO science people were here, I would think they would tell you that it's absolutely imperative that the survey be conducted by the same type of ship with the same type of trawl and, for the most part, at the same time of year if they are to get results that are valid for their science surveys. Having said that, a trawl survey is only one piece of information that can be used. Second, given the problems of the past decade and more—it's not just last year—with the unpredictability of getting the survey done, we should be looking to other models.

One that I'll offer is the snow crab survey in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that's done with the participation of fish harvesters. It's done with an industry vessel and, to the best of my knowledge—even though I'm not totally current on that given my departure from DFO—that survey gets delivered; otherwise, the contractor doesn't get paid for their work.

I think, given the unpredictability, DFO science and industry need to work together to look at better models for delivery.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

My question is for Mr. Knight.

Mr. Knight, in listening to your testimony, certainly, if I was a fisher, I would be alarmed, concerned and use a lot of negative terminology on what their livelihood is, because the management of the resource stock is of absolute importance to the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada. On the east coast we live on it. Getting the science, getting assessments, is so critical.

I want you to comment on this. It's interesting that every time there is a reduction in quota by DFO—scientists recommend a reduction—there is this groundswell of opposition from the industry itself. Any time there's an increase, there's not a peep.

Could you comment on the discrepancy? A lot what I'm hearing today is the same commentary that was made in the lead up to the 1992 closure and total collapse of the Newfoundland cod fishery, when fishers were saying scientists were getting it wrong. We've seen that in a number of pelagic species here on the east coast. Could you comment briefly?

[Morley Knight]

Thank you for the excellent question, because that is the phenomenon that often occurs. When there's a decrease, no one wants to hear it. When there's an increase, everyone wants to hear it and take advantage of it.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

My question is this: How come science is always right when they recommend an increase in quota, but they're always wrong when they recommend a decrease?

[Morley Knight]

I don't think that's the case from my experience. I think it is a phenomenon that occurs from time to time, but I'll go back to your point about the advice in the time leading up to the cod moratorium in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I worked there at the time, and I can tell you without any hesitation that the fish harvesters, particularly in the inshore sector, were telling DFO, me and DFO science for three or four years in advance that the stocks were gone. The stocks were decimated. We needed to cut the quota. We needed to reduce the fishery, and we needed to reduce the offshore fishing on the spawning banks. That was the message I was hearing at that time.

It did take a couple of years for that to become evident and, in the early part of the 1990s—1991 and 1992—it became crystal clear that action had to be taken, but we had heard that message loud and clear from the inshore fleet long before it was evident to the offshore or to science.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

There was a reduction in the Atlantic Canadian mackerel fishery—it was shut for the year—and the spring herring fishery. From your end, you told me you've been gone for five years, so you don't have access to information, but what may have been missing, if there was something missing, in that decision between the fishers and the departmental bureaucracy responsible for advising the minister?