Fisheries Committee on Nov. 4th, 2022

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

Bear in mind—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small. You've gone a little bit over.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

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

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

We've just heard from three witnesses who basically have all arrived at the same conclusion—that the mackerel stocks are in significant distress on the east coast—but again, Mr. Small's comments were comments that I hear from fishers as well.

My first question would be for Mr. Pardo.

Could you explain briefly the conflict between what the fishers are seeing and reporting and the scientific information whereby all three of the witnesses pretty well arrived at the same conclusion, which is that the closure is the only option to rebuild the stock?

Mr. Pardo, could you give a short answer? I have a host of questions.

[Dr. Sebastián Pardo]

Yes. Thank you for the question.

There are many reasons for this discrepancy. One is the spatial area, so yes, more mackerel might be seen in certain parts of Newfoundland waters, but we're not taking into account what's happening in the rest of the region. Also, we've heard anecdotally that in western Newfoundland, in the Gros Morne area, people are not finding mackerel there. The mackerel distribution can be patchy, and the stock assessment is truly the only way we have to assess the population as a whole.

Another discrepancy is what's called “hyperstability”. Basically, it's what happened with cod: that as abundance of the fish drops, they start schooling more, so they start appearing in certain areas and you see them. They are more abundant in that specific area, but it's not an accurate representation of the whole stock.

Also, there's climate change. We know already that fish are moving further north, so we could be seeing more mackerel at the northern end and fewer mackerel at the southern end.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Pardo, in your opening comments, you indicated that everybody wants to see a “sustainable” stock because it's only through sustainable stocks that we will build viable coastal communities. Then you went on to make a comment that I would like you to expand on, which was that the management plans were never achieved over the past number of years.

As an east coast parliamentarian, it concerns me that management plans were never achieved. Could you expand on that?

[Dr. Sebastián Pardo]

I said that the rebuilding plan objectives weren't achieved. Is that what you're referring to?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay. Yes.

[Dr. Sebastián Pardo]

Yes, over the last decade, the management actions have not caused population growth. In fact, over the last decade, the management decisions have led to a further population decline. Because of that, the rebuilding plan was created.

The rebuilding plan objective was basically to encourage population growth, and that objective has not been achieved because the assessment from last year is that the mackerel are at their lowest spawner abundance ever recorded. That's what I meant.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Could all three of you comment—a short answer—on this: Are you comfortable with the best data that's been provided on this resource, which primarily comes from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and related sources? Are you comfortable with the data that you are observing?

I'll start with you, Mr. Pardo.

[Dr. Sebastián Pardo]

Yes, I think fisheries science is an extremely complex science, and the models and the approach that the DFO has are robust, so I'm comfortable with it.

[Katie Schleit]

Yes, we're also comfortable with the science. Our role isn't always to just take everything that the DFO does as truth; obviously, we play a critical role in terms of the DFO as well.

With regard to the science, we've been watching it for a number of years. As I mentioned, it's very robust; it's based on a lot of different scientific evidence that's been confirmed year over year and also by U.S. scientists as well. Some of the science that we have now was actually adapted, based on some of the recommendations of industry. For example, we've added more natural mortality estimates to account for those observations from fishermen.

Yes, we are confident in the science.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Ms. Schleit, you said that industry advised you to adapt your reporting to take in mortality.

[Katie Schleit]

I'm sorry; it wasn't me, but at the last DFO assessment, where we're participants at the science advisory table, like industry and indigenous groups, one of the changes that was made was a change with regard to natural mortality to take into account some of the observations that harvesters were seeing. Unfortunately, it's not changing the outcome.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Dr. Robert, you made reference to reducing fishing as much as possible and said that the bait fishery in particular was the most unregulated area of the mackerel fishery. Would you comment?

[Dr. Dominique Robert]

Yes, I can comment on that.

Given that the biomass is depleted and because the data that are provided by the DFO on abundance are robust, we know that mackerel is one of the very few pelagic stocks that are managed with robust data in Canada. I'd like to highlight that.

The fishing pressure needs to be reduced. The commercial fishing has been well managed and well controlled, but the bait fishery has not been, in all parts of Atlantic Canada. However, the reduction of fishing right now should apply to all types of fisheries, including the recreational fishery.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

We'll now go on to Madame Desbiens for six minutes or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us, it is always informative.

Mr. Robert, you mentioned earlier that you have been collecting data on the mackerel stock and studying it since 2010. Some of your data probably comes from Quebec fishers, who are forced to compile it.

How do you explain, as you noted in your recommendations, that only certain groups of fishers are forced to compile this data?

[Dr. Dominique Robert]

That's a good question.

I would like to clarify that the work I did on mackerel was aimed at understanding the larval ecology. The data I was referring to in relation to the abundance of the stock is what Fisheries and Oceans Canada collects.

As for the criteria for determining which groups of fishers are required to compile data, that is up to the department. That's a question I can't easily answer, unfortunately.

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

The question remains the same. Did I understand correctly that this obligation to measure the resource should apply to all groups of fishers concerned?

[Dr. Dominique Robert]

Ideally, in any kind of fishery, when you assess or manage a fish stock, it is important to measure the mortality caused by fishing, to know precisely how much has been caught.

In the case of mackerel, there are several uncertainties that prevent us from having an accurate estimate: the bait fishery, the recreational fishery that occurs throughout Atlantic Canada, and the winter fishery in the United States, which catches some of the fish that spawn in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and are part of our stock.

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

Given these circumstances, there should be a link between the U.S. and Canada.

You have been conducting studies on this resource since 2010. So it's been over 10 years since you anticipated this decline. In addition, you've surely passed on your studies to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

How do you explain the fact that mackerel fishers were informed of the closure of the fishery with 48 hours notice? How do you explain this lack of predictability?

[Dr. Dominique Robert]

I don't have a specific explanation for this.

The scientific consensus had already been calling for a major reduction in quotas for a good ten years, but they were not reduced very quickly.

In my opinion, it was a good decision to close the fishery. How it was done is another story, but I don't have any particular comment to make on that.

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

You are a scientist, I understand, but we still question the lack of predictability.

Are you hopeful that the resource will renew itself? How many years do you think it could take, or are we talking decades?