Fisheries Committee on Nov. 15th, 2022

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

Thank you.

A group has come up a few times, and I forget the actual name of it. Who participates in that Atlantic mackerel group that you're saying comes together?

[Todd Williams]

It's the Atlantic mackerel advisory committee. This is a committee that we have for every major stock that we manage. Everyone has their own component by species, and it is composed of DFO officials, of course, and fisheries managers. I chair it, and we have around the table harvester associations—including some of the ones who testified here, like the FFAW, the MFU, PEIFA and others, and first nations and indigenous groups and environmental non-governmental organizations as well. In large part, if anyone has a large stake in the fishery, their members are represented at the table.

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

Thank you.

What do you see as the gaps in communication? Is there anything you're seeing in your role? Clearly, you're in the middle of it. Are you seeing any gaps in communication, and if so, are there any recommendations for improvements in that communication?

[Todd Williams]

I certainly tried at the Atlantic mackerel advisory committee meeting to present the position of the department, based on the science advice and based on what we felt, as fisheries managers, could be an appropriate approach with respect to the fishery. All options were indeed on the table as a result of the science that we had before us.

Interestingly, the immediate response from some harvester associations with respect to that recommendation for a total allowable catch was for a considerably higher TAC, in some cases, than the previous year, so I do question whether my messaging was succinct enough. However, it was. I can provide you with my speaking notes, which I read verbatim, so I'm not sure about the disconnect with respect to that particular meeting.

We do encourage informal conversations all the time, and in fact we meet frequently with the major harvester associations. There's that type of communication. There's ongoing work with respect to science, and where we can find more ways to collaborate, we do have tools for that. Whether it's section 10 under the Fisheries Act or some of the sampling programs that science has, we do have tools to really collaborate with industry there. That's certainly ongoing.

We're going into the next AMAC meeting in the first quarter of 2023. I really hope industry will come forward with ideas. In the event this fishery doesn't reopen, do they have ideas with respect to further collaboration around science and that type of thing?

There is the possibility that we may be in that situation. Again, I don't want to prejudge. We haven't seen the science assessment yet, nor have we consulted, but there is that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

That went way over. I'm going to have to get a bit tight around my timeframes to save time.

We'll no go to Mr. Small for five minutes or less—and not a second more.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Williams, everyone who has taken to the water in Newfoundland and Labrador this year has experienced catching mackerel. They've seen them. Is it possible that DFO science has it wrong? Can you say with all certainty that these people who have observed mackerel in large quantities, historic quantities, are wrong, yes or no?

[Todd Williams]

I don't think I can answer that with a yes or no. I'm not doubting what they say— absolutely not. However, the science that we have to make the decisions can also be correct.

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

People in your capacity are paid to make very important decisions. If you have it wrong, if there's a massive bloom of mackerel and you've missed them somehow, what will be the implications on the year-classes of cod, herring, crab, lobster? All these species lay their eggs, and the larvae float up through the water column. We know mackerel don't have an air bladder. They have to swim so that they don't sink. When they're swimming, they're eating. If you have it drastically wrong, what will be the implication on the species that mackerel are foraging on?

[Todd Williams]

I'll turn to my colleague, Jean-Yves Savaria. That's a science question.

[Jean-Yves Savaria]

Of course I don't have an answer for you now, because that's not the situation that has been observed in the ecosystem.

Nevertheless, I could point out that before the fisheries as such, there was a balanced situation. It would therefore probably tend to return to what it was before, if we got it wrong.

I want merely to reiterate the fact that the best available science being carried out by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and corroborated by our American colleagues, shows very clearly that there is a major problem affecting mackerel at the moment.

I would also refer back to my earlier comment about the large percentages of mackerel…

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

I'm satisfied with the answer so far from this witness.

In the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the last number of years, we've seen a lot of right whales. We don't deny they're there; we see them, right? Is that correct?

[Todd Williams]

That's correct.

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

So if you see a lot of mackerel, how can you say there are no mackerel?

[Todd Williams]

I think it's correct in that they were seeing a lot of mackerel in those areas at that time, but we also know that this particular species is highly migratory, and it schools in small areas, so it's quite possible, and no doubt they witness that, absolutely.

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

I'm just going to go back to a previous witness, Ms. Giffin, who admitted that her claims on year-classes aren't based on any science, because there haven't been any mackerel taken and you just haven't sampled them physically to know what the year-classes are. How can you have science making claims, talking about year-classes and biomasses, when there's absolutely no science to back it up? The science is absolutely so weak.

[Jean-Yves Savaria]

The samplings have been done since last year. We are now analyzing the data. Thanks to the collaboration of fishers, we were able to get samples and to determine the egg structures. This work is ongoing.

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

What are you proposing to improve mackerel science? Can you tell the committee? You must care enough to want to improve your science. What steps are you taking to have a more extensive scientific approach and to have a better assessment of the mackerel biomass?

[Jean-Yves Savaria]

That is definitely of interest to us. As I mentioned on several occasions in my testimony, there has been collaboration from the outset with industry to look at the observations and corroborate the various factors.

We have also been working with the Americans. We do so in various ways, including data sharing. It's important to know that northern mackerel stocks go into southern waters. Data exchanges and assessments that include several inputs used in our models are exceedingly useful to us.

Owing to the blending of stocks between the northern and southern contingents, genetic analyses are currently being done to see what impacts there might be for the United States fishery during the winter, when the northern contingent heads south. Those are the kinds of things we observe.

Of course, the various forms of collaboration introduced over the past year with fishers need to continue. We are going to continue sampling to get on with our scientific work. Everything being done at the moment, including the basic survey work and the historical data series, will continue.

In accordance with the priorities determined in collaboration with the Americans and the industry, research could be funded on an ad hoc basis. The criteria could be based on the importance and the need for research findings to enhance our scientific analyses, with a view to providing better advice to our resource management colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

Ms. Barron has a point of order, I believe.

Mr. Small, I know you wanted to ask another question, but you were about a minute and a half over at least, and we just don't have the time, unfortunately.

Go ahead, Ms. Barron.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to ask, through you, that we please maintain respectful dialogue around the table, in particular when we are corresponding with our witnesses. I'm noticing a pattern of accusatory language being used when we are speaking with our witnesses, and I would like our witnesses to continue to come back to this committee. I would like to please ask through you, Chair, that we have all MPs speak respectfully to witnesses, regardless of who is present and their affiliation or background.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thanks for raising that point, Ms. Barron. I'll comment on it after our witnesses are gone, perhaps, or at the next meeting.

I want to say thank you to the departmental officials for sharing their time with us today and providing insight into this particular study that the committee has undertaken. They have always been co-operative to come, regardless of which division they're from. There's never any problem to get the officials from the department to come before this committee. Again, we say thank you for that.

The next meeting, of course, is on Friday. We will hold our first meeting for the study on impacts of the climate crisis and hear from witnesses on this topic. We will also take time to discuss drafting instructions for the letter to the minister for the mackerel study.

As well, Mr. Fergus joined us today in place of Mr. Cormier, and I thank you, Mr. Fergus, for doing that. Hopefully we'll see you back again sometime. Maybe you'll be in the room next time and we'll be able to give you an official welcome.

Again, everybody, as I'm hearing no disagreement, the meeting is adjourned.