Fisheries Committee on March 11th, 2026

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

What happens if different conclusions are reached? I am not familiar with the finer details of the decision-making process at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which must have its own scientists. However, when there is a disconnect between the knowledge of people in the fishing sector and that of the scientific community, how can the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ensure a decision-making process that is truly aligned with the existing fish stocks? It seems quite complex to me, especially since there are, I assume, enormous costs associated with your economic activities. These decisions therefore have an impact on fishermen and on the people around them, such as service providers.

I wonder how we can ensure that Fisheries and Oceans Canada makes a decision that is in line with science, but also in line with what is observed on the ground. I do not know whether, currently, you have the tools to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I apologize for interrupting, however, we have gone far beyond the allotted time.

If the witnesses wish to provide us with a written response, the committee would be grateful.

We are going to the next round, starting with Mr. Arnold for five minutes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today and appearing. I want to start with the three at the table.

I'll start with you, Mr. DesRoches, because you talked about the test nets and the way DFO is telling you to set them up, and how it's not efficient. This brings to mind complaints I've heard from the west coast from the shrimp trawlers' association that DFO is not using efficient tow methods or net-setting methods in doing the shrimp surveys on the west coast, so it gets bad numbers. It doesn't get a true stock assessment versus what the harvesters could show them, in that there are more fish in the water than DFO's test methods state.

You've described that fairly well, but is there anything you'd like to add to that? Did you used to test a different way? I think you said you used to test with eight net lengths, and you had different results.

[Lucas DesRoches]

To reply to that, it was 32 nets, and they put us down to five nets. Moving forward, I think the most accurate form of data you're going to get is if something is operating at its normal capacity. That's the best measure we have. Any time you make a compromise, you're also going to compromise your results.

It would be a great time to make a compromise and take some of the total allowable catch from the American source. We can take it from the northern stock and put a plan in place. Whenever we're fishing mackerel, whether it be with drift nets or handlines, we record everything. We use this chance to get the best and most accurate science.

I think the most accurate form of science we're going to get is if things are running at normal operation versus a compromised method that's not going to work.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you very much.

Maybe for each of the three of you at the table, it sounds like most of you fish multiple species. How much mackerel are you encountering as bycatch when you're out fishing for other species? Are you able to retain those mackerel for bait? What happens to them if they're caught as bycatch when you're fishing other licences?

[Mark Arsenault]

There is no bycatch from mackerel. We don't catch any. Maybe once a year you get a small one in the head of a trap, in the twine of a trap, but that's it.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Are you able to be selective enough in your harvesting methods that you're not removing mackerel?

[Mark Arsenault]

It's not a viable way to catch.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you.

I want to switch now to Mr. Robert.

Mr. Robert, you mentioned indications of high mortality from predation. Are you aware of any measures that DFO has undertaken to study or reduce the predation of mackerel stocks or herring stocks?

[Dominique Robert]

The predation has been studied. That's available in internal documents published by CSAS. That's how we get a sense of the importance of each predator, especially of herring, but mackerel and herring predators are about the same. The only difference is that, because mackerel migrate way outside of the southern gulf, they cross through several different predator fields. There's no action taken by DFO to reduce the number of predators, because it would mean either a gannet or seal cull, something like that, and that's not really acceptable.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

That's interesting. I'm referring back to a letter that was sent to the minister back in 2023, three years ago. One of the recommendations in that report, number six, was “That Fisheries and Oceans Canada ensure resources and directives are in place to ensure the department adequately studies the predator-prey interactions between seals and mackerel stocks.” Are you aware of any further action on that from the recommendation?

[Dominique Robert]

Not really, so I cannot speak to that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

You mentioned that Canada should develop a bilateral stock management agreement. One other piece in that letter, which had a number of recommendations, was recommendation number 12: “That Fisheries and Oceans Canada develop a bilateral stock management agreement with the United States for the 2023 Atlantic mackerel fishing season.” Are you aware of any movement by Canada to establish that bilateral stock management agreement?

[Dominique Robert]

I talked with some people in DFO science, and I know there is a will by Canada to increase dialogue with our U.S. counterparts, but one of the issues now with the current geopolitics is that it seems, on the U.S. side, that such an effort has decreased over the past couple of years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm afraid I have to jump in here. We are over time, but we'll have an opportunity for another round.

Next I'm going to Mr. Cormier for five minutes.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Robert, I will go to you in just a minute.

Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I want to welcome back a former colleague, who is in this room and who was part of this committee for many years, Ms. Lisa Marie Barron.

Thanks for being with us again. It's nice to see you.

To the fishermen who are here, my dad was a fisherman all his life. I understand how difficult it is to see that a stock is not in the healthy zone we used to see. I think our hope, and my dream, is to make sure we have a resource that's back in good health so we will be able to have a commercial fishery again in the near future. We want to have both sides of the coin.

I'm going first to Mr. Robert.

You heard the representatives of the fishermen's group say earlier that, when they went out fishing, they saw a lot of mackerel at the surface and caught a lot of them.

Is that in itself a sign that the fishery is healthy?

[Dominique Robert]

It is a sign that there are fish, but it is not necessarily a sign that the fishery is healthy.

Mackerel is a species with a vast range. So, of course, from one year to the next, its position in the system can change. It’s a species that moves in schools. If, over a given period of years, conditions are better in one location, people living near that location will certainly see a lot of mackerel, even if the stock is not healthy. We could say that the stock is healthy if everyone in Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador saw a lot of mackerel at roughly the same time.

That's more or less the question.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The fishermen also discussed the data collected and the scientific surveys conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They would like to see these done a little differently.

As you mentioned earlier, you are not a scientist affiliated with the department. In your opinion, could the method proposed by the group of fishermen for conducting scientific surveys differently from what the department currently does provide a slightly more realistic picture of the stock’s health, or would it produce data that is unreliable?

[Dominique Robert]

The primary indicator used to assess the health of the stock is eggs. Other surveys are used more to assess the condition of the females, such as spawning conditions and the average number of eggs each female will lay in a given year. It is then possible to link the number of eggs to what we observe in the females. In my opinion, then, eggs are the most important indicator. I am not saying the others are not important. They are important too, but they are complementary.

As for how to fish for these fish, I must admit that, personally, I do not know enough to comment on the difference between the method prescribed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and what the fishermen propose.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

As I said earlier, I hope—and I think the entire committee hopes as well—that we can once again have a commercial fishery, to help fishermen earn a little more income, or even to help them if they want to use that fish as bait.

I will move quickly to my question, since I do not have much time left.

Officials came here on Monday, and they seemed to suggest that there was a mackerel stock found exclusively in the United States, which was considered the southern stock, and a stock in Canada, namely the northern stock. There seem to be many different opinions on this. Are we fishing the same stocks?

As you mentioned earlier, I believe we are fishing a percentage of these same stocks. Can you give us an accurate overview of the situation so that we can fully understand the difference between these two stocks?

[Dominique Robert]

Yes.

The Canadian contingent of the total stock is fished in the summer during the spawning period and the feeding period that follows. At that point, the Canadian contingent is isolated from the American contingent, so the fishery that's happening in Canada is catching only Canadian fish, so to speak.

Conversely, fishing in the United States takes place in the winter, in the area where both contingents of the stock overwinter. That means the United States fishery catches some fish that belong to the Canadian contingent.

In other words, that fishery influences not only the abundance of fish in the American contingent, but also the abundance of fish in the Canadian contingent. That's the important distinction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cormier.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Gentlemen, two minutes isn't long, so I'll be very quick.

Earlier, you talked about bait. I have two fairly simple questions.

As I understand it, you get a tax deduction for 100% of the bait you buy. You can confirm that for me later. There are also special licences for bait fishing.

Do you have access to those special licences?

Would access to special bait licences be enough for you, or are you really aiming for access to a larger volume fishery for a commercial fishery?

[Mark Arsenault]

The bait licence would be sufficient if we could use it, but we're not using it. By the time we get our lobster season going—this is in the last couple of years—and the second quota opens up, which is only open for two days, we're busy with lobster, so we don't have a chance to get one. We've tried for the last two years to get the season open on August 1, so at least we could participate in the fall fishery, but it hasn't worked.

I talk to people from all over the east coast, and fishers from everywhere tell me the same story. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and there's a lot of smoke and fire in eastern Canada when it comes to mackerel as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if the science needs some different form of work, as Lucas said, but we're definitely too far apart to make sense. It doesn't make sense.

[Lucas DesRoches]

To touch on whether it should be bait or commercial access, bait would be great. That gives more fishermen access, but commercial access itself is going to allow Canadian fishers to supply Canadian fishers with bait instead of having to buy it from outside sources.

We don't have to pay tax on the sale of bait, but we do face inflated prices year in and year out. Right now, there are talks of a pound of mackerel going for close to four dollars when just seven years ago, it was a little over one dollar. Access is what we want.