Fisheries Committee on April 20th, 2026

[Michael Griswold]

I wrote it because I felt it.

Basically, I had given 40 years of my life to the Fraser River management process, working on behalf of Canada for the Fraser River panel.

As I said in my statement, I worked collaboratively with the DFO. We negotiated fishing plans that were based upon conservation and whatnot. In 2025, things changed. There was an iron door in front of expanding opportunities when the conditions warranted. The warranted conditions this year were that the run came back four times greater than the forecast. This, under normal circumstances, would have allowed more fishing, but the department would not allow expanded opportunities there, because they had made an arrangement with a group called the Fraser Salmon Management Board. This basically stymied and blocked any opportunity because of the anticipation that they would want to put a lot of fish on the spawning grounds, which is another issue.

My issue was that there were significant changes in how the department was allowing opportunities to go fishing, allowing openings. It needed a spotlight on it. The only way I could figure to put the spotlight on it was with a very public resignation.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying the system is corrupt, meaning that the decision-makers at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not make a rigorous, consistent and fact-based decision, but rather a decision to favour certain interests.

[Michael Griswold]

I wouldn't say the system was corrupt. I think that the system had changed and there were a whole bunch of new players from both DFO and from other groups who influenced the decision-making. In my kind way of putting it, they did that very naively. This is a common misperception for a lot of people—that if you put more fish on the spawning grounds on salmon streams, you always get more return. That's not necessarily the case.

In this particular case, that was the guiding influence of why DFO, in conjunction with the Fraser Salmon Management Board, went the way they did. There was enough information. In my 40 years of participating I have learned a few things. It is my estimation that putting all these extra fish on the spawning grounds could actually have negative effects, not necessarily good effects. Unfortunately, they were not listening to me. They weren't listening to others who were saying the same things.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

At that time, how did you understand the actions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? Which group was it trying to accommodate?

[Michael Griswold]

They had entered into a formal arrangement with Fraser River first nations. It was some marine area. It's called the Fraser Salmon Management Board. They had provided, through a memorandum of understanding, the right for that group to set the escapement goals. As I said earlier, setting the escapement goals is the foundation for end-times fisheries management. It was their naive belief on some of those established escapement goals that had a very negative effect on all our fisheries, particularly, as I said earlier, upon the late run, which basically was the determining factor on how we managed the fish there in 2025.

All salmon stocks tend to mix together. Some of them come earlier, some of them come later, but at some point they overlap. You might have a whole bunch of abundant stocks, but if they overlap with smaller stocks or less abundant stocks then you fish to the lowest common denominator.

In this case, the late runs obligated a 10% harvest rate, which was a lot less than the 50% we were allowed on the early summer runs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Deschênes.

That finishes our first round of questions. We're going right into the second one, with Mr. Small for five minutes.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to start by putting a motion on notice.

Mr. Chair, it reads:

That,

(a) considering the concerns around the publishing of the report: Four Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) in the Offshore of Nova Scotia: A Description of the Primary Marine Ecosystem Features, Significant and Protected Areas, At-risk and Depleted Species, Fish and Fisheries, Science Surveys, and Other Human Uses that May Occur In and Around the French Bank, Middle Bank, Sable Island Bank, and Sydney Bight Areas (Report) in the Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3312;

(b) pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) be ordered to provide to the committee, within 30 days of the adoption of this motion, the following:

(i) all documents, including but not limited to memoranda, briefing notes, and internal communications, related to the decision to produce this report, including any requests for its preparation and associated allocation of resources,

(ii) all documents related to the timing of the report’s public release, including any correspondence or briefings concerning its publication in relation to announcements on offshore wind development for the Scotian Shelf,

(iii) all documents relating to internal review processes for the report, including any peer review, inter-branch consultations, or assessments conducted within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, including Science and Fisheries Management,

(iv) all documents relating to consultations, or lack thereof, with the fishing industry in the preparation of the report,

(v) all documents relating to the omission of Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (IFMPs), Recovery Potential Assessments (RPAs), or SARA-required recovery strategies in the report,

(vi) all internal communications, records of decisions, briefing materials, analyses, and other documents relating to the use of this report in departmental decision-making; and

(c) pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertakes one 2-hour meeting with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to be held one week after all requested documentation is received by all Members of the committee, and the scope of the meeting be on the report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

The motion's been received. Obviously, you need to give 48 hours' notice, so it can't be moved at this time.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

It's now been received.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Now, I have a question for Mr. Griswold.

Mr. Griswold, how could DFO have gotten last year's Fraser sockeye estimate so dreadfully wrong?

[Michael Griswold]

It is one of the surprises that happen in Pacific salmon management. We have had really good surprises and bad surprises. The great unknown is what happens in marine survival.

Basically the salmon spend two years in fresh water and then go out into the ocean. It was really benign. While there were signs, there was no definitive sign that said we were going to see this increased marine survival.

In 2010, we ended up with a run of 30 million sockeye, which was almost two and a half times bigger than expected. This was also a product of marine survival. Marine survival can also cut the life right out of the fishery there too.

What happened was that we had been experiencing bad marine survival for a while. That might have had some downward influence on the forecast, but not that much. Nobody was really expecting quite the surplus, the bounty, that came back last year. It was a good surprise.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

The minister is ultimately responsible for decisions that affect the livelihoods of groups such as those we have here today at this committee. Do you think the government cares about your livelihoods?

[Michael Griswold]

I think it is one component of their job to care, but sometimes it is eclipsed by other issues. Sometimes it's hard to understand why.

In particular, there's another fishery that I participate in. It's called the B.C. chum salmon fishery. We are locked into this unfortunate circumstance in which we've had half our fishery taken away in order to protect interior Fraser steelhead, even though, in the group that I participated in, we had caught something like only 40 of them there over the last little while. It has basically decimated half our livelihood there.

When we ask whether the department or the minister cares, it is hard to balance with those decisions that have eliminated those opportunities. We are asking, at least, to get real science, real data before the minister, to provide her with better decision-making tools that might provide us with a relaxation of the restrictions we're seeing. Yes, it's a mixed message. Yes, she cares, but she balances it against other things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Small.

Next, we go to Mr. Morrissey for five minutes.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Summers. You began answering a question on mass marking and PSSI, as they impact the recreational fishery. You ran out of time, but could you expand on that and advise the committee? Do you see this as a progressive step?

[David Summers]

Absolutely, it's a progressive step, but on its own, it doesn't.... It helps certain areas, for sure, but it definitely needs to be coupled with other things as well.

There's no doubt that the fishery is in decline, as I mentioned earlier, and it won't be just one thing—such as mass marking 100% of our hatchery fish—that's going to save it. There definitely need to be more steps taken...allowing access to British Columbians and Canadians to the fish that are a public resource.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You stated that the fishery is in decline.

[David Summers]

Yes, absolutely. I meant that the public fishery is in decline.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Yes, so, prudently, you would have to take some steps to prevent it from total decimation.

[David Summers]

Absolutely, yes.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thanks.

Mr. Chu, you referenced a bubble zone. I believe you made some reference to that. Could you explain the difference between Canada and the U.S.A.? Explain it a bit more, if you could.

[Ivan Chu]

In a bubble zone, if we're fishing and killer whales are present, we have to pick up our gear and move at least 1,000 metres or 1 kilometre away—and that's everybody. When the pod of whales has gone through, we go back to fishing. Whereas, when we have static closure, it means this whole area is out of bounds, whether the whales are there or not. It's simply out of bounds. Washington state has adopted the bubble zone, which they find works really well: If there are killer whales present, you pick up your gear and go. You generally know when killer whales are present because the whale-watching boats are there.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Could you explain to the committee, with the U.S. adopting this in the state of Washington, if there has been any negative impact on the killer whale population there because of their using this methodology?

[Ivan Chu]

No, because we're staying away from the whales. They're staying away from them, because prior to that—