Evidence of meeting #33 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Kent MacDonald Liberal Cardigan, PE
Many of the fishers I've met with in the year I've been a member of Parliament have talked to me about the real data that could be realized by having a commercial fishery that was on a limited basis. That would allow for dockside monitoring and the recording of catches. This would have to be integrated with scientific data to help make better management decisions.
Would you agree with that? If you had a limited commercial fishery, would it give better data to the outcomes?
Fisherman, As an Individual
It would give better data to the outcomes because it would show that there are fish all across the region, as fishermen are saying now. You'd see from different provinces that there is an abundance of fish out there.
Having good-sized fish is the biggest thing. There are big fish out there. When you go out tuna fishing, in just 40 or 50 feet of water, you can stop the boat. You get the mackerel you need to proceed with for your day. They're there at all times of the day, at any point.
Liberal
Kent MacDonald Liberal Cardigan, PE
That's interesting. As a young man, I worked in the back of a boat as a cork. I did mackerel seining, which I know you guys don't do anymore. It's hand lines and drift nets, but mostly hand lines in eastern P.E.I. As you described, it's a clean fishery. There's no bycatch. It's a controlled fishery.
I'm wondering about your experiences when you're out tuna fishing. I've heard from a lot of tuna fishermen about the size of the schools. Would that compare with what you saw when you first got into the fishery? In the 1980s, when I was mackerel seining, we could walk on the schools of mackerel off Naufrage and North Lake.
I just want a comparison.
Fisherman, As an Individual
In the last two to three years, I've seen a substantial amount of mackerel schooling on top of the surface of the water as far as the eye can see, especially in the later months of the year, September and October. It ranges from 30 feet of water all the way out to 150 feet of water. There's mackerel everywhere.
On size, they are big mackerel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I'm afraid I'm going to have to jump in. We're over time here.
Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.
Mr. Simard, you have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Carruthers, I really enjoyed your opening remarks. You talked about the discrepancy that can exist between scientific models and observations made on the ground by fishers.
I assume that you, as a scientist, are familiar with the hypotheses and models used. I would like you to tell us more about why there is a discrepancy between the findings of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the observations made on the ground by fishers. What explains this discrepancy? It would be helpful for us if you could tell us more about that.
Senior Fisheries Scientist, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union
There were two parts to the question. One was more about the current models as they're being used in the mackerel stock assessment. The second was on the difference between the mackerel stock assessment and what harvesters throughout the Atlantic provinces are seeing on the water.
There's an ongoing concern with Newfoundland harvesters that we're missing part of the mackerel because of how the egg survey is focused in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Mackerel are in Newfoundland waters in May, June, July and August. They don't just arrive here after the spawning season. They arrive in Newfoundland waters in May and June. One of our concerns is that those mackerel that are in Newfoundland waters within the spawning season are not being captured in the spawning stock biomass, which then affects the estimate of the biomass.
I have lots of different species on my desk, so I'm not necessarily going to go into the details of how the stock assessment is done. You have a total egg production estimate, and then you have to scale that up to the overall abundance that's out there.
There are two pieces. One is the egg survey. The second is the steps it takes to estimate out to what you think the biomass is.
Some of our contention is that the egg survey might be missing part of the fish. The second step is how you estimate that out to the overall biomass. That's the tricky part. You need to be able to scale it. When you have a small commercial fishery, you have more data that allows you to be able to scale the egg survey to what is out there in the water.
Right now, we have a few samples coming in, but it's really not enough to help scale to the size of the fishery.
I'm sorry. That's a partial answer.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you very much. That was very informative.
In your opening statement, you also referred to data used by Mr. Vigneault from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The last time I attended a meeting of the committee, I think we had a discussion on the method for focusing egg surveys.
In your opinion, is this approach appropriate? Isn't this a methodological limitation that adds to what you just said about the missing period?
Senior Fisheries Scientist, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union
You can do a couple of things there.
You need to check before and after the spawning period to make sure you're not missing it.
Also, DFO has looked at where the habitat is. Mackerel like to spawn in a particular range of temperature. When they look at where that habitat is, some of the earlier work they have used uses projections of when the temperature is going to change in 10 to 15 years. What would be a really big help is to look at the current upper water temperature and to build our understanding of mackerel spawning habitat from contemporary instead of projected water temperature. That's one easy and doable addition to the current stock assessment.
The main concern with respect to the egg survey has two parts. Is it covering all of the areas? Are we missing something? Is southern Newfoundland a spawning area? We're not sure. Has it progressively been changed? For each of these models, if you're more or less on average but you go up and down, then it's not so much of a problem. If you sequentially end up with more or less of a given input into the model, then that's when it really starts to screw up your model. Has there been a trajectory of fewer eggs in the survey area? A lower proportion of the spawning population in the survey area would have a big impact on the model.
Those are the types of questions I would like us to talk about at the upcoming assessment.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
To your knowledge, is there a model or approach that would enable the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to better integrate the knowledge that fishers have on the ground into their analyses and decision-making processes?
I don't know if you know how this works and how the department manages to take fishers' knowledge into account. Is there a grid or a way to interpret the data provided by fishers?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I'm sorry, but I have to interrupt you, as your time is up. That's a good question, and I hope the witness will provide us with a detailed answer in writing.
That finishes our first round of questioning.
We'll start the second round with Mr. Gunn for five minutes.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Mallet, do you believe the decisions at DFO surrounding the Atlantic mackerel are currently being based on abundance and core science, or are they being based on something else entirely?
Executive Director, Maritime Fishermen's Union
That's a good question. I think the main focus of the decision-making process right now is on the science that is being given to the department and the minister's office. I would hope that with the new government, and with the new minister we've had since last year, there would be more consideration of the socio-economic importance of these fisheries and better consideration of the input fishermen can give to further enhance the science that we have. All the witnesses have talked about data gaps and the potential issues with the information going into the models. I would hope that moving forward, and in a short time frame, this would be considered.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Do you believe the United States is doing a better job at managing this resource than we are?
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
No? What is your vision? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you mentioned in your earlier remarks the importance of having co-management. Do you have a vision for what that would look like?
Executive Director, Maritime Fishermen's Union
I think co-management has to involve fishermen information coming from surveys and from the catch per unit effort. Let's say a stock is in the critical zone. Well, we should never close a fishery. We should adapt our fishery in terms of a percentage of access that would gain access and gain information for our science that we need, but at the same time keep fishermen on the water for the culture that's associated with these fisheries and the economic importance of them.
For instance, there's the spring herring in southeastern New Brunswick. The spring herring fishery for us down there is important socio-economically but also culturally for the region. I mean, the town of Cap-Pelé was founded on herring and the herring smokers. Right now there's none of that going on in the spring. I think there needs to be more room for fishermen input. We used to have the fisheries resource conservation council, the FRCC, which would bring together an ad hoc committee of scientists from DFO but also external scientists and fishermen. They were around the same table. The recommendations that would come out of these committee reports were not only excellent; they also had a lot of buy-in from the industry groups around the table. That should be something to consider as well.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You believe there needs to be balance between the socio-economic and cultural upside that harvesting brings versus conservation concerns, but right now that balance isn't being struck. Is that what you're saying?
Executive Director, Maritime Fishermen's Union
We've gone too far toward the precautionary. Within the precautionary approach, there's a difference, I think, between having zero risk and taking some risk but also, at the same time, having fishing activity being preserved. Hopefully, we're going in a better direction, but time will see. For mackerel and herring right now, we've been waiting long enough on that.
Conservative
Aaron Gunn Conservative North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the motion that I put on notice two days ago respecting a production order for ISED's report and consultations on the aquaculture transition plan for British Columbia.
I'm sure we all enjoyed Mr. Small reading his. I know everybody got it in their inbox, so I would like to speak to it briefly.
The minister promised thousands of Canadian workers in the aquaculture sector an answer by this past fall about what the federal government's so-called transition plan would mean for them. Workers have been left to wonder if a government decision or directive is about to be issued which will cost them their jobs and make them unable to pay their mortgage or rent or put food on the table to feed their families. This committee deserves to know if the government is planning to put 4,000 Canadians out of work, destroy an entire industry and compromise Canada's food security.
This government produced a report, by their own admission, detailing their vision for what this aquaculture transition would look like for British Columbia. The minister said that this report was completed and that she would read it. That was months ago, in October.
I hope some members across the way can relate to this. As the member of Parliament for the riding most affected, who was elected to represent these individuals, these families, in the House of Commons and to be their voice, I have been remarkably patient, some might say uncharacteristically patient, on this issue until now. It's now April and we still have not heard anything from the minister, nothing from the department.
Canadians deserve answers. This committee deserves answers. Most importantly, the workers in the industry deserve answers. Workers in Port Hardy, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Klemtu, Gold River and Zeballos deserve to know if the department is planning to take their jobs.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Gunn.
Mr. Gunn has moved the motion that was put on notice on April 20. We're going to move into debate on this motion. I'll be keeping a speaking list.
The first person I have on the list to speak to this is Mr. Klassen.
Liberal
Ernie Klassen Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The member is seeking to undermine years of formal consultations and concrete work on aquaculture and wild salmon to call for documents related to a report that has been neither finalized nor published. This directly undermines nation-to-nation consultations with first nations and undermines consultations with the industry.
I'd like to read some comments here:
In November 2009, the Governor General in Council issued Order in Council 2009-1860, establishing this Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River and appointing...Bruce Cohen, sole Commissioner under Part 1 of the Inquiries Act. The report of this Inquiry consists of three volumes. I describe the Terms of Reference of this Commission in Volume 1, Chapter 1, and set them out in full in Appendix A to each volume of this report.
In Volume 1, the Sockeye Fishery, I set out the background information necessary for the reader to understand the complexity and breadth of the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery. The chapters in Volume 1 cover several topics:
an overview of the Commission's mandate;
a description of the life cycle of the Fraser River sockeye salmon;
an overview of the legal framework governing the Fraser River sockeye fishery;
an overview of the organizational structure of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO);
a description of the management of the Fraser River sockeye fishery;
a description of the management of the Fraser River sockeye habitat;
a description of DFO's enforcement activities related to the fishery and fish habitat;
an overview of the management of salmon farms—an activity that may affect Fraser River sockeye;
an overview of fish health management related to wild and cultured fish;
a discussion of DFO's Wild Salmon Policy; and
a case history of the Cultus Lake sockeye salmon.
Some subject matter is repeated among the chapters and volumes. Often, to describe aspects of how the fishery is managed...it is necessary to describe the technical and scientific information upon which management decisions are based. That scientific evidence may be repeated in Volume 2 in discussing the causes of the decline.
In Volume 2, Causes of the Decline, I focus on that section of the Terms of Reference (section C(I))—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Yes. Mr. Klassen has the floor here.
Again, as I mentioned, I reminded members at the beginning of the meeting that I will recognize you by name before you begin speaking. There's only one person speaking at a time, please.
Mr. Klassen, I'll turn the floor back to you.
