Evidence of meeting #36 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 year.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Regional Director, Fisheries Management Branch, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I can speak to the kinds of things we are trying to assess in-season that might influence when we open and close.
The first key factor is—and I won't belabour it, because I did mention it earlier—the reality of these comigrating stocks. For fishery decisions, that means we have to assess how much risk we're willing to take in providing a fishing opportunity on the more abundant stock—
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
I'm going to interrupt you there because we understand the impacts of comigrating stocks, but past the point of Lytton, there were no comigrating stocks in those same waters that could have been opened two weeks earlier. Can you describe why they weren't?
Regional Director, Fisheries Management Branch, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I don't know the specifics of this particular instance, so I can only describe the factors that would influence our decision-making across instances.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Somebody's not passing the communications up the chain to you, then, because this was highly communicated to me as a member and vice-chair of this committee. It was communicated to DFO staff regularly and repetitively, yet your department delayed and delayed. Basically, there were two weeks lost from the public fishery at Lillooet because of some confusion over which stocks might be there.
I want to go back to some of Mr. Gunn's questioning.
Are there any governing bodies that have veto power over the decision-making of the minister or the department?
Regional Director, Fisheries Management Branch, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
No.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Okay.
I want to go to a quote from Mr. Griswold, who had been on the Pacific Salmon Commission for 40 years. He said, “I could no longer be party to and complicit in the panel process whose decision-making power, I felt, was countermanded by the veto power newly granted to the unrepresentative Fraser River Salmon Management Board.” He left that panel after 40 years because he could not support what was happening there.
This was broadly communicated. Can you explain to the public listening to this committee what happened and why he was so disgusted that he left?
Regional Director, Fisheries Management Branch, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
As I described earlier, we define an escapement plan. In the development of that, we consult through our advisory processes with recreational, commercial and first nations users. We also have a collaborative agreement with the Fraser Salmon Management Council, which represents over 70 first nations in the approach and on the Fraser. All of that work is input into a decision that finally gets made by the department to finalize that escapement plan.
That escapement plan, defined before the season starts, is abundance-based. That means it's responsive to changes in abundance in salmon that we encounter in-season, and we apply that escapement plan as we get more and more information, day by day, about what kinds of fishing opportunities we would provide.
There is the opportunity in the development of that escapement plan for back-and-forth—here's what we're hearing from our advisory processes and from the Fraser Salmon Management Council discussions—so that people can be informed by one another's perspectives, and all of that informs the department's plan.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Why did one side of those discussions seem to outweigh all of the input from all of the other sides, including the science from your own department?
Regional Director, Fisheries Management Branch, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I don't think I'd agree with that characterization.
I would say, post-Big Bar, we have made the escapement plan more conservative in order to get more spawners back to spawning grounds to try to rebuild those stocks that were impacted by the Big Bar landslide in 2019. That's one of the things that may have changed over the years and made our approaches more conservative, the other one being some of those constraining stocks that are at lower levels of abundance that we need to do more to protect.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you. We went a little over time there.
I'd like to go to Mr. Cormier for five minutes.
Go ahead, please, Serge.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you and welcome, Madam Chair.
Mr. Williams, I'll start with you.
I’d like to briefly follow up on my Bloc Québécois colleague's comments. We’ve already discussed another meeting about the opening of the snow crab fishery. Once again, I’ll be very frank with you. I'm disappointed with the ice clearing efforts this year, as I am every year when, unfortunately, things like this happen and equipment is not there on time.
I asked Mr. Desbois and other witnesses this question last time. We have the equipment we need, but some equipment is missing, such as the larger icebreakers that can go further into the gulf. They’re there practically whenever we need them. The frog my colleague referred to is there. We have open contracts with the owners of that equipment, and that gives us access.
Once again this year, I had to step in to ensure that the frog was deployed to certain ports, but we’re missing a crucial piece of equipment, Mr. Williams, and you know what I'm talking about. It's a small icebreaker, one like the Judy LaMarsh, which is unfortunately never available because the Great Lakes take priority. We need a particular kind of icebreaker dedicated to our region to open the channels and the inner wharves because the water isn't deep enough, unfortunately.
Do you think that having equipment dedicated to the Acadian Peninsula, where we run into these problems every year, could go a long way toward resolving issues with opening the snow crab fishery each year?
Senior Director, Resource Management - Operations, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thank you for the question.
Certainly, I can't speak to the availability of the Coast Guard's equipment, but I can note the importance of this fishery. Efforts were made. Unfortunately, we had some bad instances of ice and high winds this year, which made things difficult.
In terms of—
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
In some years, we don't have wind and we don't have those things.
Do you think that the proper equipment dedicated to our region—the gulf region—and its shallower waters would help the region to open the season earlier?
Senior Director, Resource Management - Operations, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thank you very much for the question.
Having equipment on-site would invariably assist in that regard. However, Coast Guard—
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I understand, but it's just that we don't have the equipment that we need. This is why I'm asking if you think, if we had equipment dedicated to the region, that we'd have....
Thank you for that.
My next question is for Mr. Williams or Mr. Vigneault. It's about the opening of the lobster fishery. In my region, people in subareas 23A and 23B went out yesterday to set traps. Subareas 23C and 23D will be delayed.
People often blame DFO and the government for process issues. They say we're the ones who decided not to open the fishery or to open it on a particular date. If I'm not mistaken, the process for opening the lobster fishery involves a representative at each wharf. The representatives provide their opinion and say whether they want the fishery to open.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
If any of those representatives say they don't want it to open, the decision is made not to open the fishery.
Is that more or less how it works?
Senior Director, Resource Management - Operations, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
In terms of the consultative process, yes, that is how it works. We do strive for consensus, and where we can have consensus and safety can be upheld, then yes, we would defer to those on the wharf making that call in collaboration with us. However, in times when we can't get a consensus and there are no safety concerns, we are forced as a department to make that decision.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Okay.
I want to double-check something. Representatives from each wharf participate in these calls and provide their opinion. If they don't agree with opening on a specific date, you would usually go by what those representatives and the industry want.
Is that correct?
Senior Director, Resource Management - Operations, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thank you for your question.
I can't speak for every call and for every wharf. I do know that the associations play an important role here, like the Maritime Fishermen's Union and their representation with DFO.
Liberal
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
What I find very troubling is that harvesters are raising very clear, well-documented, substantiated concerns, but they're not getting any kind of commitment or response. They offer solutions and lay out problems. Answers are provided, but there's no commitment from the government on solutions to prevent what happened this year from happening again next year. People need answers. Crab harvesters in New Brunswick, Gaspé and throughout the gulf need measures that will provide certainty. You can't have all these unknowns from one year to the next. There are already too many unknowns.
Mr. Vigneault, I'd like to talk to you about the scientific reports and recommendations sent to the department. I imagine these reports come with recommendations, not just observations.
Do fishers get this information and these reports too? At what point in the process are harvesters included in the conversation?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thank you very much for the question, Madam Chair.
Harvesters are most definitely included in the scientific process that enables us to establish specific scientific recommendations that are published and available to everyone.
We usually hold meetings about the science advice before the advisory committees have their discussions. Some industry stakeholders are involved. In many cases, industry experts participate in the peer reviews used to prepare the advice. They also contribute their expertise in interpreting data, among other things.
Once we have a consensus on the science advice, that advice is published and is available to everyone. In addition, in most cases, it's also presented to the advisory committee so that everyone in the industry has access to the data and the most recent science advice when they comment on the decision about the fishery.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
You said that harvesters are an integral part of the process that leads to the recommendations, but we keep hearing that harvesters feel that they're not consulted enough and that their opinion is not properly taken into account.
Can you explain why that would be?
Director General, Ecosystem Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Fishers' contributions to science advice are based on sound scientific data and the consensus-based interpretation. In some cases, a recommendation may conflict with harvesters' observations, but they do have the opportunity to influence the decision.
As I said earlier, when the minister makes decisions, she takes the science advice into account along with other aspects, including harvesters' advice. The advisory committee gives harvesters an opportunity to share their point of view on stock management with the department.