Fisheries Committee on Feb. 6th, 2024

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

Okay. Are we ready to go?

Mr. Chair, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and considering the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's 2023 report titled “Monitoring Marine Fisheries Catch” and the Commissioner's testimony received by the committee on Tuesday, February 6, 2024, the committee request that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appear for no fewer than two hours, as soon as possible, to answer questions related to her department's failures to implement the Fishery Monitoring Policy.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

I'm just waiting for confirmation that it's been distributed.

Could we suspend for just a minute until it's been distributed?

We are suspended, then.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

We'll reconvene.

The motion has been distributed. I believe huddles took place.

Ms. Barron did have her hand up, but I spoke to her. It was a question on something else, so she didn't need to speak.

I see Mr. Perkins and Mr. Hardie.

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you. I'll be brief.

I think the motion is self-evident. I think the evidence in this report and the previous one the commissioner referenced is shocking, and there's the frustration. Here's the 2016 report, with a plan to get a plan for having integrated fisheries management plans. The department said they would have a plan for that plan on how to get there in 2017, a year later, after that report. I suspect they haven't done that, since we have virtually no more integrated fisheries management plans now than we did then.

These reports keep getting done by the commissioner of the environment, and they keep getting done by this committee on other aspects of this situation. The department says, “Yes, we agree.” The minister says yes and signs off—actually, it's six ministers who have said yes, they agree—and then nothing happens. Nothing gets done. Successive ministers clearly hope that this just goes away.

There will be another report, and it will get one day in committee. They'll never call the minister on it, because the minister only comes for estimates, and he or she will never have to answer for it. Well, that time is over. The minister has to answer for her and her predecessors' not fulfilling their duties to Parliament, to the fishing community and to Canada's environment by ignoring these reports, setting these false deadlines knowingly, sending these reports in response to Parliament and then actually not doing anything about it.

I think it's time. Enough is enough. There's the time in that famous movie when they say, “I'm not going to take this anymore.” Well, we're not going to take it anymore. The minister has to come and be held accountable for the actions of her department in ignoring all these reports.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Mr. Hardie is next.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Having gone through this for about eight years, I cannot disagree.

That said, I have one small amendment to make to the motion. It is to add, after the part where it says “on Tuesday, February 6, 2024, the committee request that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans”—here's the amendment—“and appropriate officials” and then it continues “appear for no fewer than two hours”.

If you're happy with that, we're happy with that.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Ms. Barron, did you have a comment on the main motion now?

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

Yes. I was going to say that I agree with the main motion. I'm happy for it to move forward.

I was just going to ask, because we are speaking to the main motion, if we can work together as a committee to make sure that when we know there's a motion coming forward, we give each other a heads-up. Caroline and I are the only ones who get chopped off the end when we bring forward motions like this in terms of our opportunity to speak and our time being taken away. If we were to redistribute our time more fairly at the beginning, that would be a more fair process for us to take as committee members.

I just wanted to note that and share it with my colleagues, for us to work together. Of course, I will do the same due diligence moving forward.

[An hon. member]

I've been cut off on this one, too.

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

Yes. Let's think about working together.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

Go ahead, Madame Desbiens.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

I quite agree with this motion, as well.

I think my father, who is a captain, would say that if we had to run our ship like others run the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we would have been aground a long time ago.

I would like to point out that there is a history at DFO and that the Liberal government is not the only one to be at fault.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

I don't see any other hands up.

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will carry on with our questioning. Apparently Mr. Morrissey is up next.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

My question is for Mr. DeMarco.

I found your report very interesting and also troubling.

My question is this: If you are a fisher on the east coast, can you be confident that your livelihood is being managed by DFO on accurate and complete data?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

No.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That's troubling, given that so many coastal communities depend on a well-managed fishery for the future.

Could you briefly tell the committee what has to change to ensure that these fishers can have confidence in the data that's being used for management decisions that affect their livelihood?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I'll cover that in a brief manner and reference my answer to Member Barron's question earlier.

Not only do we need good data for the substantive decisions about sustainability of the fisheries, but we need good data so that there's buy-in from the communities and the regulated industry in terms of confidence in the decisions that are being made that affect their livelihoods. There are two benefits: Better data means better decisions and better support for those decisions.

I would like to see as a starting point the prompt implementation of all of the recommendations from this report, plus those in our previous report from 2016.

Would that be enough? No, it wouldn't, because this report is about monitoring fish catch. There's the science aspect as well as the enforcement aspect, which are out of the scope for this particular audit. We would need to see improvements in those areas as well, so that the department has what it needs to sustain the fisheries and the communities have what they need to be confident in those decisions about sustainability.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

I'm going to come back to you, but first I have a question for Mr. Williams.

For what species on the east coast do you have total confidence that the department's stock data is accurately managed?

[Todd Williams]

Thank you very much for the question.

We do have fisheries where we have 100% at-sea observer coverage, such as the northern shrimp SFAs 4 through 6, as an example. That in and of itself doesn't guarantee quality data: it has to be verified and double-checked. It is one example of a fishery where we have fairly good coverage.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you.

In the last two years there was a decision to close the spring mackerel fishery, which is the bait fishery we referred to.

My question goes back to Mr. DeMarco.

Did you have a chance to look at the data process used by DFO in the management of the spring mackerel fishery?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

No. As I've indicated before, we were looking at the quality of the data and then we were hoping to look at the use of that data in sustainability decisions, because—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You didn't go species-specific?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

No, we didn't go into any species specifically. We didn't even go into the second question that deeply because of the problems we found in the first question.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Based on what you told the committee on your data, and in the time I have left, if the department applies management practices based on the data process that you audited, would you have confidence in the decision that would impact the spring mackerel fishery?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

I can't speak to that specific species, but I can point you to our conclusion, which was, “given that the department had not ensured that this data was dependable and timely, in our opinion, it did not form a solid basis for the department to rely on for decision making.”

That's a global conclusion. We didn't do a deep dive into specific species.