Fisheries Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2016

[Kevin Stringer, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I appreciate that.

We don't have specific data quantitatively in terms of impacts. If you're looking at modernized provisions, it would be nice to have the regulatory authority but also the resources to do that.

We have evidence in some of the reductions that we've seen in the past few years. The amount of engagement, the referrals we have under the new act, the requests for information, the requests for our engagement, the letters of advice we've sent out, the authorizations we've provided, the charges that have been brought forward have all decreased.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

With all due respect, that's not what I asked. I'm asking about the fish themselves. Obviously, from both the answers to my question, there is no evidence whatsoever that the changes we brought to the Fisheries Act made any material difference negatively to any fish community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Mr. Sopuck, I'm going to ask you to close very quickly.

Go ahead.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Did the department do any analysis of the changes to the Fisheries Act?

They had written a report with our government or the new government. I would like to know if a report was written, who wrote that report, and can we have that person testify before the committee? We're going to take the Liberal government at its word, because in the last election campaign, it was committed to “eliminate all regulations that censor government scientists, giving them the freedom to speak about their work.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Very quickly, Minister, go ahead.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are about five or six questions.

I would hope, Mr. Sopuck, your enthusiasm for open and transparent science would allow you to ask that question to the scientific people who will appear before the committee. Ask them if they feel less muzzled today than they did two years ago. I think that would be an instructive line of questioning, and I would encourage you to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Minister.

Now we go to Ms. Jordan, for five minutes, please.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the minister for appearing today, although not only you. This is the third time in nine months the minister has appeared before this committee. I appreciate the department being willing to come to speak to us. I know that's been a long time coming.

Moving on to our questions, in our meeting on Monday we heard that greater data-sharing between DFO and partner organizations will allow for greater understanding of the status of our fish stocks. Given that the mandate letter says that “Government and its information should be open by default”, will the government continue to make more of DFO's information available to foster the greater understanding of fisheries and the oceans?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Ms. Jordan, the answer is yes.

I know a number of members of this committee had a chance to meet one of the leading environmental groups, Oceana. They had a conference in Ottawa last week, I think. I had the privilege of speaking at the opening of the session on Wednesday, a week ago today. I undertook to make scientific information and data much more available, and available in a user-friendly way. Not all of us have the advantage of a detailed scientific background.

I think Canadians share a huge concern that governments and everyone involved need to do the best they can to protect fish and fish habitat. They want to understand the areas of concern and what we can do better. It starts by making scientific and other analyses open and available by default.

I announced that we would be doing exactly that. We'd be putting out a report card, which this group asked our department to do, across 159 species. We're also preparing quite quickly to pull the historical data as well, in other words, go backwards and also make that available. I committed to doing it once a year, but if we're in a position to do so semi-annually, obviously, we'd be happy to do so. We're making the best efforts we can to open up more scientific data, but we recognize more work can be done.

After you hear from witnesses or from Canadians, if your committee has suggestions as to the specific areas of concern in terms of access to this information, again, we would.... It doesn't have to be a formal recommendation. If colleagues have suggestions for me, I'll work with the department to alleviate these concerns and raise our game as best we possibly can.

One of the concerns we have is that over the last five years the department suffered a series of budget cuts, $35 million, which led to almost 1,100 positions being eliminated. If you think about 1,100 positions over the last five years, many of them were front-line enforcement people, habitat protection people, and scientific people. We're also working within the financial structure we have to remedy that, and that will take us to a better place, we hope.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

That was actually my next question. We've heard that as an overarching problem. This is our fourth study, and we've heard that the cuts to DFO, both in science and enforcement, have been a real detriment to the boots-on-the-ground people. We know that there's been an investment in science. We're happy to see that, and I really hope that we continue on and do see that investment enforcement because it's critical in terms of how we move forward with DFO.

One of the other things that we heard on Monday about the changes to the Fisheries Act outlined that the habitat protection regime had moved more to a fisheries protection regime. Do you see the distinction between habitat protection and fisheries protection, and should the Fisheries Act be focused more on one than the other?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Again, I'll offer a very quick comment, Ms. Jordan, and perhaps Mr. Stringer or Philippe Morel can add something.

I do recognize that it is a significant but precise distinction. I wouldn't want to offer you an uninformed view that would lead to a misunderstanding.

I think what Canadians expect from their government is to have the most effective, the most robust, and as you said, the most appropriately resourced structures to ensure that those who do harm fish or fish habitat face the consequences, but they also expect that we have the appropriate prevention measures in place to try to alleviate the worst-case scenario where there is some long-term damage.

In terms of the distinction between the two, I don't know if Mr. Stringer or Mr. Morel

would have any comments to add.

[Kevin Stringer]

I'll add to it.

Thanks, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Very quickly, please.

[Kevin Stringer]

In the Fisheries Act, there are five threats to fisheries that are addressed. Pollution is under section 36 and dealt with by Environment Canada. For overfishing, we have the fisheries management sections. For aquatic evasive species, we have the enabling of a regulation there. Fish passage is addressed in sections 20 to 22, and then there's habitat, which is absolutely critical. The section 35 provision speaks to fisheries, but really, that's where we need the habitat protected. There are elements in the Fisheries Act that address those other things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

We now go to Mr. Arnold for five minutes, please.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister and the parliamentary secretary for being here today.

First of all, I'd like to make a statement to correct a statement made by the member across the way about the vote that took place regarding the deadline for this. I have asked personally for this deadline to be extended. I would not have voted in favour of, and it would not have been a unanimous vote in favour of the date that was stated. I want to make that clarification. The vote may have been unanimous on one side of this committee, but not entirely.

Mr. Minister, back on October 18 there was a press release that went out from your ministry saying, “The feedback heard through this consultation will be provided to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. This Committee will consider all feedback as part of its recommendations for changes to the Fisheries Act”.

Is that correct?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Sure.

Mr. Arnold, we're wide open to providing you the information you need in the way that you find most useful. We would welcome your suggestions.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

What members of the fisheries committee were notified of this commitment by you made on behalf of the committee prior to the news release going out?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I'm not sure I follow you're question. I'm sorry.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Were any of the committee members notified that this was a commitment of the committee made by you on our behalf?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I can't speak to any personal involvement I had in that. It's an interesting question. I can undertake to see if there were conversations, but I'm going by memory. I speak to the people in front of you at the table many times a day on a whole bunch of issues. I don't have a recollection of that. If it's a source of great concern, we can provide some better information if, in fact, that exists.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

What authority did you have as minister to make this commitment that the committee would consider all feedback as part of the recommendations?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I'll offer a quick comment, and the deputy, I think, will add something.

I wouldn't assume that a committee as enlightened as yours doing work on something as important as the Fisheries Act wouldn't consider all the information you have. I just assume that parliamentary committees do a thorough and detailed analysis of all the information, and you decide what information you would like to follow or not. The deputy may have something specific to add.

Catherine.

[Catherine Blewett, Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you, Minister.

What I'd like to offer is that potentially the wording in that release, frankly, was not as respectful of the committee as it might have been. It should have probably said the committee “may” as opposed to “will”. My apologies, I take responsibility for that.

That's a departmental communications tool, so for that I'm sorry. It wouldn't in any way ever want to demand or expect anything of the committee, so our apologies. I would say it should be “may”, if you're interested.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

We also note that the press release was revised and that section was completely removed from there. What efforts have been made to inform the public that the information or that feedback may not be provided or may not be considered by the committee?