Evidence of meeting #112 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ocean.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Just before the witnesses go, since this is the last full study on this issue and since every meeting has been interrupted by debate and out-of-scope issues, could I just ask that if the witnesses have any further thoughts, could they please submit them in briefs to the committee so that it can inform our conclusions and recommendations?
Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
What I will do is offer up to the witnesses that if there's anything they've left unsaid, they can certainly send it in to the clerk and we'll include it in our study of the Yukon salmon.
Other than that, I'll go to Mr Perkins.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'll just be quick because I don't want to be filibustering this out, as it appears is happening.
I'll just say that what I'm hearing from the Liberals is that the minister is not accountable for the department and that the department makes closures of fishing areas without her authority. I find it unbelievable that the entire 2,000-kilometre area would have been closed without the minister's approving that.
That's why she has to be here to account for those actions. She can throw her department under the bus if she likes, but I'd like to see that happen in committee. I'd like her to be accountable for why she isn't involved in those decisions.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think going into this we need to have eyes wide open as to what the process looks like, because I think one would assume that an important issue like this would need the sign-off by the minister before something like a closure would take place.
However, I'm informed that that's not the case, that the DFO has the pen, if you want to use an old insurance term, to go in and mandate a closure. It's only after the fact, in this case, that the minister, when she became aware of the situation and the dynamics, stepped in and reversed that decision.
We might want to have that discussion about the degree of sign-off that the minister should have in a situation like this, and whether she should be given the option before a decision is implemented to say yes or no. However, it appears that in this case she did not necessarily have that positioning on that decision. We can have that discussion.
Again, it takes me back to the reason why I rather liked Madame Desbiens' suggestion that the officials should be here with barbecue sauce behind their ears to hear exactly what we think about their process, their decision-making process, but the minister should be here to listen to the questioning that we have of those officials. We've had this incident, but we've had other incidents where decisions are made and we say, where the heck did that come from? Then they're reeled back in by a minister who just ultimately sees that that decision by the department is not—
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
We've got a point of order and we're running out of time, too.
So what do colleagues want done this evening? We've got to condense it.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Why don't we call the vote? We can have speeches when the minister's here.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I've recognized everyone, I think , who put up their hand, and I recognized Mr. Hardie, and I've got Mr. Morrissey on the list again.
5:15 p.m.
An hon. member
So, have a second go-around.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
There are two things that I think have to be be examined very closely, and I don't disagree with Mr. Perkins.
First is the performance of the department, their decision-making, how they came up with the decision they made, as well as the relative positioning of the minister and the influence she should have on important decisions like this. It seems there are disconnects there. If there are disconnects, then having the departmental officials and the minister in the room would give us an opportunity to really straighten this whole thing out.
I'll leave it at that.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
Just for clarification, it is not a second go-around, Mr. Chair. I was speaking, and I was interrupted by a point of order by Ms. Barron, which you correctly recognized, but I had the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, it's not a second go-around.
I'd be the last one on this committee to be the least bit concerned or try to defend the current minister's ministerial authority. She will do that very well and very eloquently on her own. I have a good sense of her perspective on the situation, and she would probably articulate it here in very few minutes, as her action showed when conflicting information was given to her by the fishers in the community. The fishers in that community challenged the DFO information that was given. I complimented them because they did it in a very peaceful, documented way. They called into dispute the water depth that was being used by the department in the advice that it gave to the minister.
Mr. Chair, I want to spend the time that this committee will have by examining how the department, how the senior people who were responsible for the decision, made such an error. As I understand it—and possibly Mr. Cormier could correct me if I'm wrong—there were multiple maps being used, which led to such a discrepancy in the water depth and the decision that was made.
On that, nobody on this side is putting forward any concept or notion that takes away from ministerial accountability. Again, I would reiterate that there were probably ministers in the past whom I may have accepted that for, but this particular minister, in her actions since she's been the minister, does not shy away from ministerial accountability. In fact, her actions, Mr. Chair, demonstrated that she is prepared to be accountable, and she made the decision when she was presented with information by fishers from the community that contradicted her own department's people.
That's why my position is that I want to spend the time that I have as a committee member questioning the officials and ensuring that we have the officials before this committee who should be held accountable to explain to this committee, with the full powers that this committee has, how the information was collected that was presented to the minister. Based on that information, the minister made the only decision she could have at the time.
Again, it has nothing to do with ministerial accountability—well, it has everything to do with ministerial accountability. It rests there, but it is the officials within this ministry with whom I want to spend the time that we have in getting some assurance or getting an understanding of how that decision was made, how the information was collected and how it was confirmed within the ministry before it went to the minister.
Mr. Chair, that's what I want to see this committee spend its time on. That's why I can only support the amendment to the motion that will allow us to get to that and to get answers that the fishing industry wants and deserves, Mr. Chair.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
The press release that was sent by the shadow minister.... This is probably why we call it “shadow” because he was invisible in the party. The Conservative Party was invisible for a week. This was sent, according to the Conservative website, a week ago on the 23rd—after everything was solved.
Trying to take credit for something that was already dealt with is a little bit funny.
Once again, I'd like to thank Mrs. Desbiens for also denouncing what happened in my region.
Thank you for that, Mrs. Desbiens. You also know very well that, when there was the capelin problem in your region, it was initially a decision by officials not to allow this fishery; it was subsequently reviewed.
What happened last week in my region is, once again, unacceptable. Fishers in my area tried to get the attention of Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials in Ottawa, with a lot of evidence they had gathered from various sources. They were never listened to by officials when they told them the depth and location of the whale.
Again, Mr. Chair, that location was established by aerial surveillance flights and then posted on whales.org, where the movement of whales can be tracked. That evidence was given to departmental officials and, I repeat, they never wanted to look at it.
Fishers in my region have done everything they can to be as responsible as possible and not to hinder the protection of whales. They've done everything in their power to prevent collisions in the region.
The officers and officials in the region, whether from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or other agencies, did a very good job of explaining the situation we were in to officials in Ottawa. Once again, the officials did not listen to them. That's why the officials in Ottawa responsible for this file must appear before the committee to answer for what happened.
Three different marine maps were used to find the water depth. I find this totally unacceptable. In Canada, we have very stringent whale protection measures, even more stringent and better than those in the United States. We had a situation that could have been very damaging to our markets, and yet we continue to use three different marine maps. People don't even know which map to use. Once again, I find this unacceptable.
We need to get to the bottom of things, then. We also need to shed light on what happened during all those weeks for the various fishing associations, especially those of the lobster fishers, but also those of the crab fishers, who have been experiencing this situation since 2017. They have to move their traps every day and every week. It's a very stressful situation for the industry, and it needs to be fixed.
Fishers in my region have shown resilience in recent years. As you know, they now fish with ropeless traps. Our measures to protect whales are being pushed to the extreme. We need to find a way to make them more flexible. We're very advanced in modernizing our fishing equipment. For example, our lobster fishers have new, more vertical ropes, which, again, provide better protection for the whales.
The protective measures we have in place are so stringent that they could have shut down an industry for two weeks. That could still happen tomorrow or next week. These measures must be changed as quickly as possible, without fear of losing our markets in the United States. It can be done in co‑operation with the industry. What's currently lacking is co‑operation with the industry, and a willingness on the part of Ottawa officials to listen to the industry. That's what we don't have.
I hope we can get to the bottom of this. The minister has already committed to reviewing the measures with the industry very quickly. That's what we're going to work on: making changes to the practices. That's what this committee—and I'd like to thank all my colleagues around the table—is trying to do, and it has produced a very thorough report with some excellent recommendations. However, none of these recommendations were considered by departmental officials, and I want to know why.
Just yesterday, there was an announcement about new equipment, including drones, that could track whales. Why then did departmental officials not even want to put forward these solutions or tools? For our part, we've been proposing such tools, including markers on whales, for two years now. Experts have come to tell us that this was possible.
Mr. Chair, I want to get to the bottom of things. I want departmental officials to appear before the committee, to answer our questions about this situation, which could have been catastrophic for our region.
I've heard officials say that since the lobster industry is a $4‑billion industry, losing only $25 million to $30 million during a 15‑day shutdown can't be that bad for a region. I find that totally unacceptable, and that's why I want clear, precise answers from these officials in Ottawa.
We've been asking for these measures to be relaxed for three years now.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Cormier.
That concludes the speaking list. I didn't see any more hands up.
5:25 p.m.
An hon. member
It's time to vote.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
We need to have two votes. We have four and a half minutes to get two votes done.
We'll do Mr. Kelloway's amendment first.
Mr. Morrissey.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
No. We have only five minutes left, and he called the vote.
5:30 p.m.
An hon. member
The vote's been called.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
You're voting on the amendment proposed by Mr. Kelloway first. That brings us back to the motion.
May 30th, 2024 / 5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
An hon. member
I have a point of order.