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.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
I would like to move a motion to amend if I can read that in.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
The amendment was just that at the end of the motion—where it says "June 6, 2024"—it be added that the findings of the committee be reported to the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Do we need to go to an individual vote, or is it unanimous consent for this?
Are members all good with it?
Liberal
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I will read through just what we're looking to replace, and then I will do the usual and read out the amended motion very quickly. I will make sure this is circulated around.
I move to amend the motion by replacing “Minister Diane Lebouthillier” with the "Department of Fisheries and Oceans” and replace “minister's” with “department's". I would also add "other stakeholders as required"; strike “Minister Diane Lebouthillier, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard”; add “Adam Burns, Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Harbour Management”; and strike “and that such appearances take place before the committee's study on derelict vessels, but begins no later than June 6, 2024.”
The amended motion would read:
That in relation to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans decision to backtrack on a lobster and crab fishing ban in waters less than 10 fathoms in LFA 23C, that the committee agrees to conduct a two-meeting study to review the department's decision and agrees to invite:
(a) stakeholders from the Maritime Fishermen's Union; and
(b) Annette Gibbons, Deputy Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; and Adam Burns, Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Harbour Management, and that the witnesses be asked to appear before the committee for two hours each.
We have a copy of this that can be circulated around.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I appreciate the Liberals' attempt to shield the minister from the decision made by her and her department, after which she had to go down and put toothpaste back in the tube and reverse her own decision. I think she is accountable for the department, the last time I checked the Parliament.
Obviously, you're trying to delay the urgency of this, because this is the period of time where right whales are present up and down and past Nova Scotia—by Mr. Kelloway's riding—and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as well. We could have another sighting any moment now, and the minister could make the same mistake.
I won't be supporting the amendment for the obvious reasons that I just stated. One, it shields the minister; and two, it doesn't have any urgency attached to it and the need to get this done. I think we need to get this done ASAP before we have another major mistake by this Liberal government in this regard.
Liberal
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chair, maybe just to correct my colleagues again, the minister already committed next week to have the protocol measure for a right whale review. On top of that, all of the industries in my region blamed DFO officials for the mess that we had last week. I just want to put that on the record.
Again, we want to get to the bottom of this, Mr. Chair. I do not agree with Mr. Perkins what he just said about the whales being here. Yes, they are here, but we already committed to review the measure.
On top of that, Mr. Chair, if you remember, this committee put a report together regarding protection measures for the right whale. This is what I want to know from DFO officials: did the DFO officials not retain one single recommendation from our report? There were some good measures and recommendations in it, and I think the DFO officials need to respond about what happened the past week here in my riding regarding the situation that we have with the whale.
Liberal
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
I'd also like to correct a few things.
The Leader of the Bloc Québécois asked the Prime Minister two questions directly on this subject. He did so very quickly, when the situation heated up on the New Brunswick side. We're very concerned, on the Quebec side as well, because this is obviously a problem that can happen regularly in Quebec, the Magdalen Islands and the Gaspé Peninsula. In this regard, I'd like to remind the committee that we held a fisheries round table in December 2022 and offered up a number of proposals on a silver platter to the minister and the department in 2022.
In light of what we were told by the scientist Lyne Morissette, who was completing a study on the cohabitation between fishers and the right whale at the time, I would also like to hear the department's explanations. However, I don't think the minister's absence can be constructive. I think she also needs to be here, if only to hear what her department officials have to say.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also am opposed to Mr. Kelloway's motion.
We have asked the previous ministers—multiple times, I believe—about who is ultimately responsible for that department, and the final decision comes down to the minister. Therefore, it was ultimately her decision that caused the chaos and havoc from this closure.
We need to hear from the minister. When she was considering this decision, was she aware of the unanimous report by this committee from our study on the protection of right whales, and if not, why was she not aware? Those are questions that only the minister can answer. Her staff cannot answer those questions for her, so we need to have the minister.
Thank you.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madame Desbiens said some of the things I was about to say, but I'll just add two more. One is just a reminder that while this incident was in MP Cormier's riding, the response affects all of our ridings, depending on where the next sighting is. The mistake could happen anywhere. It's not about the incident itself in that particular riding, but about the process that led to it.
I'll just remind Mr. Cormier, as a correction to his claim that it was DFO—unless the CBC is wrong, and far be it from me to criticize the CBC.... I'm going to quote from the CBC article here. In it, Mr. Cormier says, “I can no longer defend my government on this issue.” The last time I checked, “my government”, when it's said in the personal, is your government, the one that you're a member of. It doesn't say, “DFO”. It says, “my government”. Therefore, you laid the blame squarely on the minister's table, and that's why she needs to be here.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
We have to separate the politics from the practical issue here. More and more, what I hear is a growing lack of confidence in the decision-making process at the DFO. The minister normally has to take the lead because she's not out on the water; she's not in direct receipt of the data coming up. Of course, she's accountable, ultimately, but I rather liked Madame Desbiens' suggestion that she should be here in the room, but the big bright light should be down on the DFO for the input they gave her that led her to the decision that she ultimately had to retract.
I would go directly to Madame Desbiens' recommendation and support that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Hardie.
I apologize to Mr. Morrissey. He had his hand up before I went to Mr. Cormier, but when I went to go to Mr. Morrissey, he pointed at the screen, so I went to Mr. Cormier. I thought he was giving his time to Mr. Cormier.
We'll go back to Mr. Morrissey.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Cormier had his hand up first.
However, I agree with my colleague Mr. Hardie and conversed with Mr. Cormier extensively when the situation was developing.
As Madame Desbiens clearly articulated, yes, ministerial accountability is there, but I am increasingly frustrated with the decision-making process that comes from within senior management of the department.
That's where I want to spend the time. I agree with the two meetings that I believe the motion calls for with the senior officials who prepared the advice that was given to the minister.
The minister can defend herself very well in the House and in committee. I have no doubt about that at all. She is quite combative and is quite prepared to challenge her own departmental staff.
On this, Mr. Chair, I, for one, want to spend the time focused on the key officials who were responsible for providing the direction to the minister and how that information came about, where they received it and why it was not fundamentally but totally flawed, from what I understand.
As Mr. Arnold pointed out, this committee did a very thoughtful and thorough study on the situation of whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the other region, because it's going to be with us. It's increasing and it's actually moving. What region they will feed in will change as quickly as climate change affects the temperature of the gulf as well as the feeding patterns in the gulf.
Everything I heard I do not disagree with. Mr. Perkins as well articulated that it can happen anywhere. What is the next sighting going to be? Beyond this one in Mr. Cormier's area, there was also a closure, I believe, in the Bay of Fundy. Then, magically, that whale, from what I understand, disappeared, and then it was reversed.
The process has to be clear. When the committee studied this, there was a wide variance between the Canadian protocol on closing versus the American one. I want to ask the officials why we are sticking with the protocol that we have to shut down an area. We cannot have a protocol that—and I'm going to use a word that is maybe a bit strong—frivolously closes a fishery that involves well over 200 fishers, their families and their lives, as well as the plant workers who are supported.
I very much look forward to the committee calling the witnesses it identifies as being responsible for the information process that led to the decision. Ultimately, we're correct. The minister makes a decision. In this case, she very prudently, when given different information, had no problem making a decision very quickly. That's on the record. I do not have to re-examine that, Mr. Chair, but I very much, as a member of this committee and as a member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, want to hold accountable the senior management of that department that was responsible for the information for maintaining a protocol for well over a year that didn't change after the committee did a thorough study and provided very thoughtful recommendations to the ministry on this and on why I don't believe any of it was adopted by the departmental officials.
Again, the committee will choose by majority decision, but I prefer to focus my time, when we do get to this, on questioning at length the officials who provided the information that allowed the department to have a year lapse by since last year's incidents. It still has not adjusted anything as it relates to closure protocols based on the work this committee did and based on the information that's used by the United States.
Everybody, including fishers.... I was very impressed to watch a newscast where a fisher was interviewed and expressed at length their desire to ensure the protection of the North Atlantic right whale. They were supportive of fisheries that coexist...between the industry and protecting the whale.
I know that the point behind reaching out and bringing the minister in is always to get clips here with the minister. However, on this one, I think if we're concerned about the industry and about the communities that are impacted, this committee will focus on the people who are engaged and who accepted the positions within the ministry to make the decisions on ensuring that the information that gets to the minister of the day is 100% accurate because these decisions have a tremendous impact and affect quite a few people.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I will not support the motion as it was presented. I do support the amendment, which allows the committee to quickly get to examining the process within the department that allowed the decision to be made.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
With all due respect to my colleague, I'm just wondering, Mr. Chair, if we should be considering the time and whether we should let our witnesses leave the meeting. It seems like this is going to be continuing for quite a while. I'm unsure whether we will be able to get back to the witnesses.
To the chair, I'm asking that we release the witnesses, so that they do not have to participate against their will in this debate.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
To Mr. Westley, Mr. Curtis and, of course, Chief Pitka, thank you for your appearance here before committee, albeit on Zoom, and for sharing your knowledge on this important topic, as we were discussing.
I'll let you sign off now instead of listening—
