Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I was saying, I recall, long before I came to this committee, back in 2010 and 2011, the sockeye fishery on the Fraser, up into the Thompson River and into the interior was so strong that the fish were lined up head to tail, three feet off the riverbank in clear water, three and four abreast as far up and down the river as you could see. Our local sporting goods store brought in all the gear that he could possibly get. He was selling salmon fishing packages—$69 for a rod and reel—and then bottom-bouncing weights and gear. You could easily be set up for $100, go down and fish that river, but he sold out every piece that he had. Then, when the salmon declined, he had all that inventory left. It sat there for years on the shelf. He had no way of selling it because there was no opportunity for harvest.
Actions could have been taken under the Fisheries Act as it existed, possibly. However, we've seen recommendations from the west coast salmon study that Mr. Hardie put forward. We've seen other recommendations over the years that would have helped not just the commercial fishery but the recreational fisheries as well—actions that weren't taken. We need to know why, and that's why I've put this motion forward that we hear from the department on the actual actions and work completed, because if the department hasn't taken action or completed the work that was enabled by the changes that were made the last time around, why would we look at making changes again?
If the department hasn't been able to train enforcement officers and give the tools and resources to those who are out there to serve and protect the resource—the C and P officers we hear about in Nova Scotia, who are saying they're not going to work because of lack of support from the department—what is it in the act that prevents the minister or the government from giving those officers the resources they need so that they can do the job they were trained to do, are passionate about and want to do but don't feel they can because they don't feel safe?
The Fisheries Act, as we heard in a lot of testimony, pertains to activities in the marine environment or fish habitat protection. Once the fish reach the dock, then it becomes provincial jurisdiction or responsibility. What actions has the government taken that are allowed within the current Fisheries Act to bridge that gap that seems to happen where the tracking, whether for elvers or lobsters, disappears when it reaches the dock, and that is there because someone wants to say, “Well, it's not my jurisdiction, it's your jurisdiction.” From provincial to federal government, federal to provincial government, we hear this going back and forth. In fact, we saw a letter that was released, just in the last few days here, of the federal minister shirking responsibility...back to the province, stating that the sale of lobsters is provincial jurisdiction. How are those lobsters harvested and tracked to get there?
Those are the pieces we need to understand. We also need to know what actions the ministry or the minister or the PMO have taken to address those gaps. Are there actual gaps in the act or are there gaps in the actions? I would suspect there are gaps in the actions or there are roadblocks being put up. Until we hear from the department on these issues, I would be hesitant to make any recommendations from a review that this committee does without knowing if the department has taken actions on the recommendations that have been made.
Another study we've done, Mr. Chair, was on the traceability of seafood products. We saw there was a commitment from the government to build a boat-to-plate traceability program. I don't recall whether that was a platform commitment, but it was certainly a statement from this current government that they would develop a boat-to-plate traceability program so Canadians could know where their seafood is coming from, how it was caught and how it was processed. Interestingly enough, when we heard of the review of the Fisheries Act coming up, we started to see stories of the untraceability of fish and seafood products. We heard about how there are basically what some have called, I believe, slave operations on the squid boats, on vessels supported and resourced by the Communist Party of China. We heard about their impacts on people. There are people who have been basically dropped off on shore when a vessel made a quick stop and have died shortly afterwards because of poor living conditions on the vessel. Some of these people are stuck on these boats for months, if not years, at a time. Yet there seems to be a gap in this.
Some of these issues were dealt with in the report on traceability of fish and seafood products tabled June 15, 2022, and recommendations were made. We also heard there was a lot of passing of the buck between DFO and what they're responsible for.... They're only responsible for fisheries in Canadian waters and they do participate in some international fisheries monitoring, but we heard very little of actions dealing with the bad actors. They report it to the country of origin of the vessel, but it sounds like there was very little that ever came back about what actions were taken.
Then we heard about the passing of the buck between DFO, CBSA and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. One said, we only determine that product coming into Canada is allowed to come into Canada. We don't check it for food safety. We don't check it for origin or how it was produced. The other said, we don't check where it came from, we just check that it is safe for Canadians to consume. There were recommendations in those reports.
If there need to be changes to the Fisheries Act, then what actions has the department or the minister or the PMO taken to address what has taken place?
How do we bridge those gaps so that they aren't gaps anymore so that Canadians can feel confident when they go to the grocery store to buy seafood—something specific, such as cod—that they're not going to be sold cheap pollock or something from somewhere else that can't be traced because it came in from overseas? We don't know what takes place because fish that is caught in Canada is quite often either sold or transferred offshore to be processed. There is no tracking of it offshore, so when it comes back to Canada, is it truly what it says it is?
We heard from Oceana, I believe it was, which did a test of supermarket off-the-shelf seafood in Canada and found that up to 78% of the seafood that it purchased off of grocery store shelves was not what it was supposed to be, not what was indicated on the label. In fact, even Mr. Perkins brought in some pictures of some samples because he went shopping in the supermarkets. That's how efficient and effective the members of this committee are. We'll spend our own dollars to go out and see what's out there, to see how legitimate it is.
What actions has the department taken to address the recommendations in that report? One of the more current ones is the allocation of resources of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, tabled on November 29, 2023—quite recently. I think almost all members of this committee were here for that one, with the exception of Mr. Weiler.
Welcome to the committee, Mr. Weiler. It's good to see you here.
That allocation of resources.... We've recently seen indication that the machinery of government would be moved from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to Global Affairs Canada. This sounded like fantastic news, but what we've recently seen are appointments to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission that may make the conflict of interest even worse than it was previously, appointments that are very concerning to the Canadian members of the commission.
What recommendations did the department and all the way up to the Prime Minister's office—because we know that decision went that far up, right to the PMO's office and sat there for months...? What actions were taken within the act to enable that transfer?
Mr. Chair, I wish I would have had time to count up the number of recommendations that this committee has made and then tally up the ones that have been ignored or basically passed off or not completed. That's what we're asking for in this motion that says:
that the committee will not begin the Fisheries Act review until it has received from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) comprehensive briefings updating the committee on the actions and work completed....
When we see responses saying that consultations have begun—planning to plan, as I mentioned, the integrated fisheries management plans—and when an entire department has an answer to a commissioner's, instead of saying, “We are going to implement these integrated fisheries management plans, and here is a timeline,” their response was that they would develop a plan to develop the integrated fisheries management plans. They had no timelines, dates or commitments.
Speaking of commitment, that's one thing I've seen continuously in the response to the recommendations. There have been no time commitments and no commitments to finding a resolution for the stakeholders: the first nations, and the harvesters in communities that are so heavily impacted. Some of them are impacted the moment a decision or an announcement is made, and then it's years down the road before an implementation plan is developed or a draft is even produced for the actions identified in the announcement.
It's this lack of adequate response.... I guess that's what I'll call it. There are a lot of names or acronyms that could be provided. Again, the overall actions and how the department has delivered on recommendations are appalling to me, as a member. I think it's appalling to many of the members around the table. The process by which we get some of these responses.... They are slow. They are written in bureaucratic language. To tell you the truth, I'd feel better if somebody just told me to my face, “We're not going to do what you said we should do”—
