Fisheries Committee on Oct. 7th, 2024

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Chair, in no way is that harassing the witness. We saw far worse that took place in committees over many years. I don't think Mr. Small has come to that level at all. He's just trying to get a clear answer from the witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess Mr. Burns is not going to be able to answer that question.

Mr. Burns, you were head of Canada's delegation to NAFO last year. How high could the stewardship quota have gone before the northern cod fishery would have to become classified as a commercial fishery? Is there a figure?

[Adam Burns]

The answer is no, there's no specific TAC that would have triggered something. In the NAFO measures it was specific to the initiation of a commercial fishery. However, to have a commercial fishery on a stock that's in the cautious zone is a very standard thing. The risk to Canada was that, were the minister to have increased the stewardship fishery by a sufficient amount anyway, it was possible that other NAFO contracting parties could have perceived that as a commercial fishery and taken the matters into their own hands.

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

Was there any pressure placed on the Canadian delegation in those meetings, by NAFO, to classify the fishery as a commercial fishery?

[Adam Burns]

NAFO contracting parties paid close attention to the Canadian science and Canadian management decisions. Canada worked hard and continues to work hard to defend the fact that this is a Canadian-managed stock. There was definitely consistent interest in the level of access being provided and the nature of the stewardship fishery at the time.

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

Thank you.

“Interest”, but not pressure: You wouldn't classify it as pressure.

[Adam Burns]

Again, I don't know what level would have triggered other contracting parties to take an action against Canada at the commission, but I do think that were we to have increased the—

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

Where did the pressure come from to reclassify the stewardship fishery to a commercial fishery?

What pressure were you under, Mr. Burns? What can you tell the committee about that when that decision was being made?

[Adam Burns]

As this committee will know, in the fall of 2023 a framework assessment was undertaken, which enabled DFO science to incorporate more historic data into the model. Based on that, the stock was deemed to be in the cautious zone, and it would be a typical approach to fisheries management to have a commercial fishery on a stock in the cautious zone.

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

We have court documents that tell us the minister's staff stated that a commercial reopening of this fishery would be a political win. Are you familiar with that?

[Adam Burns]

I can't speak to the political advice that was provided to the—

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

Did you have any dealings with the minister's staff while this decision was being made?

[Adam Burns]

We provide briefings to the minister and her staff related to the consultations that have been undertaken, the science process, our policy framework—

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

We understand that science did not want the decision that was made. Can you confirm that?

[Adam Burns]

No, I can't confirm that. I can simply refer back to the advice the department provided to the minister, which presented a series of options for the management of this fishery.

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

Thank you, Mr. Burns.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll now go to Mr. Kelloway for six minutes.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Before I begin my questions, I'd like to read a motion into the record for the committee as follows. I move:

That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans proceeds to the study on the statutory review of the Fisheries Act in order that [we] might further strengthen owner-operator rules and enforcement measures given the Conservative Party of Canada's hidden agenda to gut owner-operator on the East Coast much as they did in British Columbia when they were last in power. Furthermore, once the study begins, it shall not be interrupted by anything other than the scheduled ministerial appearance, hearings on [wrecked] and abandoned vessels, or an emergency meeting as defined by...[section] 106(4) [of the Standing Orders].

Mr. Chair, at this time, I'd like to seek unanimous consent to bypass the normal 48-hour notice period and debate this motion today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Arnold, you had your hand up.

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

No unanimous consent to continue this....

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I'm seeking unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, and they're saying no. There's no unanimous consent.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Okay. There is no unanimous consent, but before I go to my questions, I think this is highlighting a bit of a hidden agenda when it comes to what I hope is not gutting the owner-operator policy, and I would ask that this motion be considered as having gone on notice.

I'll move on to my questions.

Mr. Burns, some allegations have been made that the 19,000 tonnes is too low a number to be called a commercial fishery. I'd like to ask you how many commercial fisheries in Canada exist that have a higher TAC than 19,000 tonnes? How many are lower? Also, can you give the committee some examples of commercial fisheries with a lower TAC?

Can you table with this committee a document or spreadsheet—whatever works—that gives this committee some perspective on the sizes of Canada's various commercial fisheries and their TAC by tonnage?

[Adam Burns]

Mr. Chair, I don't have a list with me today of the quotas that have been assigned, the TACs that have been assigned, for all of the commercial fisheries. We'd be happy to provide that.

I can speak to a couple of management plans that are certainly lower than the almost 19,000 when you consider the NAFO stock. For example, Newfoundland capelin in NAFO division 2+3 for the current cycle is at 14,533. Greenland halibut in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is at 2,400 tonnes. Northern shrimp in area 6 off Newfoundland is 9,430. What I can tell the committee is that there are very many stocks with less than a 19,000-tonne TAC.