Fisheries Committee on Oct. 7th, 2024

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madam Desbiens. You're little bit over, but not too much.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes, please.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I know I've mentioned this before, but I need to reiterate the implications of what we're talking about today.

I was born and raised in St. John's, Newfoundland, right downtown. As a result of the cod moratorium, my family picked up our entire lives and drove from St. John's, Newfoundland to Nanaimo, British Columbia, which we now call home.

These decisions being made have real implications on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and, quite frankly, on people across Canada, because we know that all the fishing that happens benefits Canadians across the country. It is incredibly disappointing to see the way in which this has been handled to date. I really wish that the minister were here today to see us working together for the solutions required and that we were able to ask her these exact questions.

We know that historic overfishing by offshore draggers was a primary factor that contributed to the collapse of northern cod in Newfoundland, yet we're seeing decisions being made that feel like an endless cycle of making the same decisions. Not only that—the overfishing that occurred—we had people in decision-making positions who allowed this to happen.

Mr. Burns, I'm wondering if you could please tell me if you agree with this. We've heard referenced many times today the promise that was made. I want to be very clear. The promise was that the first 115,000 metric tons of 2J3KL northern cod quota would be allocated only to inshore and indigenous groups before offshore corporate groups gained access.

That was the promise made. I know that you can't speak to the decisions made by the minister. I understand that. I won't ask you to try to do that, but would you agree that this promise that was made over and over by the Prime Minister to people in Newfoundland and Labrador was not met?

[Adam Burns]

In the decision in June, when the minister announced her decision, her announcement at that time made note of the fact that her objective here was to ensure year-round employment stemming from the northern cod fishery, and in order to do that, there needs to be a year-round supply—

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Burns. Just as a note on that, employment for who specifically?

[Adam Burns]

That is the employment related to the processing sector, the jobs in processing plants—for example, in Arnold's Cove—as well as the crews on offshore fishing vessels, who largely are individuals living in Newfoundland and Labrador and, certainly, as well, important employment and economic benefits to inshore and midshore harvesters as well.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Burns.

The promise was to allocate only to inshore and indigenous groups. You're talking about the employment of offshore corporate groups.

Again, I understand what you're saying, but would you not agree that the promise was not met? Because we know that there are economic and historic reasons why the inshore fleet was supposed to be prioritized, what are your thoughts as to why the minister did not follow through with this promise that was made on multiple occasions to inshore and indigenous fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Adam Burns]

As I've noted, in the minister's announcement in June, she laid out the rationale for her decision and specifically focused on her objective of year-round economic benefits, year-round employment flowing from this fishery, and, as such, the need for year-round supply.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Burns.

Through the chair, Mr. Burns, we heard the minister say to Radio-Canada that, “we are revitalizing this fishery carefully”.

We know what options you presented to the minister. Do you think this is in fact a careful approach, like she was quoting, when in fact it is the least careful of all the approaches that has been moved forward by the minister?

[Adam Burns]

When the department presents the minister with advice, we only present options that are viable options. The option the minister decided upon we believe to be a viable option. In fact, the science advice indicates that there is a very significant probability that the stock will remain in the cautious zone, and indeed, it is only about 1% lower probability than were the minister to have rolled over the stewardship fishery.

The difference between the commercial fishery, which is now in place, and the stewardship fishery, which was previously in place, of course is not the full 18,000 tonnes. It's only a difference of 5,000 tonnes for Canadian harvesters and, as I note, the science advice based on that is a very limited difference in the impact on the stock.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Burns.

Could you please explain—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron. There are only about six seconds left in your questioning time, so you won't get an answer if you do get a question out.

We'll move on now to Mr. Arnold for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll just open by stating that I'm disappointed that Mr. Kelloway would be spreading mistruths and disinformation. I think he ought to be better spending his time focusing on the failures of his government in the nine years that it's been in power and has been delivering some of the programs he's referencing, instead of speculating on what other parties might be into.

I will start by thanking the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Burns, you mentioned the 2023 CSAS process and the decision. In that decision-making process, the science advice was looked at and considered, obviously. The stock was determined to be in the cautious zone. Was the minister made aware of the 2015 promise in the decision-making process?

[Adam Burns]

Certainly, the promise you're referring to was referenced in the stocks integrated fisheries management plan. In the decision memo, which I know you've seen as well, I have to tell you that I'm not sure if the specific reference was there, but there are a number of factors that would have been included in terms of consideration for them.

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

Would you not have been quite involved in that decision-making process? I'm surprised that you took a long pause to state, yes or no, whether the minister was aware of that 2015 promise in the decision-making process.

[Adam Burns]

It was referenced in the decision memo.

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

Was the minister aware?

[Adam Burns]

I can't speak to what she was specifically aware of or not. I can speak to what was in the materials.

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

Okay. Did she decide to basically ignore that promise, or was she not aware of it?

[Adam Burns]

As I've noted, in her June decision, she laid out the rationale for her allocation decision, which was focused on year-round employment and on the benefits that would flow from that to Newfoundland communities. I can speak to that, in terms of the rationale for her decision, which she has stated in the announcement of her decision.

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

Thank you.

In your earlier testimony here, you mentioned the actions that would be taken by vessels that did not have observers on board and that were found to be in contravention of regulations. How would you know if a vessel was in contravention of regulations if they did not have observers on board, when we've heard that the offshore patrols have actually been, I believe, reduced by almost 50%, if not more? How would you even know if an international vessel was in contravention?

[Adam Burns]

Certainly Canada plays an important role in monitoring, control and surveillance within the NAFO regulatory area, as does the European Union. Indeed, we, from time to time, have officers from one on the other's vessels as well. What I can say—and I did consult with the Canadian Coast Guard this morning related to this—is that it is anticipated that the situation with respect to Coast Guard vessel availability should stabilize for the 2025 fiscal year, once the Leonard Cowley returns to service upon completion of its vessel life extension work and the Coast Guard is able to return to its historic commitment of two offshore patrol vessels dedicated to the NAFO program. We anticipate having a very robust presence.

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

What does “stabilize” mean? Does that mean stabilized at the reduced level, or is that returning to a previous level of patrols?

[Adam Burns]

My understanding is that the Coast Guard vessels were undergoing the vessel life extension. That is expected to be completed, so it would be a return to the two vessels, which would enable a further enhancement to our presence within the NAFO regulatory area to undertake at-sea inspections.

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

Thank you.

Before I run out of time here, you also mentioned that the minister made this decision with the goal of providing year-round employment, yet the season was scheduled to close, I believe, in November. It was closed earlier. I think the announcement was Sunday, September 26. It closed that early. That's certainly not year-round employment. Can you square that circle for us?