Fisheries Committee on Oct. 9th, 2024

[Gerry Byrne]

I would think that within the context of the Westminster parliamentary democracy and the cabinet process, that would be a reasonably minded expectation of the ministers, in cabinet solidarity.

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

If you had to go contrary to that announcement by your premier, would you be expected to explain that to your constituents?

[Gerry Byrne]

I have the advantage of having a very progressive premier. If I took a position that was different from his, I am blessed by the fact that, through the presentation of fact, logic and evidence, my premier would be prepared to change his mind if there was cause to change his mind.

I really appreciate the fact I have a very progressive premier.

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

What do you believe was the reason the federal fisheries minister made an announcement contradictory to what her Prime Minister had publicly stated in his 2015 promise?

[Gerry Byrne]

Mr. Chair, if the members of the committee approve, what I'd like to do is answer that question by removing the politics from it and just using the facts and the evidence. I sat not in this room, but in the committee room back in 2008, when then-associate deputy minister David Bevan said this to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans:

That policy was put in place as we made significant decisions, for example, on 2J3KL cod. The first 115,000 tonnes go to the inshore and the remainder would be shared between the inshore and the offshore.

I'm demonstrating this because it has been a government policy.

The second thing I will note for the committee is that it is not unreasonable for someone to come to the conclusion that the Government of Canada's long-standing policy has been that inshore-offshore split. I'll cite the allocation policy for northern cod that the current Government of Canada articulated as recently as June 2021, in the 2021 2J3KL northern cod stewardship fishery management approach by DFO. The report reads:

The 2021 Management approach also includes a decision to allocate the first 115,000 t of Northern cod to the inshore sector and Indigenous groups. When a total allowable catch (TAC) for Northern (2J3KL) cod is established, the first 115,000 t of directed Canadian access will be allocated to the inshore sector and Indigenous groups in Newfoundland and Labrador. At a TAC level less than or equal to 115,000 t—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

We've gone way over the time. I have to get to Ms. Thompson for five minutes or less, please.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am so pleased to be able to join this committee today. For me, it's particularly special. My grandfather was a schooner captain in the days of wooden dories going over the side on the Grand Banks, and I have family who are still involved in the fishery.

It's a very important conversation. I will say to you what I say consistently, which is that conservation must be at the forefront of our decisions. I think we have an opportunity this year to be able to build on the science that we know was missing from the Harper days, when there were significant cuts, as well as due to the challenges through the COVID years.

I'm also really pleased to note that we are on target with our marine conservation areas. That's very helpful when we open the 6% allocation to the offshore.

What I'm struggling with today is the inconsistencies in so much of what I'm hearing.

Mr. Small, to you, the letter of May 9 to the minister, which I know has been tabled—I won't read it out again—asked for a larger allocation than was decided on in the end. There's a link to the focus on the economy. Also, in a follow-up note, which I thought was very unscientific, you wrote, “I look forward to hearing from you soon. Otherwise, be prepared for blitz in question period and all media.” I find that a bit political and partisan.

Within the provincial government, there are the letters that, again, were tabled from 2021, 2023, 2024 and, of course, today on allocations, different fisheries ministers and different perspectives. When we speak to joint management, what does that look like when we've seen such inconsistencies over the last number of years?

Mr. Byrne, this question is for you. On the day the northern cod moratorium was reopened, Premier Furey tweeted, “Our province has waited a long time for the end of the Northern Cod moratorium. A sustainable harvest that provides maximum benefits for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is most important. The return of the Northern Cod fishery will support local jobs and boost our economy.”

I should note that the tweet remains on his Twitter feed to this day. A copy will be tabled with the clerk so that it can be used in the report writing process.

Mr. Byrne, the premier celebrated the news with this tweet because the minister did more or less exactly what the province asked for in 2021 and 2023. Can you tell me—your stance has been different—why this tweet is still up to this day?

[Gerry Byrne]

I don't think anyone should be in the business of cancelling history or revising what has been said, but I think we should all be in the business of putting a context to information and not attempting to weaponize it.

In 2021, the Government of Canada made a clear, unequivocal statement that the first 115,000 metric tons would indeed be going exclusively to the inshore. In 2022, the Government of Canada said the 2021 plan would be a rollover of the previous plan. The events that established the 115,000-metric-ton threshold have a 25-year-old history—

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Excuse me, Minister Byrne. I'm truly sorry to interrupt, but I have limited time.

The challenge is that the letters from the former fishery ministers contradict what you're saying. In terms of management, we have different opinions within a very short period of time. What I'm trying to understand is where the consistency is when we talk about being able to co-manage or being able to understand from a provincial-federal perspective how you want to move forward with the fishery.

[Gerry Byrne]

The honourable member is wrong. The context is taken inappropriately. The interpretation is taken inappropriately. We all have a celebration when, because of hard work, discipline and stalwart adherence to science, a quota could come up when we do the necessary stewardship. That is a celebration worth having.

However, we also recognize that there is a principle amongst all around the table, from the FFAW to the Government of Canada to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, whereby if we respect and understand the 115,000 metric ton principle, we acknowledge that there is a future role for the offshore. We all have to say that and say it out loud. There will be a future role for the offshore. Here is the point that is often missed, though. Since NAFO became involved, we are now forced to be in a defensive position, and this was the mistake of allowing NAFO to be able to be engaged in this fishery.

Mr. Chair, I'd really appreciate, if I'm going to be asked a question, the opportunity to be able to answer it.

Here is where a mistake was made. When NAFO became involved, we automatically were put in a defensive position, because, if we did not take every pound of fish that was allocated to Canada out of the water, then guess who comes looking for it: Russia.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

On that note about time to answer a question or to ask it, the member owns the time. If it goes over and the answer is not given, the witnesses are always asked if they could please provide that in writing, if we know they haven't got time to answer it, or whatever. If there's something that any of the witnesses have been asked here today and haven't had a chance to answer or to finish answering, they're more than welcome to submit an answer to the clerk, and it will be included in the study.

I'll now move on to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes, please, or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Byrne, you said that the worst-case scenario was coming true, that we hadn't learned anything from the past. That's what I'm saying too, as are many Quebec fishermen.

In Quebec, we're asking that the people on the ground be given a better hearing; we need a better reading of what the reality on the ground is telling us. There have been several fishing closures in our region, leaving fishers completely destitute. And yet, they were providing important data; I'm thinking in particular of mackerel fishers.

Today, you argue that we should insist more on the federal government decentralizing our decision-making powers regarding the measures and direction of our fisheries.

Could you elaborate on your thoughts?

[Gerry Byrne]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Not only do I say that, but so does every premier of every province and every territory in Canada, in our federation, including the Premier of Quebec and including the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. All 13 premiers of our country, of our federation, argue that there should be a decentralized structure.

In July 2024, Dr. Andrew Furey brought forward to the Council of the Federation the matter of joint management, the opportunity for joint management. All premiers of Canada—the 13 premiers from 10 of the provinces and three of the territories—agreed that joint management would produce a better result for Canada's marine resources. That's one of the things I attempted to bring to the floor at the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers in August 2024, and I was informed by the federal minister of the day, at the time, that there shall be no discussions surrounding any conversation or any conclusions made by the Council of the Federation because that has no place at the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers. It was not allowed to be included in the communiqué, in the discussion. That, Mr. Chair, I don't think is appropriate behaviour, given the nature of our federation.

The second thing that I will say is that Newfoundland and Labrador is advancing a very specific request for joint management. That is a healthy proposition, because it allows a better sounding board for important decisions to be made and to be more collegial and more collaborative, and, I think, would lead to better results of the process. If anyone needs to know what happens when DFO does not collaborate, look at season 2024.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for two and a half minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Rose, you spoke about the lack of precautionary management. We know how important that is. It's within the sustainable fisheries framework. It's used to ensure conservation and the sustainable use of resources. These are things you already know.

Can you tell me a little more about the lack of precautionary management that you've seen and what that means for the decisions that are being made around cod stocks?

[Dr. George Rose]

Until this year the management that was imposed was precautionary. The new announcement from the ministry, especially introducing two new entrants in the offshore, is not.

You have to realize that the stock itself is at a fraction of what it was historically. It hasn't grown in seven to eight years. Its net productivity has basically been zero. Even more worrisome are the stock assessment forecasts that the stock will decline in the coming years, almost no matter what we do, because of poor environmental conditions for it right now. Increasing fisheries right now is rolling the dice on putting this fishery back below the new LRP.

You must realize that we aren't confident that we're above the LRP now. If we look at this statistically—I don't want to get into too much of that, because everybody will roll their eyes—we see that we are not significantly above the LRP right now, as we speak. Imposing new fisheries, increasing quota significantly at this time, just doesn't seem to be precautionary to me.

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

Thank you, Dr. Rose.

I have only 10 seconds left, so I would love for you to provide in writing a bit of an expansion on what you were talking about, about rewriting science and the implications that can have on the future sustainability of cod. If we are using science that is so new and then making management decisions based on that science being rewritten, I would love to better understand that and be able to utilize that for the recommendations we'll be putting together for the government.

I don't have time to get a response from you right now. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You're right, Ms. Barron.

We'll now go to Mr. Small for five minutes or less.

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

Back in the day, in 2017, Dr. Carruthers, there was a study done here in this very—according to the Honourable Gerry Byrne—friendly committee. Recommendation 7 was:

That Fisheries and Oceans Canada make every effort to control the seal populations through a sustainable and responsible harvest, to ensure that the seal populations do not prevent the northern cod stock from replenishing in the future.

This is in this study, in this non-partisan document right here—an all-committee, all-party document.

Now, you mentioned there was some unknown mortality. Do you think that could be from seal predation?

[Dr. Erin Carruthers]

There is an increased seal population in the southern portion of the 2J3KL stock. That is particularly in areas like Renews and stuff like that. That is true. However, the natural mortality spike that I was speaking about was how the current DFO model tries to explain what happened in the collapse between 1992 and 1994. This is what I was trying articulate with my reference to natural mortality.

Did I answer your question, Mr. Small?

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

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Ms. Street.

Congratulations on becoming the incoming president of FFAW Unifor in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In our last committee meeting—I don't know if you saw it or not—we had Assistant Deputy Minister Burns explain to us that Minister Lebouthillier could not help the Prime Minister uphold his promise to the insurer for the 115,000 tonnes. He basically said that the minister decided to go with a commercial fishery because it would provide year-round employment.

We have a quota set at about 18,000 metric tons here. What do you think of that? Do you think the minister has achieved her goal of providing year-round employment from the northern cod fishery?

[Dwan Street]

Absolutely not. I said in my opening remarks that 75% of the inshore allocation was landed in four weeks this year. If we're looking at year-round employment on northern cod, obviously it's very far down the road. Employment in Newfoundland and Labrador in the fishery can be year-round, but it's based on a multispecies fishery.

I did hear Mr. Burns's comments, and I find any insinuation that we're going to be harvesting on a stock 365 days a year very troubling. We even had, at NAFO this year, Mr. Burns, who was head of the delegation, stressing that we needed a seasonal closure when it came to the offshore, whether that be domestic or international. To even insinuate that we're going to harvest a stock year-round is problematic. I just look at the 3Ps fishery right now. We don't harvest that year-round, even though that is commercial. I don't think that statement really holds any true weight.

The largest groundfish plant in Newfoundland and Labrador right now, which is Icewater Seafoods, does operate pretty much year-round, and that's on a number of different products and secondary processing. I don't think it's a valid reason on northern cod.

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

Thank you, Ms. Street.

I have right here the NAFO meeting minutes going back to 2020. I did a word search, looking for northern cod. The assistant deputy ministers who were here earlier this week, and the officials, insinuated that there had been pressure from NAFO to convert from a stewardship fishery to a commercial fishery. We couldn't really find much of that—any reference to northern cod at all—in those NAFO meeting minutes.

Are you aware of any pressure in the last five years, like seriously, coming from NAFO to convert this fishery to a commercial fishery so that they could get access? What's your opinion?

[Dwan Street]

I don't have any personal knowledge of any pressure at NAFO.

I did attend my first NAFO annual meeting this year. Unfortunately, the decision had already been made at that point.

What I will say is that if there had been pressure, whether that was in side conversations or in bilats at NAFO, I think it's the duty of the Canadian delegation and the head of delegation to push back and not buckle to that pressure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

We'll now go to Ms. Jones for five minutes or less, please.