Fisheries Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

[Adam Burns]

The decision that was made was based on evidence that the size of the redfish was sufficient to get a sufficiently high price in the market and to make it a viable fishery. If there were no benefits to fishing this resource, fishers wouldn't do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madam Desbiens.

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

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

Thank you, Chair, and welcome.

My first question is for you, Mr. Burns.

In the 2023 report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, which, as we know, this committee studied, we heard that, overall, Fisheries and Oceans Canada remains unable to collect the dependable and timely catch data that it needs to sustainably manage commercial marine fisheries and protect Canada's fish stocks. We know that the report takes note of an internal DFO briefing note from 2020 stressing the need to improve data collection and indicating that e-logs would be mandatory by 2023. We know that that has not happened. We know that harvesters are still continuing to use paper logs, and I was hoping you could clarify for us today if that commitment remains to mandate the introduction of national e-logs for the 2025 season across Canada.

[Adam Burns]

Thanks.

To answer those questions, I can note that in the beginning of last year, in 2023, the government made an investment of $30.9 million over five years to implement the fisheries monitoring policy. That work is now under way across all fisheries—looking at the various data needs and approaches in order to collect that necessary data to support the management, the enforcement, the science basis of these fisheries.

In terms of e-logs, we're working with third party providers to develop the necessary applications. Several of those are now ready and in some instances have been deployed in fisheries. We anticipate that several other fisheries will have these e-logs deployed next year.

I can also note that we are piloting some electronic monitoring tools, for example, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence redfish fishery, and those are also obviously used in other fisheries in Canada.

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

Thank you, Mr. Burns.

That's a lot of good information. Perhaps I can ask for some further clarification at our next meeting, because I only have another few minutes left.

I have so many questions I want to ask, and it is a little frustrating that I have to focus on these questions in particular about lighthouse keepers being removed. However, I'm getting endless concerns expressed about the safety implications for coastal communities and mariners, so I want to dig into these issues a little more.

I apologize, Mr. Pelletier, for cutting you off earlier. I wanted to hear from the minister directly.

A geo-hazard risk assessment report from 2024 cites reports from 2018 that outlined risks to structures at the Pachena Point and Carmanah Point light stations.

I'm wondering when these reports were made available to the public and the lighthouse keepers.

[Mario Pelletier]

The lighthouse keepers and the union have the report. They've had it for a number of weeks now.

As soon as we received the 2024 report, which identified a high risk to the occupants of the infrastructure, we had a responsibility to act promptly and discuss the safety risk with the light keepers and the union. That's an obligation under the Labour Code. We had to take action to protect them, and that's what we're doing right now.

After that, we'll look at potential solutions. Right now, it's about protecting the safety of the light keepers.

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

Thank you. I can appreciate how that is very important.

When were the 2018 reports that are referenced made available to the lighthouse keepers—the ones that talked about the safety concerns at these two light stations?

[Mario Pelletier]

I wasn't aware of the 2018 reports until just before the 2024 report, so I'm not sure how broadly...but we can get back to you.

I know there was an action plan to try to see what was in the realm of possibility in terms of protecting the infrastructure. It got delayed and was very costly, so we had to look at reinvestment. Meanwhile, because of the potential high risk to the occupants, we asked for the geo-hazard assessment.

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

The reason I'm asking these questions is that concerns were brought to my attention about risks associated with these light stations. They were available in 2018, but they were only made available to them in the last few weeks. They're questioning whether their safety was being put at the forefront, since these reports were sat on for six years. Now, suddenly, they're being moved on. There are some questions being asked around that. Was the Labour Code followed? Why weren't they made aware for six years, if there were safety implications?

Perhaps you could provide some additional information in writing about that. If you would like to know what reports I'm talking about specifically, we can continue that conversation.

Do you have any comment about the concerns that were brought to my attention?

[Mario Pelletier]

Like I said, the people in charge of all infrastructure at DFO looked at what could be done to remediate that. The first thing was the geotechnical assessment, not the geo-hazard assessment. Basically, we had knowledge in our hands that there was some instability in the ground, and they looked at a potential solution. When it started taking too long, I asked for the second report to be produced, in order to make sure we address the hazards to the occupants of the buildings.

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

Thank you.

If these two light stations are being de-staffed, what is the plan to ensure the safety of coastal communities?

[Mario Pelletier]

Right now, the plan is to make sure they are safe. That's going to happen in the next couple of weeks. It takes a lot of logistics, because that's their home. After that, we'll sit down with our team in real property and look at what's possible to do. Is it possible to move the infrastructure?

To ensure the safety of navigators, the light itself has to be moved, because it's very unstable. It will be the priority, because that light is directly serving the mariners.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron. You've gone over by a bit, but that's fine.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the three who are here to testify today. I appreciate it.

I especially thank you, Mr. Pelletier, and all of your Coast Guard members so bravely serving to protect our coastline. I want to pass on my expression of gratitude for their work.

I'll start with Mr. Burns, if I may.

Mr. Burns, how long have you been in the position of ADM at the department?

[Adam Burns]

It's a little over two years.

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

Over two years, so you should be quite well-versed on activities within the department and work being done.

[Adam Burns]

Sure. Yes.

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

Yes? Okay.

In the December 2021 mandate letter to the minister, which is still referred to on the Government of Canada's DFO website, it included instructions to work to introduce Canada's first-ever aquaculture act. That mandate letter was from December 2021. That's almost three years ago now. What progress has been made towards that goal?

[Niall O'Dea]

If I might, Chair, I can help to address the question.

There has been work with provincial and territorial counterparts on advancing work with respect to the aquaculture act, including, in particular, in the context of CCFAM, the Canadian Committee of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers. That has been a work of collaboration amongst them. Policy development continues within the department and stakeholders, with work ongoing on the aquaculture transition plan and others. That work has been appropriately prioritized against the active work on the transition plan and other activities.

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

How close would you think we are to seeing a plan? Will it happen before we head to an election, which could be any day now, given the dumpster fires that this government is dealing with on a daily basis?

[Niall O'Dea]

That work is ongoing. I couldn't speak to whether it would be available before the election or not.

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

Okay. Also in that mandate letter were basically directions to modernize the Oceans Act to explicitly consider climate change impacts and so on. What progress has been made towards that goal, to modernize that act? It would be something that would need to go through the legislative process in the House of Commons and then eventually come to this committee. Time is ticking. Are we ever going to see it?

[Niall O'Dea]

Work remains ongoing with respect to amendments to the Oceans Act. I can assure members that the legislative framework, as we have it, allows us to take into consideration climate change in the design of marine protected areas and other conservation tools. The amendments to the act would provide greater precision to that, and that work continues.

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

Thank you.

I'll go back to you, Mr. Burns, right now, because you should have quite detailed information on this question.

Earlier, in the minister's testimony, she stated that there were no rules in reference to the elver fishery, and that's why they had to close it down or why it's been so chaotic. Would you agree with that statement that there were no rules? Were there no regulations regarding the elver fishery?

[Adam Burns]

What we've been working on to get the elver fishery in a place that, we believe, it could operate more effectively are regulations related to the possession and transport of elvers, as well as a traceability regime, and those elements did not exist.