Fisheries Committee on Nov. 25th, 2024

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

No, but with all due respect, you're here appearing before this committee as a senior person within the department. We're reviewing the act.

My question is genuine, because I'm really concerned about this practice undermining what has been a very lucrative industry to small, rural east coast communities, and it is growing. Now we're reviewing the act, and the regulations flow from the act. I understand that.

I'm asking you what is missing, because at this stage, I have not seen what I would describe as action taken by the department that is going to stop this growing trend.

[Todd Williams]

I can speak to the fact that there is action being undertaken. We have worked very closely with our counterparts at the Canada Revenue Agency and have shared information.

If we are to expand on that, that could be one area. I'm not sure if it's necessarily reflected in the act or supporting regulation or if it's just the broader issue of capacity between the two departments—and the provinces—working together to identify—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

In reading the act, I see that it's mostly related to protection personnel on the water, in the boat. It's heavy there.

We do know that a lot of this occurs because of a lack of enforcement at the processing on the dock, the buying, which is controlled by the provinces.

Could you expand on...? Obviously, between both jurisdictions of government, there has to be a better way of providing that protection or deterrent.

[Todd Williams]

I think this perhaps comes down to a question of whether or not the legislation is the appropriate tool to deliver that solution. Are there other solutions available through a memorandum of understanding, for example, between the department or the Government of Canada and the provincial governments implicated?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That's fair.

My final question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey. You have gone a bit over.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Oh, it was five minutes. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We will now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will try to be fairly concise, but it will be difficult because the topics are broad.

The shrimpers are in dry dock in Quebec, as are the pelagic fishers' boats.

All the fishers in this type of fishery warned the department about certain problems, and now they are paying the price for its inaction. David Vardy, who was deputy minister of fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador, told us that we absolutely have to review the stewardship fisheries and breathe new life into them, avoid over-harvesting through legislation, licences and quotas, and encourage offshore boats to return to the sea. I think Ms. David will agree with me when I say that these boats pollute more.

How is it that our decisions don't lead to the same action, for example, as those made in Norway or Finland, countries that are seeing some success? Witnesses have told us that the schemes in those countries are not set up by the federal government, and that this is why they are seeing better results, something which is very much appreciated by separatists.

That said, how could we improve the situation and enjoy better results, similar to those of Norway and Finland?

[Todd Williams]

Certainly, fisheries management and the fisheries sector are complex. There are a number of actors with respect to the management, the processing and the selling, including the export, of that product. It requires all of those departments, provincial governments and harvester associations to work together in that regard. How that can be reflected in the act is a very good question.

Certainly, from a fisheries mandate perspective—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt.

Do you think the notion of transparency is important? We could include provisions in the act to ensure greater transparency.

[Todd Williams]

Yes. I will speak of personal experience.

When I chair meetings with harvesters, they often ask how their advice will be transmitted to the minister. I explain it to them, and then they ask if they can see that information or that advice. The answer is no. It is protected under the Access to Information Act. Advice to the minister is protected.

I think your question of transparency is a good one, and that has impacts on other areas and on our relationship with harvesters, but there are ways to be more transparent and to communicate why we make decisions and how we make decisions. Having our science independent and transparent is a key aspect of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

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, Chair.

Following up on my question—perhaps Mr. Williams or Mr. Vigneault are best suited to answer this—I was talking about the importance of science remaining independent.

There are a couple of examples that I wanted to provide quickly.

We know that recently the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner launched an investigation into whether or not senior DFO officials were muzzling scientists—those are the words that were used quite often at that time—regarding the research into the threats posed by open-net salmon farms in B.C. waters, and we know the work of Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders and of others was suppressed for 10 years.

With just these two examples that are handy in front of me right now, do you agree that there is a problem and that science needs to be independent from political influence?

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

I cannot speak to those two specific examples because they are outside of my areas of responsibility, but generally speaking, to your earlier point of the need to get broader science for the decision-making, that's exactly what we're undertaking with broadening to the fullest extent possible the participation of experts at the committee. It's very important for the minister to get not just one expert or one journal article, but to have consensus-based science, so it needs the participation of several science schools of thought and so on.

That's the process that's in place.

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

Thank you Mr. Vigneault.

Although I agree in some ways, I think that some of the issues, some of the things that you're bringing up, are also part of the problem when you have a consensus-based model and there are players who may be looking at politically intended outcomes or even beneficial financial outcomes. There's a bit of a problem around the consensus model as well. There are some bigger problems here.

Mr. Williams, would you be able to agree that there is a problem here and that we should be looking at having a more independent science advisory panel?

[Todd Williams]

I think, just to echo Mr. Vigneault's comments, that the process that we currently have is inclusive. It is public. It is attended to by experts, and it does provide independent expert advice to the department.

Whether or not there could be changes to that model would be for discussion, but, again, we're incorporating that information and that science that we deem independent and peer-reviewed

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

Then if—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thanks, Ms. Barron, but your time has gone over.

We have eight minutes left, so I'm going to go to Mr. Arnold for four minutes and then Mr. Weiler for four minutes.

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

I'm going to give one question to Mr. Stewart here beside me, and then I'll take my other two minutes back.

Okay, he says no.

Mr. Small would like just one question, but I do need my two minutes at the end.

Go ahead, Mr. Small.

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

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. Vigneault, the European Union has a very strong anti-dumping policy. In Canada, as you're no doubt aware or you should be suspicious of, when fish harvesters go over their quota a little bit, they're basically being forced to discard that catch, and it's probably not even being recorded in logbooks for fear of being charged for minuscule amounts of quota overrun.

Why is that not addressed in the Fisheries Act? You don't know how much discarding is happening because of this. You know the charges that have been laid, but fishermen can't even share the extra catch they have with someone else who has a legitimate quota. They can't even bring it in and donate it to a food bank or have it simply taken off their next year's quota.

Why do we have this policy that's failing fisheries management and harvesters?

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

From a science perspective, we have several tools in place so that we can account for those discarded fish, including at-sea monitoring and the logbook, as you mentioned, and some of our models are allowed to account for that. Obviously that's from a science perspective, but there are other considerations, primarily from an enforcement perspective, about discarding useful fish.

I'll pass it to Mr. Williams.

[Todd Williams]

Indeed, there are enforcement issues with respect to that. In some cases, we would consider flexibilities. If a harvester, for example, does not use their entire quota in a season, they can carry forward some of that into the future, so we do provide flexibilities as much as possible, or transferable quota.

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

Why not forgive them for quota overruns and take it from next year?

I'll turn it over to Mr. Arnold, and I'll take the rest in writing from you.

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

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

Thank you, Mr. Small.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

As you and other members of the committee might recall, especially those of us who were here in 2016, the committee studied changes to the Fisheries Act. During that study, the committee received testimony from the Minister of Fisheries, the parliamentary secretary, the deputy minister, the associate deputy minister and the senior assistant deputy minister. The committee's work benefited from those appearances, and I believe that we must hear from the Minister and senior officials in this study of the Fisheries Act.

We heard today how Mr. Morrissey presented questions that weren't able to be answered by the individuals here, and there's no issue with that. I understand that you have a certain level. In that regard, I move the following motion:

That the committee plan an additional two-hour meeting for the current review of the Fisheries Act and invite the following to appear for two hours: the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard; Deputy Minister Annette Gibbons; Assistant Deputy Minister Adam Burns; and the director general of the conservation and protection branch.

I don't have a name for that position, because it's not filled right now, apparently.

I move that motion.