Evidence of meeting #134 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was enforcement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I'm sorry, Mr. Arnold. Your time is up. You've gone well over.
We'll go on now to Mr. Weiler for six minutes or less.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank our in-person witness for being here and our witnesses joining virtually by video conference as well.
I want to start with Mr. Zeman.
It's great to see you at committee, although you mentioned some very alarming facts, like the fact that now there are fewer than half the fisheries officers there were in 2011. I remember that in 2012 in my riding, the DFO office on the Sunshine Coast was shut down by the Harper government. I remember that several years later, there was an effort to shut down the DFO office in Squamish. I think we're seeing an overall centralization of DFO services. I think you quite accurately pointed out the concern that some of that has led to IUU fishing in different places.
I was hoping you might be able to speak a bit more to that. Also, do you see any mechanisms or opportunities to better utilize technology and data in some of the detection and enforcement efforts?
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
Yes, we are seeing a lack of officers. We're seeing a brain drain happen, with people heading to other parts of the Canadian government and people leaving. As I said, there are people leaving who are coming to work for the province and the Conservation Officer Service. There's a challenge with people who love fish and wildlife. They don't do it because they make more, get a better paycheque or it's a better job. They sacrifice those things because they're so passionate about the resource. Sometimes you see—we're seeing it provincially too—some pretty serious issues around morale because there's a lack of funding.
How do we change that? I know that B.C., definitely, has more fisheries. We have a bigger recreational fishery, more indigenous communities and more species at risk, probably, than every other place to the east of us, but per capita we definitely have far fewer fisheries officers, so we need some kind of commitment to ask, “What do we need? How many people do we need?” This is as opposed to a makeshift approach where, when we have budget cuts, it's a matter of priorities. Our priority is fish and fish conservation.
On technology, the BCWF actually built a tool called the conservation app. We need to update it, but it gives citizen scientists the ability to basically report infractions on their phones. For a bit of backstory, when we started putting it to use about six or seven years ago, DFO was opposed to it because they were worried they would be overwhelmed by the number of reports and they wouldn't be able to respond to them because there weren't enough people. Is the technology there? Yes, absolutely.
As it relates to enforcement, the big picture is funding, capacity, and then outcomes. It's hard on all of us when fisheries officers, biologists and managers, who care so passionately about the resource, say they can't even do their jobs, they're not allowed to leave the office and they can't travel—all those sorts of things. There's a big picture, and maybe DFO can spend some time looking at what's an appropriate level, but there have been multiple commissions, and every single commission that comes up always says there aren't enough enforcement officers. Sometimes you get a bit of a bump, which fades off over time.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I want to ask the next question of Dr. Mordecai.
You spoke about the need to establish an independent science body to provide advice for decision-makers and about some of the examples of what we already have in Canada and in other countries as well. I was hoping you might be able to speak a little more about that, and particularly about how that might fit into legislative changes to the Fisheries Act so that it can have proper guidelines or direction to ensure that it meets the qualities you mentioned.
Research Associate, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
I'm not a scholar of how policy is made legally, but what I can provide.... We can talk about other examples within Canada, about why policy is so important and about some of the really big issues, like the example of how vaccines are reviewed for public safety. It's all about trust, and to get that trust, there's a body with a really strict conflict of interest policy so people can trust the information they're receiving. I think something analogous needs to happen for fisheries, because right now trust isn't there.
One key feature of our independent body that we recommend is a legislative basis that makes sure science advice from an independent body is enshrined in law. That's one input to the decision-making. Exactly how that would look, I'm not sure, but looking at the Fisheries Act, I see it states that science is one of the considerations when it comes to decision-making, so maybe, similar to some of the other issues you've heard today, it's more about an implementation gap and making sure that the science is of a good enough quality and is provided, rather than not being in the law itself.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
As an add-on to that, I note you also spoke about the precautionary principle. Do you see the need to provide any guidelines saying that it will be considered in decision-making and provide more definition to what the process needs to be like in decision-making?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Your time has expired, Mr. Weiler, so I would ask Mr. Mordecai to respond in writing to the committee, please, on that question.
We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for six minutes or less.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. Their testimony is always extremely valuable and I thank them for sharing their expertise.
Mr. Mordecai, earlier you were talking about key scientific articles, which have occasionally been suppressed. You also mentioned that it's absolutely essential to restore trust through a certain amount of scientific mediation.
Maybe you know Ms. Lyne Morissette, who came to testify before the committee recently. She works more in the eastern regions. She shares the view that we need to set up a non-partisan body, a committee that operates horizontally and includes not only scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but also independent scientists. They would be able to provide precise, non-partisan insight into the directions the government needs to take to improve the situation. This must be done urgently.
We are experiencing a major crisis on both sides of this territory. We absolutely must have such a committee, which would leave politics somewhat out of the exercise, since it serves only to enforce laws and make decisions in light of the conclusions of this committee, this environmental mediation body. What do you think?
Research Associate, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
That's something we thought about when we put together our paper. It uses salmon aquaculture in B.C. as a case study, but we see the same issues across the board. I think it makes the work of the decision-makers at DFO very difficult if they can't necessarily trust the information they are receiving. While on paper sometimes things look okay in terms of how DFO gets their science advice, it doesn't always work out to be the case. This isn't about a few isolated cases. There's a kind of structural issue regarding how science is handled, which is why we came to the recommendation of a body independent from political and bureaucratic influence.
I used the example of COSEWIC because I think overall it has the respect and trust of the public given the science and work done there. I've spoken to some of the chairs of that body. Because of their conflict of interest policy, they know they're just there to review the science. There are stops and processes involved to make sure that kind of bureaucracy or political influence doesn't get involved in the process.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you. That's very enlightening.
Ms. Strobel, I was listening to you speak and what you said really made me think of an organization in my region, in Quebec, called Mange ton Saint-Laurent! It's pretty much the same approach. I'd even say there are elements that are similar to supply management on the agricultural side.
There's this principle that we should establish a balance between consumption and fisheries to give back to the community, as a priority, the product of these fisheries. This aspect was also raised at the fisheries symposium held by the Bloc Québécois in Caraquet. This was an apolitical event, but it was the Bloc Québécois that launched this initiative.
We also noted that over 80% of our very high-quality products are exported. Of course, you have to export, you have to trade, you have to have a profitable fishery. I understand all that. However, as a matter of principle, priority must be given to local, autonomous consumption in coastal regions that fish, which isn't always the case on the Quebec side.
As I understand it, you're also pushing the people involved to get things done. So tell me what you think of the following proposal: we could recommend that the act oblige the department to express its intention to give priority to a certain share of Quebec consumer products, before moving on to exports. This would ensure a balance between supply and demand. Is this a proposal that appeals to you?
Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Skipper Otto Community Supported Fishery
Thank you very much for those comments.
I think we see very similar things in fisheries in Canada. We export around 90% of the seafood we catch. About 80% of what we eat in Canada is imported seafood, and we know it comes from fisheries that are not as well managed as ours, fisheries where the water isn't as clean and where we don't have labour laws to protect workers.
Canadian consumers should be benefiting and nourishing their bodies from the bounty of our oceans. I don't see much—or anything—in the Fisheries Act that looks at fish as nutrition for Canadians. This is, I think, an oversight. I think it comes from a colonial history, where we've thought about our resources as products to extract to benefit someone far away. We have not thought about the bounty of this land in terms of the people here.
I agree that in the act we lack protections that look at fisheries as a food source for Canadians. I think protecting harvesters and putting the power into the hands of harvesters to have agency over where they're selling their catch would go a long way to feeding Canadians. If the vast majority of our licences and quotas are owned by large export-oriented companies or foreign entities, we've given up our resource even before we've given Canadians the opportunity to nourish themselves with fish.
It is absolutely within the purview of this act to protect the fish in our waters for Canadians not only to harvest and benefit from, but also to nourish themselves all across the country.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Madame Desbiens. You're a little over your time.
We'll go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Welcome, Ms. Strobel, Dr. Mordecai and Mr. Zeman once again. It's nice to see all three of you. I have lots of questions, so I'll try to get through them fairly quickly and efficiently.
My first question is for you, Ms. Strobel. Could you, as you mentioned this in your opening statement, provide us with some of the ways members of your community are harmed by the lack of protections in the act for active fish harvesters and everyday Canadians? Perhaps just narrow it down to one.
Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Skipper Otto Community Supported Fishery
Sure.
I'll give you one quick example. One of the harvesters in our community spoke with Mr. Kelloway on Friday about the fact that right now he's waiting to head out on a halibut fishing trip. Of that catch, 77.5% of the landed value will go to the licence owner, the licence-holder. That's before he can even pay for the cost of his trip and his crew and, hopefully, pay himself.
This fall, the licence-holder has postponed his trip and postponed it and postponed it again. He's waiting at the docks. He can't go fishing because the licence owner is still negotiating for the best deal, which in theory will benefit this harvester somewhat. However, this harvester sits at the dock penniless and unable to go fishing because he doesn't own access to the resource. This is a kind of modern feudal system where he is an indentured worker and has absolutely no agency and no power.
I think it's unthinkable. It's unconscionable that we continue to allow this to happen on the west coast, particularly when we've implemented changes, regulations and laws on the east coast to prevent this from happening in other parts of Canada. Why do we allow this to continue on the west coast?
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
That's a really important example. Thank you so much, Ms. Strobel. I'm going to come back to you, but I am going to move to Dr. Mordecai.
Dr. Mordecai, you talked about the precautionary principle. One thing I hear over and over again in the community when I'm talking to various people about open-net fish farms is that the rationale to either delay action or justify action not being taken is based on the fact that there's inconclusive science. I hear that from people who have concerns.
My question is, how does that argument contradict directly the responsibility of the minister to move forward with the precautionary principle?
Research Associate, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
When it comes to complicated scientific questions, there's lots going on. There are lots of different stressors, so there are a few ways to answer this.
One is that this is one stressor and there is evidence of some risk, so if you remove it, you're making a precautionary decision. The other example of the precautionary principle comes down to just looking at individual pieces of evidence. As I often see in my work, DFO won't assess some of the diseases we study as disease agents because there's not a causal relationship with diseases in a population. Sometimes the bar is set so high by DFO that with the level of evidence they require, it's almost impossible to know if something is having a population effect with 100% certainty.
That's why the precautionary principle is so important. You won't always have that level of certainty, but we have to make important decisions about populations that in some cases are in severe states of decline.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Dr. Mordecai.
I'm going to move back to you, Ms. Strobel. In the final pieces of your opening statement, which was right on time today, you mentioned in point three that the “act should ensure that the minister's discretion does not override her obligation to take into consideration social, economic and cultural factors.” Can you expand a bit more on that and why that's important?
Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Skipper Otto Community Supported Fishery
With the way the act is currently worded, section 2.5 says, “the Minister may consider, among other things”, and then it lists, under paragraph 2.5(g), “social, economic and cultural factors in the management of fisheries” and, under paragraph 2.5(h), “the preservation or promotion of the independence of licence holders in commercial inshore fisheries”.
There are a few problems there. First, indicating that she may consider these things is not strong enough wording, and I think that makes it difficult. I think it makes the minister and the department nervous to make bold decisions, because the act is vague. I think the wording should embolden them by saying “will” or “must” when considering those things.
Also, the wording about the independence of licence-holders in commercial inshore fisheries is often used by the department to say that this part only applies to the east coast, so that language needs to be changed. Although Minister LeBlanc at the time said that the use of the word “promotion” of independent licence-holders made it also apply to the west coast, in actual practice on the ground, it's not being used in that way.
I think the act specifically needs to make very clear that the minister's responsibility is to always consider these things and that these things apply to the west coast as well.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I only have 30 seconds left, so I'm trying to figure out how best to use that 30 seconds—apparently by just talking about nothing.
I'll ask my last question now, and perhaps if I get another round, I'll get you to respond to it then.
Ms. Strobel, in your first point, you talked about helping to “ensure the protection and equitable distribution of those benefits to Canadians”. The question that I'll hopefully get you to respond to in my second round is this: In what way do you see that happening? What is the best way to move us in that direction?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Ms. Barron.
We'll now go to Mr. Small for five minutes or less.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Zeman, I heard you mention funding capacity and outcomes. DFO funding is three times higher now than it was in 2014, and its staff is 50% higher. Why don't we have conservation outcomes, do you think, when conservation is supposed to trump all in the Fisheries Act?
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
That's a really good question, and I think it's a matter of priorities. Our priorities as an organization are about the conservation of fish, first of all, and second of all, they're about access and opportunity. We definitely struggle with these things.
We talked at committee before about pinnipeds, and a number of folks gave testimony. We engaged DFO on that afterwards, and the response from DFO was completely inconsistent with what everybody had said at committee.
I don't have a good answer for you, but I think the best answer is that the department's priorities might not line up with our priorities.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
There was quite a bit of talk for the first couple of years of this Parliament about pinnipeds. Last year in Newfoundland and Labrador, fewer than 32,000 of a possible harvest of 450,000 were taken, so it's on your coast and in Atlantic Canada as well. There seems to be a lot of lip service.
This summer, DFO admitted to a lack of patrols. They wouldn't admit it on the Atlantic side, but they did admit it on the B.C. side. What do you think of the arguments that were made to support their cutting back on their patrols? Do you think they are legitimate arguments, or do you think somebody influenced the PMO for that outcome?
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
That's a good question.
When we asked why there was no enforcement on the mid-Fraser, this was the response we got from DFO:
In order to preserve operational integrity and to maintain strategic flexibility, DFO’s Conservation and Protection (C&P) Branch does not provide specific statistics on numbers and frequency of enforcement patrols.... The C&P enforcement program uses a wide range of tools to protect Canada’s fisheries resources. Using a risk-based, intelligence-led approach, C&P deploys fishery officers throughout the province to respond to priority issues using a variety of methods....
Maybe you got a response, but that was the response we got when we inquired why there were no fisheries officers on the mid-Fraser this summer and why sockeye poaching on the mid-Fraser was rampant. They didn't even acknowledge there was a shortage of fisheries officers.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
The number one purpose of the Fisheries Act is conservation. Do you think that's the number one priority right now, within the current DFO set-up?