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.
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Chair, MP Barron raised a couple of procedural questions in her opening response. I'd like an opportunity to respond to clarify the issue.
One of the questions she asked was why the word “potential” is in the motion. The word “potential” is there because this committee cannot determine a breach of privilege. Only the Speaker can.
I will quote page 1060, chapter 20, of Bosc and Gagnon, where it says, “The Chair of a committee does not have the power to rule on questions of privilege; only the Speaker has that power.”
It goes on to say the following:
The Chair then determines whether the question raised in fact relates to parliamentary privilege. If the Chair determines that the question does relate to parliamentary privilege, the committee may then consider presenting a report on the question to the House. The report should:
clearly describe the situation;
summarize the facts;
provide the names of the people involved, if applicable;
state that there may be a breach of privilege; and
ask the House to take such measures as it deems appropriate.
Ordinarily, presentation of a report to the House is a prerequisite for any question of privilege arising from the proceedings of a committee.
MP Barron, that is the outline overall. That's why it says “potential” and why the chair and the committee don't have the power to determine privilege, but have the ability to determine whether it is a question that should be proposed to the Speaker.
It then goes on to say in Bosc and Gagnon, about committees, “There are no specific rules governing the nature of questions which may be put to witnesses appearing before committees, beyond the general requirement of relevance to the issue”.
My questions on estimates were about enforcement, which was relevant at the time.
Bosc and Gagnon also says:
Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them. A witness may object to a question asked by an individual committee member. However, if the committee agrees that the question be put to the witness, he or she is obliged to reply. Members have been urged to display the “appropriate courtesy and fairness” when questioning witnesses.
The question I posed was about the issue of enforcement. The minister chose to reply. The minister's reply was, as I've said earlier, that she began consultation on enforcement.
MP Morrissey said that he couldn't discern what was in her mind and I agree that's an impossibility. What is possible to determine is whether or not the minister and/or the department had engaged in consultation. The minister represents both of them and said she had consulted.
All of the letters and evidence from the fishing groups clearly indicate that neither the minister nor the department reached out and answered MP Morrissey's question. It wasn't a question where she was reflecting on whether or not somebody else in her department had done the consultation with these groups. In fact, these groups have said that neither the department nor the minister did that.
I think that answers MP Barron's procedural questions. It's our job to prepare a report, which the clerks do. I will give all of these letters to the analysts and the clerk for them to look at as part of their discussion of this question of privilege.
When the minister said she began this situation by consulting with individual fishing associations, that was misleading the committee. Neither she nor the department had done that. The evidence is clear.
I ask that this committee and the chair be impartial when they look at the evidence and make an appropriate report back to the House that there has been a breach of privilege. Ministers have to tell the truth before committee. This minister did not.
There's no language barrier to this. That's a lame excuse for a very simple question about consultation and enforcement. She had interpretation. The interpretation was clear. Her response was clear.
Her response was that she began with consultation. She didn't begin. She didn't start in the middle, and she never ended. To this date, she hasn't had consultation with any of the maritime fishing groups regarding the Bay of Fundy enforcement—neither her nor her department.
We will share that evidence, Mr. Chair, and those letters from those groups with you and the clerk so that you can make your ruling. Your ruling is only on whether the question was in order. The chair's ruling is not on whether there's been a breach of privilege, but on whether misleading the committee is a question of privilege.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have two things to say.
First, I can see that sometimes we get evasive answers from witnesses, whether it's the ministeror public servants. In the field, I've heard from people who say that's not true, that the minister hasn't met them. So I quite agree with my colleagues.
What I would like to do, first of all, is thank the witnesses who are present and who have taken time to come and testify. We absolutely must put them back on the schedule. It's fundamental.
Secondly, I'd like to highlight the fact that there's a difference between denouncing this and launching another process like the one our Conservative neighbours have led us into over the past few weeks, that is, an interminable question of privilege in the House of Commons that is hugely paralyzing the work of each and every one of us. So, let's be concise, let's be clear and let's do things the right way. We should have more confidence from our constituents, who have put us here to work and to solve their problems.
I agree we have a problem with fisheries. It's the same thing with Quebec; there's a lack of listening and a lack of consultation. We've said so many times, and witnesses have said so many times. In this respect, the problem absolutely must be resolved. If we have to go that far, we will.
December 9th, 2024 / 11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to follow up on what Ms. Desbiens said and what has been said thus far, it's important that this matter get established, has full vetting and is able to be determined. Those who are expecting the work of the committee to produce results know that for there to be good results, good outcomes and accurate reporting recommendations, there has to be total transparency and open and honest answers coming from the witnesses before us, most particularly from the minister herself. It's incumbent that we re-establish or establish confidence in the answers that are being given.
Mr. Perkins is doing his job as an MP to stand up and fight for stakeholders, fish harvesters and organizations in his region. They send us here to represent the concerns of our constituents. As he has borne witness to here, he has had repeated conversations with key stakeholders and industry representatives who are telling him that they were absolutely frustrated and flabbergasted with what they heard. He has given air to that. He's doing his job in making sure their voices are being heard on this matter at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
As to the seriousness of this, when people look to the committee, they want some semblance of confidence that what we're doing matters and that we're taking it seriously. If there's been a complete breach like this, or what we feel to be a complete breach, there should be repercussions for that, and we should be willing to do whatever we have to do to make sure that the transparent answers that are expected are being given. The minister has an obligation there, not just to this committee and the member who asked the question, but to every Canadian and, most importantly, those whose industries and livelihoods depend on all of us getting things right here.
That's why this question is important. As important as all of the other things we're doing are, with all of the other hearings and the witnesses we want to hear from—it's all important and good work—if we don't get this right, it erodes the confidence in the whole process. It erodes the confidence in anything we're going to recommend going forward because people are going to ask how they can trust testimony if they don't have absolute assurance.
This is a worthy exercise in establishing the merits and the importance of having accurate, honest and transparent testimony, so that when a member raises questions on behalf of his or her constituents, they have the absolute assurance that whoever is giving an answer, particularly the minister responsible for a file, is being transparent and honest with it.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate you taking the time to consider this matter, and I appreciate the deliberations that are going on. It's important that those at home understand that we take very seriously the concern that's been raised by one of our members, who feels that his constituents were totally misrepresented and that their concerns are going to be heard when they feel that way. Mr. Perkins is doing the job of an elected official to represent those in his riding, especially on a matter that pertains to their future livelihoods.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the question of privilege is being raised because we've finally come to a head with this. I recall studies in the 42nd Parliament, and the issue around St. Marys Bay came up. We first learned about it because of the MPA, the protective process that was put in place through consultation and agreement with the harvesters in the area to protect the spawning and breeding areas of the lobster. That took place because of proper consultation, which is what the minister alluded to but clearly has not happened according to the evidence that Mr. Perkins has provided so far. He says that he'll be providing more.
I want to relate this matter to further studies the committee did on the smallmouth bass and the treatment of smallmouth bass in the Miramichi. I recall having department officials here and one of them stating that we could not use rotenone in Canada anymore. I knew at the time, and I probably should have raised it as a question of privilege, that rotenone was being used in Canada to treat water systems for aquatic invasive species.
It's just another case regarding the privileges of committee members, and I say all committee members on all sides of the House. When we are misled by testimony by witnesses, by department representatives or, at worst, by the minister herself, it is something that we cannot tolerate. We cannot do our work as a standing committee if we cannot trust the information that is provided to us. If we are being given misleading information, what faith can the stakeholders, harvesters and communities that rely on the fisheries have in ministers to manage departments in their best interests?
I think the whole process Mr. Perkins has raised has been boiling under the surface for an extended period of time. As I said, I can go back to the 42nd Parliament to cases of privilege that should have probably been brought up at that time, and we're now finally getting to raise these issues.
Mr. Chair, after you've heard the presentation of the information, I hope you will determine that it has the potential to be a question of privilege and raise it to the Speaker with a report from this committee.
Thank you.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I echo Mr. Arnold's comments. To have the minister come before this committee again and again—she's been here a couple of times—to answer questions using talking points, giving the same answer for every question, is despicable. The industry wants better. It's no wonder that they've lost faith in this minister, who is number six.
I'm hoping that you, being a good Newfoundlander and Labradorian with quite some respect within the industry, will make the right decision, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Small.
That's it. We can suspend to switch out panels.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Are we going with the first panel? I think there's a witness here. I don't know if she's on the first or second panel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
We'll suspend for a moment while we switch out.
I apologize to the witnesses who have been online and unable to give their statements or answer any questions. Hopefully we can get a written submission from each of you and include that in our deliberations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Welcome to the witnesses on our second panel.
We have, on Zoom, Gideon Mordecai, research associate at the Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries at the University of British Columbia, and Jesse Zeman, executive director of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. Also, Sonia Strobel, co-founder and chief executive officer of the Skipper Otto Community Supported Fishery, is with us here in the room.
It's good to have you. Thank you for taking the time to appear today.
You will each have five minutes or less for your opening statements.
Mr. Mordecai, you have the floor.
Dr. Gideon Mordecai Research Associate, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today.
I'm a research associate at the University of British Columbia working on the health and disease of Pacific salmon, and I'm here today to speak on behalf of the scientific process and the critical role of evidence-based science in decision-making and shaping good policy.
The Fisheries Act describes scientific information as one of the key considerations for decision-making. However, concerns about industrial and political interference undermining scientific integrity at DFO have been raised by first nations, academics, NGOs and the DFO scientists' union.
While there are many excellent scientists within DFO carrying out world-class research, it's the structural processes for reviewing and summarizing science that can be the issue. DFO's internal science advice has diverged from international scientific consensus on certain issues. The fisheries minister and other decision-makers can receive advice portrayed as science, yet it isn't evidence-based, impartial or independently reviewed—essential components of trustworthy, high-quality scientific practice.
A paper I co-authored last year used salmon aquaculture in B.C. as a case study to examine this phenomenon. In the paper, we described how DFO science was captured by industry, how data implicating the industry in harm to wild salmon was repeatedly pushed aside, how key papers were suppressed and how DFO's own scientists were silenced. DFO claims that its CSAS review process is the gold standard, yet it allows industry stakeholders to influence risk assessments concerning their own impacts on wild salmon.
All in all, these problems mean that DFO continues to assess some of the pathogens that I study, like piscine orthoreovirus and tenacibaculum, as not causing disease or not posing a risk, despite evidence suggesting otherwise.
Another example was last year's CSAS report on sea lice. The report's authors cherry-picked their results to suit their narrative, ignored a huge body of pre-existing evidence and then had the report externally reviewed by one industry-associated professor, who signed off on it.
In order to fix these kinds of issues, our paper recommends the establishment of an independent scientific body. This body would provide credible fisheries science advice to decision-makers, a suggestion that has been made numerous times in the past by other senior fisheries scientists. There are numerous examples of these types of independent science advice bodies both within Canada and internationally, such as, for example, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, known as COSEWIC, but when it comes to fisheries science advice, Canada is lagging behind international standards.
Science needs to be just science, based on evidence and free of political and economic influence. This will ultimately help to rebuild trust in DFO decision-making and guard against regulatory capture. In our paper, we identified key features for the independent body to uphold, which I'll submit in writing. They include a strict conflict of interest policy, editorial independence and freedom of scientific inquiry.
I'd also like to take a moment to highlight the precautionary principle, a key concept that emphasizes the importance of caution. It underscores that the absence of scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse to delay action that could prevent serious harm to fish or their ecosystems.
Take, for example, the study of how diseases impact wild fish populations. It's pretty rare to identify a clear, definitive cause-and-effect relationship—what you might call a smoking gun—yet when fish populations are in critical decline, it's crucial to act with precaution. Decisions made under these circumstances can be the difference between recovery and collapse.
Finally, I want to emphasize the need for greater transparency in the science that is used in decision-making. Increased openness would allow external scientists to assess the quality and relevance of the advice being applied. While it's understandable that economic and social considerations play a significant role in these decisions, they should be weighed alongside the science, not used to influence the interpretation of the science itself.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you for that.
We'll now go to Mr. Zeman for five minutes or less.
Jesse Zeman Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak again. I won't give you a refresher on the B.C. Wildlife Federation, because we've been here a number of times in the past.
This year, the B.C. Wildlife Federation and its partners restored over 350 hectares of wetlands and streams, conducted a number of salmon habitat restoration projects and installed 71 beaver dam analogues. Over the past two years, we've helped remove nearly 45,000 kilograms of garbage from the Fraser River tidal marsh. Our partners include first nations, ENGOs, local communities, private landholders, the Government of Canada and the Province of B.C.
The 2019 modernization of the Fisheries Act provided a number of positive amendments, particularly around rebuilding plans, alteration and destruction of habitat, environmental flow needs and the return of the HADD provision. However, the application of the Fisheries Act is perhaps more important than the Fisheries Act itself.
In the world of conservation, the future of salmon is dependent upon outcomes, not process. This year, for Fraser River sockeye, we had the second-lowest return on record, with a final end season estimate of 456,000 fish. That's 100,000 fewer than what was originally predicted.
With the second-lowest return on record, one would expect additional enforcement efforts to protect this dismal return. However, Pacific Salmon Commission data indicates that legal fisheries, such as test fisheries and food, social and ceremonial fisheries, caught just over 6,100 fish. The United States, our treaty partner, reported zero fish caught. In addition to that, Canada reported 15,000-plus sockeye in what DFO calls “other” fisheries. DFO defines other fisheries as fisheries that may include “unauthorized directed retention or unauthorized bycatch retention in fisheries directed at other species”.
The 15,000 fish is an underestimate, as those numbers are primarily from fisheries managers, not fisheries officers. We know this because fisheries officers were virtually non-existent on the mid-Fraser. DFO enforcement spent 1,000 hours patrolling the mid-Fraser in 2022. In the past, it was 1,000 more than that. This year, it was around 100 hours. To my knowledge, there were no night operations or helicopter operations on the mid-Fraser, but there were a number of reports of poaching.
In November 2023, we spoke to the committee about illegal, unregulated and unreported catch and similar issues within DFO. A number of fisheries officers who were passionate about fish conservation have now left compliance and conservation and protection entirely or have left DFO, and some have recently left the Canadian government to work for the province. Additionally, a number of managers in the conservation and protection part of DFO came from the Canada Border Services Agency. This has eliminated advancement opportunities for DFO staff, but more importantly, it has put those who know very little about fisheries conservation and protection in charge of enforcement.
As we said in November 2023, I believe the committee has a number of questions to ask DFO conservation and protection about historical data related to officers on leave, turnover and the number of night patrols and helicopter and boat patrols on the lower and mid-Fraser River over the past five years. This would give the committee a better temperature check on the changing effectiveness and culture within conservation and protection. The number of fisheries officers in Lillooet, Williams Lake, Quesnel and Prince George is now fewer than half of what it was in 2011. Without enforcement, the Fisheries Act is merely a paper tagger.
There are similar issues in relation to quagga and zebra mussels, as well as whirling disease.
Thanks for your time.
Liberal
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
I watched what happened before this, so I figured I'd cut off some time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I appreciate that very much.
We'll now go to Ms. Strobel for five minutes or less.
Sonia Strobel Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Skipper Otto Community Supported Fishery
Thank you so much.
I'm so grateful to be here in person for this review of the Fisheries Act. It's a powerful tool for shaping how all Canadians benefit from the richness of our vast coastlines and from our abundant fisheries resources.
My name is Sonia Strobel, and I come to you today from my home on the traditional and unceded territories of the Coast Salish people in Vancouver, B.C. I'm honoured to bring to you the perspectives of my extensive networks of west coast harvesters, shoreside businesses, academics, environmental NGOs and seafood consumers.
I've been here before, but I'll introduce myself. I'm the co-founder and CEO of Skipper Otto Community Supported Fishery. It's an innovative way for Canadians to buy seafood directly from Canadian fishing families. Our network of 45 fish harvesters in B.C. and in Nunavut provides seafood directly to some 8,000 member families across five provinces, from Victoria to Montreal, through a unique subscription model.
Since founding Skipper Otto 16 years ago, I've dedicated my life's work to protecting a small-scale fishing way of life in Canada's coastal and indigenous communities, and to building a robust local seafood system that ensures Canadians have access to Canadian seafood.
In addition to my work at Skipper Otto, I'm a member of the Fisheries for Communities network, which is a grassroots movement working to ensure that the many values of B.C. fisheries flow to the people on the water, on the dock and in adjacent communities. I'm on the executive committee of the Local Catch Network, based out of the University of Maine, which is a hub for knowledge exchange and innovation to support local, community-based seafood systems in North America. In 2023, I co-founded the Local Catch Canada network. It's expanding our work at the Local Catch Network and centring indigenous knowledge-holders to build an equitable community-based seafood system within the uniquely Canadian context.
I'm a mentor to many small-scale fishing businesses in Canada and in the U.S. I often speak on these topics to media and at conferences, like the B.C. salmon recovery and resilience conference in Vancouver last week, which was hosted by the Pacific Salmon Foundation and the First Nations Fisheries Council.
In preparation for my appearance, I consulted with members of these many networks, and I did my best to synthesize what I heard from them so that I could bring that to you today.
The most common and consistent refrain I hear from my networks is that the true value of our fisheries lies in how the bounty of our oceans enriches our communities socially, economically, culturally and as a food source, and that the health and well-being of our oceans, our fish, our ecosystems and our people are inextricably linked. When you prioritize protecting the way of life of the people who live and work on the water in our fisheries, you're necessarily supporting the objectives of the act, which is protecting fish and fish habitat, advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples and ensuring the long-term sustainability of marine resources.
The modernization of the act in 2018-19 began to address the inequities that it continues to perpetuate, but the realities on the ground for fishing communities, for businesses like mine and for seafood consumers have actually only gotten worse. If time allows during question period, I'd be happy to provide some specific and current examples of how members of my community are harmed by the lack of protections in the act for active fish harvesters and for everyday Canadians.
For now, I'll just briefly highlight three things that this review of the act could undertake to address if we're to address the inequities that are continuing.
First, the act should define its own purpose at the outset. The courts have consistently upheld that the social, cultural, economic and food system benefits are the purview of the act, so regular reviews of the act should help to ensure the protection and equitable distribution of those benefits to Canadians, especially to those who live and work in fishing communities and who are on the water actively harvesting.
Second, the act should enshrine fleet separation and owner-operator protections in all of Canada, not just on the inshore fleets in the maritime provinces and in Quebec.
Third, the act should ensure that the minister's discretion does not override her obligation to take into consideration social, economic and cultural factors.
My written brief provides specific sections of the act that I believe could be changed to meet these outcomes, but time is of the essence. With every new minister, it seems that we're back to square one. We're trying to cut through the noise and trying to convince her that protecting active harvesters in our coastal and indigenous communities is important and is in her power. With an election looming, it's more important than ever that we wrap up all the years of study on this topic and finally enshrine into the act the protections that we need for the people who live, work and fish in coastal and indigenous communities.
Thank you.