Thank you.
Mr. Wareham, go ahead.
Evidence of meeting #135 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 habitat.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Chair, Board of Directors, Fisheries Council of Canada
One major issue that we've had, as you know, is core fishery science. We are seeing some improvements in the last year, but we had a two- to three-year period when we didn't get surveys done. We were not able to do the assessments. We can't make science-based decisions without the assessments, and that was a major problem. We are making some progress now—it's good to see—but fisheries science is definitely an area where we haven't been meeting our expectations.
Conservative
Inshore Member Representative of Area 3Ps and President-Elect, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union
I agree with Mr. Wareham. We definitely have gaps in fisheries science. There were some concerns even this year that the northern cod survey wasn't getting done. Luckily, those hiccups seem to have been rectified.
One big concern that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador as well is that there used to be a time when it seemed like the DFO officials here locally had a lot more autonomy on decision-making than they do currently. What we're seeing now is that it seems like every single decision has to come from Ottawa. We used to have very good working relationships, and it seems like—
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
I'll pass the remainder of my time to Mr. Perkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you.
I have a quick question. I take it that all three witnesses have been following the minister's decision to expropriate 90% of elver quota for what I'll generously call social policy reasons and not conservation reasons. I would like a comment from each of you on that issue and whether or not you think the minister's ability to alter licences for things other than conservation should be restricted.
I'll start with you, Mr. Allen, and then go to Mr. Wareham and Ms. Street.
New Brunswick Executive Member and Treasurer, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
That's a good question. That decision on elvers was very concerning in terms of what the potential beyond that may be. That's the thin edge of the wedge, as you would say. That's a very complex question.
There have been times, though, when the minister has made very good decisions around those licensing decisions, beyond conservation, that have served well. I just think that one there was definitely not one of them.
Chair, Board of Directors, Fisheries Council of Canada
For us, it goes against stability of access, as we said in our opening remarks and as you've heard me say at committee before. I think you'll have a presentation from someone from the elver industry early next week. They'll take you through it in much more detail than I can.
That decision is definitely a concern for the Fisheries Council of Canada.
Inshore Member Representative of Area 3Ps and President-Elect, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union
It's definitely a concern with us as well. As I referenced in my opening remarks, we question at this point what is driving ministerial decision-making. Even the lifting of the northern cod moratorium this year flew in the face of what was recommended by DFO science. That clearly wasn't a decision that was made in the best interest of conservation.
We do question exactly what is behind some of these decisions. The one on elvers is certainly a concern.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
We'll now go to Mr. Weiler for five minutes or less, please.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Actually, it will be Mr. Morrissey.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Yes. Thank you, Chair.
I have one question, and it's for Mr. Allen.
I do agree with you on the fisheries stock assessment, but how do you protect from the fact that fishers will always say there's more fish there than is maybe the reality until it's all gone, and then it's the department's fault that they didn't manage it well? I agree that fishers should have input. Just quickly, what would you recommend that to be, so that it protects but also gives fishers the input they should have?
New Brunswick Executive Member and Treasurer, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
I think, if you put it into the act that the minister “shall” take into consideration harvester knowledge, and you make fishermen partners in the scientific process, you can come together with science and agree on what is there.
I will say that inshore harvesters are like the canary in the coal mine. If you go back to the 1980s, the inshore harvesters in Newfoundland were the first ones to say that there was something wrong in this fishery. It was the inshore harvesters who said that.
I think you could put fishermen right in the mix of science and make them partners, just as we've done in the lobster industry. If you look at the lobster science in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and at what we've done at MFU with Homarus, and what PEIFA and other groups have done, then it's easier to understand and believe what it all says. When you're shut out and you're not able to give input, and what you're seeing with your eyes doesn't correlate, then it's hard to accept. You get this disconnect between science and harvesters.
Liberal
December 11th, 2024 / 6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Serge Cormier Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I'll be really quick.
We see in fisheries that some stocks are lower now in the gulf or someplace else. I'm not sure if this is feasible, but I'd like to ask you to tell us what you think about that. Perhaps I can start with Mr. Allen.
Let's say we close a fishery because there's no more shrimp or lobster whatsoever. Do you think we should also have some measures to make sure that...? Yes, of course, we want to rebuild the stock, but there are some communities that will be affected by the closure—fishers, deckhand men and women, fish plant workers and community businesses.
Do you think we should put something in the act that will kind of say that if this happens, then we need programming in place to support this community? Of course, the act is to protect the resources, but what do you think about it being in the act that we also need to protect the community?
New Brunswick Executive Member and Treasurer, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
I think that goes to the socio-economic aspect of that. As I said, my statement earlier was very brief. We're going to submit a more in-depth presentation to the committee, dialing down into those nuts and bolts of the act itself and how you would put that in there, take into account those considerations and make the provisions for how we transition this community from X to Y. Is it an emerging fishery? Is it something beyond a fishery?
Again, I think the industry itself has to be a partner in that process to be able to get it right in the end.